Also just remembered my dad works in tech, and his job is 100% social-oriented, so if some software company in Tulsa that develops stuff for schools and hospitals has jobs that Google doesn't have, then that's just silly.

Which is a major premise behind what ATC posted.

I just find it incredibly ironic that one of the mans claims is that there is a culture of suppressing right-wing view points, creating a stifling monoculture.

The response: fire him to stifle his viewpoints. Way to create a martyr, Google. Better thing would have been an in-depth refutation of his views, and an analysis on in what ways Google's hiring practices are biased. There aren't exactly many black or Hispanic employees at Google, for example.

@leon1122 - He may have stated to judge people as individuals, but most of it was to judge them as statistical groups. He was for creating a hostile work environment where preconceived stereotypes were to be used before considering them as individuals. He used shoddy research to back up his conclusions which draws questions about his motivations.

He has found a new employe if he can stomach working for him:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/08/julian-assange-offers-job-fired-google-employee-wrote-anti-diversity/

He also lied about his academic credentials on Linken site:
http://www.businessinsider.com/james-damore-removes-phd-studies-linkedin-2017-8

IQ isn't a perfect measure of intelligence, but to completely discount it is folly. IQ strongly correlate with a person's performance in school and school-like situations (aka intelligence).

https://www.education.com/reference/article/iq-school-achievement/

I don't see what Tulsa has to do with this, and I can't find it anywhere in ATC's article.

Randomizer, if you had actually read the document with an objective mindset, you would know that that isn't what he said. He laid out biological averages which suggest that there should inherently be fewer women than men in tech. However, since all data lies on a bell curve, there would still be plenty of women that are better at tech than plenty of women. He did not say that Google should higher fewer women but rather that Google should stop worrying about achieving a 50/50 balance and using affirmative action programs to achieve that.

It seems that he didn't get a Ph.D in biology, but he still got a masters degree in it, which makes him more knowledgeable on the subject than the vast majority of you.

Tulsa is where my dad works at a software development company i.e. tech

It's also the headquarters of the company

Also, just because school performance measures something similar to IQ doesn't mean job performance or effectiveness in the tech industry are also measured. So yes I think it's safe to dismiss its use here.

I still don't get your point. Tech companies (like any company) have social-oriented jobs, yes. There are men who take those social-oriented job just like there are women who take tech jobs, yes. These are averages. It's like me saying that on average men are taller than women and you pointing out that your mom is taller than your dad and saying that I'm promoting harmful gender stereotypes. Ridiculous, right?

The memo doesn't say anything about any difference in IQ between men and women. I don't know what you're going on about.

My point is that he's trying to come up with the idea that tech isn't social-oriented when social-oriented work is 100% what my das does and ATC's article indicates that the bulk of tech work is socially-oriented, so saying it isn't a good place for women because of that is running on an inherently false premise.

It does cite IQ at some point and was mentioned earlier in this thread.

https://code.likeagirl.io/actually-i-was-biologically-designed-to-be-an-engineer-460ab0c377dc

James specifically says in the article that one way to get more women to work for Google is to open up more socially-oriented jobs, but if a tech company is to succeed, its core should still consist of tech-related jobs. What I have a problem with is people who assert that any gender gap in tech-related jobs must be due to sexism.

"James specifically says in the article that one way to get more women to work for Google is to open up more socially-oriented jobs"

They already exist :)

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/04/what-does-iq-really-measure

a good article talking about IQ, which also does a lot to discredit the memo. overall, i don't think the memo was too malicious in intent, but it wasn't very well written. i do hate the Gizmodo deleted all the hyperlinks from the copy they reported on, because it made it sound more like some deluded rant rather than a guy trying to piece together his beliefs.

the PROBLEM with over-associating IQ with other traits... well check out this video that made some waves a few months back

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFHa4db3hA0&t=0s

this idiot connected IQ to single motherhood, criminal activity, poverty, and unemployment... AND she *horrifically* got quite a bit of support for it. there were plenty who called her out on the bad science, but these massive oversimplifications aren't doing anything productive.


there are legitimate conversations to be had about genetics and intelligence, but you're not likely to find them in workplace memos or youtube videos. these things hurt actual scientific research

@leon

the gender wage gap argument IS a bad one: for the same reason that this memo is bad. it's much to vague, and assumes that unknown variables must be connected to a predetermined conclusion.

let me show you

1: basic pay gap economics.

since the overall pay of women and men in 2016 differed at about a ratio of 7:10, then the difference must be from sexism.

the truth is, pay bias happens intermittently throughout industries, but it's hard to precisely measure. the reason is that any pay bias that IS proven, is almost immediately taken to court or revised. the pay biases that are NOT proven, by very nature, are not being measured.


2: the memo

because there is a difference in the hiring rates of men and women in google, despite diversity programs, the reason for the differences in hiring rates must be due to some genetic factor.

the truth? while there might be some slim genetic factor contributing to this, IQ is not a valid measurement, and he provided no other evidence. unfounded claims are not good science. furthermore, there is a great lack of consideration of pre-job socialization and education of women compared to men. attacking google for being far to the left (although more observably true than not) is NOT evidence for bad discrimination.

frankly, the memo was way too over generalized. perhaps google DOES have some hiring practices for "diversity" that are bad, but since the memo does not actually dwell into specific google policies, or specific items in their legal code, there is no sustainable claim being made by the memo.

the ENTIRETY of the memo would barely serve as a good abstract for a larger paper, much less stand on it's own right.

I am on vacation so not a lot of time, but I heard about this. This guy should file a lawsuit against Google. We need more intellectual diversity in the world not less.

I'll respond to Yanik tomorrow. Going to sleep now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVCWujjId0U

To be a little more clear, as I assume your rebuttal will focus on IQ, the memo over-attributes everything about the problem to genetics, which would drive psychologists up a wall.

@leon1122 regarding average men and women’s heights: Great way of illustrating the point made in his memo on differences between two populations. A great book that talks about this regarding the exciting field of athletics is ‘The Sports Gene’ by David Epstein. Really an insightful and enjoyable read.

@TrPrado: Jeff Kuta's article and your father are both anecdotal evidence and nowhere near as admissible as the evidence linked to in the article, which is quantifiable and peer reviewed. (note: he links it to a Wikipedia article that mainly references a study in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology [Source 70] and this one separately: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x/abstract) Please look at the research before dismissing it as pseudoscience.

ATC’s article is largely anecdotal as well, but does give some very good points. One is that after basic competence in coding and other engineering work success is largely a result of interpersonal interactions. (Something which the author admits women are better at, that sexist for you too? I hope not) The author does make a mistake in his line of arguing though. He proves that engineering requires significant social interaction, and it does, but doesn’t prove that it requires as much or more social interaction as other jobs competing for women hires. Like he says, the basics of engineering is solitary work and must be mastered before really contributing in a group which is different from say a medical profession where interaction with patients is a skill set that must be developed as a basic skill which makes it more appealing for your average female. The article is worth a read and has a good argument, but I think it has a gap in its reasoning that keeps it from invalidating the memo’s argument.

Also for the Nature vs. Nurture debate that seems to be lying beneath the surface I encourage you all to admit its a combination of both and look at the study in the link above.

@Yanik Your mention of the “wage gap” should be addressed too. It is not an actual wage gap, its an EARNings gap. If employers thought they could pay females 77 cents for the same work they pay a man $1 for they would hire almost all females. There are also laws to stop this from happening. Women earn less of course because they work less (maternity leave or part time work to care for kids) and don’t take jobs with greater risk; 93% or work related deaths are male. In fact, this though is blown apart when you learn that young childless women earn more that men of the same age. Here is an article for a bit more depth: https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/02/24/childless-women-in-their-twenties-out-earn-men-so/#42fed47ea82c Sorry it’s not a more scientific study, but I’ve spent way too much time reading and replying on this post now. Hope that spent time isn’t wasted.

*thought

@TiconderogaHB you're right about it being an earnings gap, but don't worry about me, i've read up on it...


https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/public-policy/hr-public-policy-issues/documents/gender%20wage%20gap%20final%20report.pdf

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704415104576250672504707048

http://money.howstuffworks.com/gender-gap1.htm

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2012-08-13/don-t-blame-discrimination-for-gender-wage-gap

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/davidgreen/9666597/The_gender_pay_gap_does_not_exist/

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-28246928/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-gender-wage-gap-is-a-myth-2012-07-26

http://www.businessinsider.com/actually-the-gender-pay-gap-is-just-a-myth-2011-3?op=1

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

http://oratorasaurus.tumblr.com/post/41131660349/the-so-called-pay-gap

http://tgjesusfreak.tumblr.com/post/59991585178

http://wwww.examiner.com/x-22884-Canada-Politics-Examiner~y2010m2d22-Gender-pay-gap-is-not-what-activists-claim

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/vickiwoods/7957186/Sorry-ladies-Im-not-worried-about-wage-gaps.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/opinion/22Sommers.html?_r=1&hp

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/the_wage_gap_myth.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa3pKN3XUKM&feature=youtu.be

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/06/business/economy/06women.html?_r=2

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/biggest-shock-fridays-payroll-report-sorry-men

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/07/share-of-men-in-labor-force-at-all-time-low/?src=recg

http://www.businessinsider.com/women-in-tech-make-more-money-and-land-better-jobs-than-men-20

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0752118220071107?feedType=R

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=10630664

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/nyregion/03women.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

http://www.ksee24.com/news/local/Young-Women-Earn-More-159818705.html

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2011/03/14/jobs-where-women-earn-more-than-men/http://www.womenintechnology.co.uk/news/young-women-earn-more-than-men%E2%80%94news-800761492

http://www.womensviewsonnews.org/2011/10/young-women-now-earn-more-than-men-in-uk/http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0752118220071107?feedTy%E2%80%A6

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/BUSINESS/03/15/optout.revolution/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23413243

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/Careers/06/13/dads.work/index.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-05-04-equal-parenting_N.htm

http://www.science20.com/news_articles/women_science_no_discrimination_says_cornell_study-75984

http://social.dol.gov/blog/myth-busting-the-pay-gap/

http://www.payscale.com/career-news/2009/12/do-men-or-women-choose-majors-to-maximize-income

"I disagree with examples of WHOLE COMPANIES in the industry because they counteract my point, so I'll call them anecdotal lmao"

The company my dad works for wouldn't be a nation-wide company if it weren't PRIMARILY socially-oriented.

@Yanik hahaha, looks like I have some reading to do! Maybe all that will help my reading comprehension so I don't misinterpret anymore comments!

@TrPrado I am disagreeing to three individuals experiences as being representative of the whole industry; a nation-wide company is not defined by your dad. Anecdotal evidence is good for forming a hypothesis, but from there you should get working on the real experiment. All companies are socially oriented because they work to deliver products or services to people! To be truly great, advanced, or to have mastery in your field one needs to be good interpersonally. However, basic skills needed to achieve competency in a field will have varying degrees of interpersonal skill requirements.