I'm a white male. I know that the average Asian has a higher IQ than the average white man. This means positively nothing when comparing me with a given Asian, however.

That is the root of this discussion that so many so profoundly miss. The average Google male is not the average male. The average Google female is not the average female. He was not saying that women who work at Google are at a biological disadvantage, in any way, and that is a perverse misreading. He was saying that on the whole there's a biological reason when you roll the dice enough that more males are suitable for that work. In the scientific community this is utterly indisputable, in the same way that there are far more exceptional males (and autistic males), just as there are far more mentally handicapped males. That doesn't preclude handicapped or exceptional females, it's just less common.

I don't understand what you said there, can you elaborate? What is the difference between males being more biologically suitable and females being at a disadvantage? From my perspective, you just contradicted yourself, can you help me understand why it's not a contradiction?

What the memo proposed is that it's "possible" there are fewer women in tech right now because of the biological differences. He may not have claimed it as fact, but he implied it. The problem I have with the implication is that it's obvious that evolutionary forces are not the primary causes of the current distribution, because the distribution of women in tech has changed drastically in the last 50 years faster than evolution's say in the matter. It's not possible that the current distribution is primarily caused by biological differences, and it's exceedingly likely that it is caused by social issues. But he suggested it is possible, and followed that by suggesting we should stop treating it like a social issue because it's possible.

And all of this so far is ignoring that the memo unironically takes the opposite stance on the minority group of conservatives.

So what is the root part that I'm missing?

Does 60% of Americans being overweight today mean that it's likely that 60% of people are naturally and biologically incapable of maintaining a healthy weight?

There are genetic differences among underweight and overweight populations, so it is "possible" that the distribution of healthy weights to overweight people is natural a result of those genetic traits, and not the result of advertising and availability of high calorie foods.

We should stop treating obesity as though it's a problem, right?

Nature vs nurture is completely the point here, Damore argued that nature is the primary force, not nurture, and therefore we should stop nurturing women in tech.

>> I don't understand what you said there, can you elaborate? What is the difference between males being more biologically suitable and females being at a disadvantage? From my perspective, you just contradicted yourself, can you help me understand why it's not a contradiction?

This was in response to the parent that said Damore had not singled out any female google employes. The overweight example was an attempt to clarify that even though statistical averages say something about a group, it does not say something about the individual, i.e the google females should not feel singled out by statistical averages.

As for the nature/nuture point in the memo: yes the memo is making a biological claim backed by sources. It does not suggest that current distributions are correct. No, the memo is not saying that nature is the primary force, only that it might play a part [1]:

"Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership."

[1] https://diversitymemo.com/

Right. And what I've been trying to say is that the statistical averages aren't the offensive part. That's a straw man.

Google women don't feel offended when they're told they're a minority, they already know that; but they sure might reasonably be concerned when someone suggests they're a minority "in part" "possibly" because women aren't biologically as able to engineer as men.

> No, the memo is not saying that nature is the primary force, only that it might play a part [1]:

Sure, the memo didn't say it explicitly, but it did imply that. Everyone keeps defending the exact wording as if implication and misleading statements don't exist. Suggesting it's a "part" suggests it's a measurable and large part, comparable to social causes. Pointing out that women are more neurotic (which is a clinical term with very negative popular connotation, so extremely easily misunderstood) might be a part of why Google has so few women is leading the reader to conclude it's a major factor.

This argument is cherry-picking the science in favor, and completely ignoring the contrary evidence that suggests that social issues are much larger than anything we could possibly measure about innate biological ability. For example, that different countries have very different distributions of women in engineering, or that the distributions have changed wildly in the last 50 years.

Let me use another example: The NFL has no rules against women playing. None. Yet 100% of players are male, because biologically the exceptionally large and athletic tend to be male. I'm male, so does that mean that I could be an NFL player? Of course not, and I in no universe am in that realm.

That is a more extreme example, but patronizingly suggesting that it's all just social is utterly laughable and just outright ignorant.

"This argument is cherry-picking the science in favor, and completely ignoring the contrary evidence that suggests that social issues are much larger"

At this point you've reached utter lol territory. You are outright being dense about actual science, and then casually waving your hands and claiming that is more authoritative.

Well you did pose the question, I just answered it, so it was not to erect a straw man, and I was not really trying to contradict the rest of your claim by that example, maybe I should have been clearer on that.

> Sure, the memo didn't say it explicitly, but it did imply that. Everyone keeps defending the exact wording as if implication and misleading statements don't exist. Suggesting it's a "part" suggests it's a measurable and large part, comparable to social causes.

Yes, he certainly does imply that biological causes has a measurable effect, and a large enough effect that it should be taken into consideration for measures (that he also suggests) in order to change work practices so as they might better fit females and thus increase diversity.

> Pointing out that women are more neurotic (which is a clinical term with very negative popular connotation, so extremely easily misunderstood) might be a part of why Google has so few women is leading the reader to conclude it's a major factor.

I agree that it is unfortunate that neurotic is easily misunderstood, but if he didn't use the correct clinical term he would be critized for not being scientific enough, which you are already critizing him for.

> This argument is cherry-picking the science in favor, and completely ignoring the contrary evidence that suggests that social issues are much larger than anything we could possibly measure about innate biological ability. For example, that different countries have very different distributions of women in engineering, or that the distributions have changed wildly in the last 50 years.

I don't agree with you that science has concluded that biological factors don't play a role in what professions people go into. I saw an interesting Harvard debate between Steven Pinker and Elisabeth Spelke on this [1]. The two examples you present does not explicitly contradict that it might be part biological reasons [2], the provided link has a fascinating discussion in the comment section that gives you both sides of the discussion.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Hb3oe7-PJ8 [2] http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagger...

> I don't agree with you that science has concluded that biological factors don't play a role in what professions people go into.

I don't recall saying nature isn't a factor at all, and if I did I take it back. But I do personally believe that right now nurture, which includes social and historical gender issues plus all forms of implicit and explicit social biases and discrimination, is the biggest factor. And enough bigger that it doesn't make any sense to talk about nature yet.

I didn't really intend to contradict the possibility of any biological factor, what I'm saying is that social issues appear to me to be a far larger influence than, say, any discernible difference in IQ. The memo either disagrees or ignores that.

Given that social factors were >99% of the distribution discrepancy less than a century ago, and that we're still working through huge social issues, and that workforce distributions of women both locally and globally are far from settled, I find it pretty hard to accept the idea that we should look at anything other than social factors.

It is possible that biological differences explain some of the workforce distributions. It's also possible that nature's effect on the current sex distribution of women in US tech is not even large enough to be measurable. It's possible that should we eradicate social gender inequality globally, biology's role will even out to a 0.0001% distribution discrepancy. It's also possible that Sabine Hossenfelder is right, and that once we have equal opportunity, "the higher ranks in science and politics would be dominated by women". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14976028

I will check out the videos, thank you for the links.

This whole memo thing has certainly led me down the rabbit hole. Not being an actual scientist with insight into both biological and social factors, I find it hard to be to sure of where I stand on the issue, and the current political climate is certainly helping to muddy the waters.

> Damore argued that nature is the primary force, not nurture, and therefore we should stop nurturing women in tech.

No, he argued that nature in part, may explain the gender mismatch. That really cant be denied. It was also specifically talking about interests rather than capabilities of working in tech. Saying you might not be interested in programming software does not mean you're not able to.

The memo also never said we should stop nurturing women but that we should use different tactics that are more of match to their common on average biological traits and avoid any other discrimination based on race/gender, instead treating everyone as individuals.

This is a pretty heavy implication that these programs do not in fact have any value and that diversity is not valuable. I can agree that a perfect 50/50 split is unattainable and the wrong goal, but there are studies that show diversity confers an advantage. And as Yonatan points out, I think the author has a misunderstanding of what is valuable from an engineering culture perspective.

Yonatan's response was an emotional tirade, refusing to debate any of the cited research and using a different context of empathy. Nobody is debating the value of empathy in engineering (and it's good to have for any job and life in general, nothing specific to tech), but empathy in setting policy is completely different.

Rules should be set based on rational analysis instead of feelings. We argue for science/math-based policies in government so asking for the same in such a large corporation with regards to such a sensitive subject seems perfectly logical.

> Philosophically, I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principled reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google—with Google’s diversity being a component of that. For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google’s funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged.

In general I agree that a rational analysis and science based approach is valuable. In fact, I think research into diversity actually does support the idea that it provides benefits. But it's not simply as black and white as science good, empathy/moralizing bad.

For instance, it may be objectively better for a company to do a lot of things that we consider immoral or harmful to society. For instance, how much does maternity and paternity leave cost a company in productivity, time, and the expense of providing a replacement worker? In fact, it might just be more profitable not to hire women of childbearing age at all, which actually was socially accepted for a long time. But these days our society has come to the general conclusion that this is actually morally unacceptable, and the benefits to parents and society outweigh the costs to the company. A very similar argument could be employed regarding the hiring of employees in the reserves or national guard.

I think you have to look at things holistically, as an entire system, and yes, morally.

The IQ distribution of men and women is slightly different, and this is essentially settled science (it really is, however much we might pontificate -- our genetic past rolls the dice more with males). The male curve is slightly fatter, yielding larger numbers of exceptionally high and exceptionally low members. This means absolutely nothing if you have a male with an IQ of 140 and a female with an IQ of 140, however. Nor does it mean a 100 IQ male should be working at Google because there are slightly more high IQ males born.

We are smart enough to understand the difference between set probabilities and individual traits. Right?

because the distribution of women in tech has changed drastically in the last 50 years faster than evolution's say in the matter

Obviously there are social factors. That is indisputable. But at a point the gains in leveling the sexes for some domains become harder to get because there are confounding factors. Women in engineering has stayed virtually constant for several decades now.

How different? Can you source this claim? Are the means & medians at different places? How far apart are they? Are they far enough part to justify a male/female ratio in the tech workforce of 4x? I'm not arguing with you, but you are contradicting the article at hand.

"the mainstream view is that male and female abilities are the same across the vast majority of domains — I.Q., the ability to do math, etc."

> Women in engineering has stayed virtually constant for several decades now.

Which decades are you talking about? Which countries are you talking about? Please source this wildly inaccurate claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_women_in_engineerin...

"According to studies by the National Science Foundation, the percentage of BA/BS degrees in engineering awarded to women in the U.S. increased steadily from 0.4 percent in 1966 to a peak of 20.9 percent in 2002"

That's a factor of 40x in 40 years. That doesn't sound super constant to me. How fast does evolution work again?

"Only 9.6% of engineers in Australia are women"

Interesting. Does that mean it's likely that Australian women are biologically only half as engineering capable as American women?

>Please source this wildly inaccurate claim.

I said for several decades. You cite the change for over five decades.

From 1990 to today -- closing on three decades -- women in engineering has stayed virtually unchanged in the US.

You seem to be taking the shotgun approach, and seem wholly ingenuine in discussing this rationally, so I would say this discussion is done.

Can you either source this or summarize, assuming that I genuinely want to know? How big is the difference in mean & median? Do you believe the difference is primarily responsible for the difference in distribution?

> I said for several decades. You cite the change for over five decades.

You're going to nitpick over 3 vs 5? Are you saying that the distribution of women wasn't in a steady state in the 1970's but it reached steady state in the 1990's, and that now the distributions are primarily reflective of innate biology and not social causes?

The distribution of women in computer science is quite different than the distribution of women in engineering - very roughly 2x as I understand. Do you think that computer science is significantly and measurably more prone to being affected by our biological differences than engineering?

I'm think I'm bringing up reasonable points, is it really a stretch to ask about different countries and different disciplines? The memo's reasoning should reasonably apply to all women in all businesses in all countries, not just engineering or tech. He even cited gender discrepancies that are cross-cultural, this is absolutely fair game.

> You seem to be taking the shotgun approach, and seem wholly ingenuine in discussing this rationally

I'm sorry that it's getting tough for you. I'm very genuine and very serious. I disagree that I'm being irrational, but you are entitled to your opinion.

I'm just hearing defensiveness about the claims stated as fact being true. I willingly accept that there are biological differences between men and women. What I don't see clearly is a rational justification for ignoring cultural sexism.

Claiming defensiveness when you are being intentionally dense in the discussion is a transparent, tired tactic.

"What I don't see clearly is a rational justification for ignoring cultural sexism."

Absolutely no one is promoting "cultural sexism", so you're now contriving canards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_intelligenc...

So if we assume that the US tech sector hires only above-average people, the difference in variance could lead to some difference in mean IQ, for certain subjects, in theory.

The question of what social factors bias IQ measurements is ongoing, but the top-line summary is that general intelligence is believed by many to have no sex difference.

Is that accurate?

I am cherry picking this one, but it's one of the most directly relevant studies cited here, and I find it interesting:

"Stoet and Geary concluded that sex differences in educational achievement are not reliably linked to gender equality."

I found a paper (http://www.ams.org/notices/201201/rtx120100010p.pdf) that reports a variance ratio of 1.15 for the maths scores of boys vs girls. Interestingly, they showed a negative correlation between variance ratio and gender gap for students in different countries. (In countries where boys have higher variance of maths scores, they tend to do worse on average than girls.)

However, the hypothesis that gender ratios in CS are influenced by the higher variance additionally involves a highly selective environment. So I decided to compute how the ratio changes when a minimum score is imposed. Python code below.

  gender_ratio_to_population_ratio = lambda gr: gr/(1+gr)
  from numpy import sqrt
  variance_ratio_to_standard_deviation = lambda vr: sqrt( 2*gender_ratio_to_population_ratio(vr) )
  from scipy.stats import norm
  ratio_above_threshold = lambda thresh, vr: norm.cdf(-thresh, scale=variance_ratio_to_standard_deviation(vr))
  male_female_ratio_above_threshold = lambda thresh: ratio_above_threshold(thresh, 1.15) / ratio_above_threshold(thresh, 1/1.15)
  male_percentage_above_threshold = lambda thresh: gender_ratio_to_population_ratio(male_female_ratio_above_threshold(thresh))

  >>> male_percentage_above_threshold(0)
  0.5

In steps of one standard deviation above the mean:

  >>> male_percentage_above_threshold(1)
  0.52668314725189336
  >>> male_percentage_above_threshold(2)
  0.58239639246408581
  >>> male_percentage_above_threshold(3)
  0.66604327143250408
  >>> male_percentage_above_threshold(4)
  0.76581194732953917
  >>> male_percentage_above_threshold(5)
  0.86031277779790205

Would you be willing to walk me through the steps? Specifically (I'm sure this is a dumb question) what is gender ratio to population ratio?

And in the male_female_ratio_above_threshold function, why is the female part scaled to 1/1.15? Shouldn't that value be 1.0? You'd have to skip the ratio_above_threshold function and factor in a norm.cdf call directly, but I don't see why it makes sense to compare normal distributions of 1.15 and 1/1.15, it should be comparing a 1.15 times normal to a 1.0 times normal, right?

If I replace the 1/1.15 with 1.0, I get that the 80/20 split happens at an IQ of just over 195 (6.44 std devs). If I'm right, this would mean that for IQ to explain the 80/20 split completely, tech people would have to be in the top ~0.000000006% of the general population. BTW, just for perspective there are 45 such people in the entire world.

> I don't think programmers have to be quite that smart.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but programmers would have to be that smart, it would still have to be absolute IQ of 165 or above (or maybe >195). If we assume the average programmer has an IQ of 125, the 165 threshold is ~2.6 std devs above the norm, rather than ~4.3 std devs above the norm, right? We'd be talking about the top 0.5% of the programmer population, rather than the top 0.001% of the general population.

Relatively speaking, the threshold isn't as far above the average programmer as it is above the average person, but the 80/20 split depends on the absolute threshold, yes?

> To fully explain 80% men in a profession using only higher variance as the criterion

And we'd better qualify that this is assuming 1.15 is the right number globally, and that 1.15 is valid for subjects other than math, and that using only the higher variance means that percent of women in tech ratio is 100% dependent on IQ, which in turn means that hiring and job performance and ability all correlate 100% with IQ and nothing else, and finally that IQ itself is free of social biases.

Right? Even with a better understanding of what it might take, we're still pretty far into an imaginary land built on a long series of assumptions, some of which we know to be iffy at best. Not to mention that if any other factors are involved (and we know there are) then the IQ threshold is even higher.

The variance ratio was calculated in the paper as (variance of the boy's scores)/(variance of the girl's scores), and the most natural way of computing the effect of a threshold is (men above threshold)/(women above threshold). But we are usually more interested in the relation of individuals to the overall population. So I needed a helper function to change the male/female ratio into a male/(male + female) ratio.

  gender_ratio_to_population_ratio = lambda gr: gr/(1+gr)

  from numpy import sqrt
  variance_ratio_to_standard_deviation = lambda vr: sqrt( 2*gender_ratio_to_population_ratio(vr) )

  from scipy.stats import norm
  ratio_above_threshold = lambda thresh, vr: norm.cdf(-thresh, scale=variance_ratio_to_standard_deviation(vr))

  male_female_ratio_above_threshold = lambda thresh: ratio_above_threshold(thresh, 1.15) / ratio_above_threshold(thresh, 1/1.15)

  male_percentage_above_threshold = lambda thresh: gender_ratio_to_population_ratio(male_female_ratio_above_threshold(thresh))

> Relatively speaking, the threshold isn't as far above the average programmer as it is above the average person, but the 80/20 split depends on the absolute threshold, yes?

I actually hadn't thought to put it in relation to the population of programmers, but what you are saying makes sense (with the caveat that the standard deviation of programmers might differ from the general population). However, it seems that the 80/20 split isn't just at Google, but also close to the industry average and to enrollment in CS majors, which definitely don't just include the top programmers.

> And we'd better qualify that this is assuming 1.15 is the right number globally,

Actually, 1.15 isn't the right number globally: in different countries, the variance ratio was as low as 0.9 and as high as 1.5, so it isn't actually very stable. In the US, you have the choice between 1.19, 1.11 and 1.08, depending on the test and the year of testing. 1.15 is just the average over all countries and tests.

> and that 1.15 is valid for subjects other than math,

It probably isn't, but if you have no numbers, you just take what seems closest and run with it. Another caveat is that this number was for elementary/middle school students, and it could be different for adults, either higher, because the students were not fully developed yet, or lower, because the students were in different stages of development.

> and that using only the higher variance means that percent of women in tech ratio is 100% dependent on IQ, which in turn means that hiring and job performance and ability all correlate 100% with IQ and nothing else,

If there were some other normally distributed property, e.g. "programming ability", you could use that to make a similar argument, but it would have to fulfill these requirements to be the only explanation. Modeling the hiring process as a binary threshold is also quite simplistic, but I don't think I could compute it for anything more realistic.

> and finally that IQ itself is free of social biases.

You only have to assume that if you want to make IQ (or something else) the only explanation and claim that social bias is not involved. It would absolve Google of immediate responsibility if they simply administered an IQ test to candidates, but there would still be ways bias can influence the outcome.

> Not to mention that if any other factors are involved (and we know there are) then the IQ threshold is even higher.

Don't you mean lower? There are a whole bunch of other factors that make women less likely to go into CS, stay as programmers, apply to Google (like social bias) that would lower the remaining difference the "higher variance" hypothesis would have to explain. Of course that would leave it with little overall influence, but it might be the case that all individual factors are only able to explain a small part, and it's their interaction that causes the huge difference.

I see more clearly the issue with 1/1.15 that I was worried about, and what I missed was the gener_ratio_to_population_ratio inside the variance_ratio_to_standard_deviation. I was worried the variance ratio was being double counted, but I see now that it's not, you just made it symmetric.

> It would absolve Google of immediate responsibility if they simply administered an IQ test to candidates

Isn't there a very high probability that this would implicate Google rather than absolve them? I'd be really pretty extremely surprised if Google had managed to hire tens of thousands of people that are all at least 165 IQ. If they prove the average IQ is 130, they then potentially have to take responsibility for the remainder of the discrepancy.

> Don't you mean lower? There are a whole bunch of other factors that make women less likely to go into CS

I did mean higher, but you're absolutely right to call BS on that. Any factors that alone would result in a lower female ratio than 20/80 would push the IQ threshold lower. Factors that alone would result in anything higher than 20/80 would raise the IQ threshold. My assumption was that, being at a very extreme end of the spectrum more than 4(!) standard deviations from the general population, almost all other factors would be closer to 50/50 than to 0/100, and would thus raise the IQ threshold. But that is my assumption and belief, not any established fact.

Since the actual ratio is 20/80, and I believe that IQ is at best a small factor, then for my hypothesis to be right, some other actual factor must be closer to 0/100 than 50/50. That means I'd better accept your suggestion that what I really meant to say is other factors would push the IQ threshold lower not higher, because there's evidence for that. You've done me a favor. ;)

Thanks again for engaging at this level.

so if we select only people with very high IQ, we get more men

2) "IQ" (or math ability, or whatever) does not measure if someone is an effective engineer, which is what Google actually wants.

3) Women are also underrepresented throughout software engineering, at places far less rarified than Google. You don't have to be a genius to write a CRUD app--but somehow it's still mostly dudes. I wonder if there could be any other effects that would discourage women from taking those jobs?

4) Have you ever asked a women in tech--any woman, grab the nearest one--if she's had negative experiences in tech? Say, being dismissed, ignored, talked over, harassed?

Your third point again is based on a bogus premise. To get those CRUD jobs the developers often went through a gauntlet of CS (or shining independently through projects, etc), hiring selectivity (everyone hires the "top 2%", etc). Even if the job is banal, the road to get there is often very demanding.

As to your fourth, I have no doubt that many women in tech have negative experiences. Having said that, many males in tech have negative experiences. I'm a fairly outgoing, obstinate, outspoken type of person and I know in my career I've left a wake of male coworkers who were dismissed and talked over. This industry tends to be hierarchical, and when it's a male that's life, and when it's a female that's sexism.

Quite frankly: many people do. Some of them are at Google. James chose to run headlong into this discussion without any practical knowledge of the discourse. His point was poorly delivered precisely because it leaves open such radical room for misrepresenting it.

Discussions of social issues MUST be informed by the social discourse they enter, even if armed with science and evidence. To suggest otherwise is obviously wrong.

No one owes James a charitable reading. And if you think the "mobs" of liberals are misrepresenting his point, you should see where MRA/goreans are going with it.

A charitable reading isn't something that's owed. It's something that almost universally helps discourse. Communication is hard.

We're always willing to give Us a charitable reading, and it's a damned shame people are so unwilling to afford that to Them, regardless which side of anything you're on.

I certainly did my best to ignore it. It was poorly informed, poorly considered. His firing was inevitable and possibly even what he wanted. Certainly I can't imagine a more effective way to get fired at Google.

Since James didn't do the courtesy of being informed, it seems odd to demand that everyone offer him the courtesy of finishing his argument for him

Progress isn't made when both parties refuse to cooperate. And one side isn't absolved of responsibility just because they believe the other side to be not worth their effort. This is petty.

I'm not here dropping links about stereotypes and pointing out trivial logical errors in the discourse because it's good for my heart or my psyche.

I'm on Twitter hiatus, but I still end up wrapped in these fruitless conflicts. But please, continue arguing that what I'm doing is deleterious. I'm not friendly on this subject, but you can hardly accuse me of not engaging openly and being responsive to the dialogue.

I recognize that giving a promise this vast in scope was a bad idea. However, I feel obligated to keep it.

I'm bored to death of men with almost no conception of the topic at hand demanding deference and respect just because they think they know how to program a computer. And yet, here I am keeping my promise.

You seem to think my intent is malicious. It's really too bad.

Nope. I think you're acting out of pain. I think you're in pain because you yourself said that your current behavior on the forum is "costly" and bad "for my heart or my psyche." Again, you're reading something that was literally never written. Hence, cognitive dissonance.

addendum: Irrational people misinterpreting a text is precisely that. Surely you can't be saying that a text having a fairly high bar for intelligent interpretation and discussion is reason for that text to not exist?

Reading a text is a dialogue. If the writer did not appropriately express the intent, then they invite the reader to finish the thought. And this even rational people can arrive at different conclusions.

To suggest every reading you don't approve of as "irrational" is a predictable, even classical tactic. Many words exist for it, but in the end the notion of blaming the reader for finishing an incomplete thought is an exercise in futility. The reader has no choice.

If you want to talk about how the memo was poorly written, talk about how the memo was poorly written. The readings of others certainly can supplement your analysis, but you haven't provided that analysis.

The memo begins with it's intent, and even has a TLDR after the opening three paragraphs.

Also, while the memo was mostly trying to assess the current state and factors of the gender imbalance in tech and Google particularly, it does provide several, literal, conclusions. Here are just a few:

>We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration.

>Women on average are more cooperative [...] Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there's more we can do.

>Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits.

If you actually read the memo, and have actual problems with what was actually written, then talk about that. There's certainly plenty to discuss and to rationally disagree about, but you have yet to say anything substantial about the thing you're criticizing.

Which does little to excuse the subsequent content. Why would it? Impact matters far more than intent. Asking for someone to read a paragraph in a light quite opposed to it's content in this era of Poe Principle Supremacy is essentially asking for an act of faith.

I possess no such faith. And why should I? The implicit suggestion here is that James's memo had value or novel input. Even if I fastidiously follow his intent statement, it appears misinformed and to misinterpret some findings, offering a solution I have discussed as inadequate and insulting many times on this website.

> If you actually read the memo, and have actual problems with what was actually written, then talk about that.

I have at length. I am now talking about the discourse at hand. Please find someone else to make demands of. I'm not your conversational sparring partner and even this reply is only a courtesy. Please do not exhaust my good will.

The only thing I could find that begins to be a direct reference is "In this memo's case, perhaps you're mad at someone for saying you're genetically predisposed to be less capable of individual action (e.g., don't worry I am sure if we set up pair programming that will make it fair for you social women types)." The only thing I found in the memo that could be interpreted as women being less capable in something regarding tech work was, "This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading." Granted, I did not interpret "having a harder time" as meaning "is less capable of," but I do see how you could think that. However, that statement is analogous to something like "black Americans in the 50s generally had a harder time running businesses, getting quality education, and finding quality housing." Empirically true, and has nothing to do with capability.

Another point of confusion I can understand is while it mentions the fact that men and women have biological differences, it never says anything at all about what those differences are. Further, he goes on to say "many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions." Now I certainly agree that raising the topic of potential biological differences, only to instantly drop it, is poor writing, and if you justly continue reading the memo expecting more references to that topic, you could be left with a certain level of confusion.

It's fine to not agree with something or someone. It's also OK to be wrong about something, or misunderstand a given piece of material. It is not OK to dismiss out of hand perceived others or to take an emotionally vested interest in your misunderstanding when it's been pointed out.

This is a discussion board. pharrington literally and solely exists to discuss things with KirinDave (and any other accounts posting on this site).

I'm uninterested in James, his feelings, his emotions, his needs, his wants, his _intents_, and his plans. I've met him in passing, and he did not hold my attention anymore in person.

I've been much more focused on the flaws in the discourse here than his memo precisely because of this.

Your ultimate strategy across multiple threads appears to be: "paint this person as an irrational creature, fraught with emotion, that cannot respond rationally and therefore should be dismissed."

If you think this'll work, good luck. If the karma numbers I can see are any indication, my opinion is not being received in the light you're painting it it. If your opinion of the overall HN community is that folks here are an irrational bunch with cognitive abilities to base to catch the pitch of reason, then what sort of motivation (rational or otherwise) are you finding to stay?

And I'm also enjoying watching the numbers pop back up after a sudden depression. Why is that, I wonder? It continues to happen on some threads long after they're open.

> Another point of confusion I can understand is while it mentions the fact that men and women have biological differences, it never says anything at all about what those differences are.

This is simply untrue.

It's boring. Please, stop.

How can you be sure that it's the average Asia, as opposed to the average Asian in the US? IMO a better example would be to use Ashkenazi Jews... or are they too white to count?

Of course Asians in the US are smart. There is a high bar for foreigners entering the US.

This is the genius behind "Give me your tired, your poor". We actually end up taking the hard working, wealthy ones who've gotten into college by passing tests in their second language at the same age as we go to school.

Lets face it. They have resources to both cheat and get tutoring on the ways to pass an exam. Lets see how everyone does cold turkey when all of the outside factors like money and resources other than race and gender are held constant.

What are the results of a study like that? That would be a more interesting test than saying X or Y is genetically more suited to this field.

Most if not all of that line of reasoning is based on 1000 year old social constructs...and the mountains of "research" that was later made up to give it credibility when people started to question these social constructs.

It's impossible to completely separate biological from environmental factors. They're interdependent.

I agree that better research would be the proper way to attack this problem. It seems we will be stuck perpetually debating nature vs. nurture [1] for as long as we exist.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture

This includes Japanese, Chinese, both Koreans, Taiwanese, and Mongolians. Commonly, anyone with epicanthic folds.

In this case, I don't think the OP was talking about biological differences. It's widely known that the aforementioned cultures (especially Japan and China) are very big on having their careers and studies at the center of their lives.

In this case, it would be nurture giving these groups an advantage over their Western counterparts. Who, ignoring the top-tiers, on average are not known for their industry.

That's part of the problem.

Lots of people associate Google with research and discourse akin to a college campus without realizing that, unlike a college campus, they and their free discourse are not protected in any meaningful way.

"Let's be open and transparent and have an open and transparent culture... but don't say things that might hurt our shareholders."

Google is beginning to remind me a bit too much of the 'Bright & Shinys" from the movie 'Bubble Boy'[0]. Happy go lucky do-gooder cult that holds that image until you cross them. Things get darker after that point. That initial positive image is all that matters.

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIYRfNjHSzA

I agree with your broader point though. Different companies are more or less tolerant of free-wheeling discussion that may not reflect an official company position. But, at the end of the day, if you cause embarrassment (especially as a non-exec, non-critical employee) at most companies, you're expendable.

Do you see how ridiculous that sounds and why a university could not in good faith legitimize the proponents of that theory? Now I'm not saying all issues are as black and white as that, but it's clear to me that there is a line that needs to be drawn somewhere. Any particular issue probably has differing opinions on whether it crosses the lines. But anything that is abusive towards women, minorities, trans people, etc. as people is dangerous ground and I can't argue with not supporting that.

Words are not going to hurt anyone, actions will. Students (and all people) should absolutely be protected from harmful actions but we cannot stop discourse just because it sounds offensive to someone, no matter the subject.

Even the conservatives and alt-righters admin this, which is why they're so upset about people using politically correct language, even by their own free choice. "Happy Holidays" anyone?

I, for one, would find it pretty disadvantageous in my studies to attend classes at an institution that endorses (even silently) a viewpoint that questions my right to the pursuit of happiness, to marry who I want, to be the correct gender, or even to exist. Organizations can and do limit that speech in certain environments that they are responsible for.

That said, the first amendment is hugely important, but limited in scope in the consequences that it protects you from.

Of course, it _is_ important to not simply refuse to hear or allow speech that you disagree with. There is a balance to be struck there.

Who cares if I'm a minority or conservative? Who cares what speech I'm upset by? That's the point, being upset is not something we need to defend against.

Speech is speech, if you don't like it then ignore it. And yes, there are consequences. Most of the time it's the other side yelling back which is fine. Only when it turns into (harmful) action should be people be defended but until then it's paramount that anyone can say what they want.

I understand that only the government has protected speech. Private groups and institutions are free to invite or exclude at will and I support that as well, however public spaces and institutions should absolutely not be closed to anyone who wants to speak their mind and protecting people's feelings will never end well.

So I don't think it's quite as simple as protecting people's feelings over all else. Frankly, I even have mixed feelings and unease about the fact that I think limiting speech is warranted sometimes. But there it is.

This article from 2013 is an example

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2013/01/...

“What we try to do is bring the same level of rigor to people decisions that we do to engineering decisions. Our mission is to have all people decisions be informed by data.”

Damore's memo may look idiotic to people who work in "normal" workplaces, but it is consistent with Google's previous rhetoric on what sort of company it wants to be: namely, one that isn't normal.

Of course we can't reasonably assess how large these groups are, when we are all - liberals and conservatives alike - being told not to express our opinions by leaders in universities, media, and tech companies.

It's like Sundar declaring that most employees supported him - after he fired someone for questioning management.

Did he really expect honest answers?

Was that necessary? A) The women working at Google are predominantly also cishet and B) gay guys can be misogynistic too (sometimes even more, as they dont need women in any way).