> Would you rather hire someone that likes what they do or someone who doesn't?

I wouldn't assume someone's interest level based on their demographics. I would, you know, talk to them.

So, you are in favor of outreach programs where you get to talk to more people?

Sure. I do that already, both formally and informally. Though I've probably been underestimating how career limiting that can be.

The Google firing was a really bad move if outreach programs are a good idea.

Not sure I follow why you think the firing had something to do with outreach? You mean they'll be losing out on candidates like Damore?

I think people won't feel comfortable sharing freely, which undermines the whole point of it. It won't just affect candidates like Damore.

People who don't feel like sharing probably won't feel like getting talked at, so there won't be much listening in the other direction either.

I optimize for productivity first, that doesn't always equate to someone who likes their job.

Regardless, I'm not sure how that's related to my comment - the memo was discussing relative interests in software engineering (and other disciplines), not capabilities of people being able to do code better than others.

By perpetuating the stereotype that "women are less interested in engineering" and suggesting that your chances of getting a good female candidate are lower, Damore is introducing an unconscious bias against women. After all, "it's likely that she doesn't really like this", "she probably went into engineering because her parents pushed her", "maybe she's great now, but she'll lose interest once anxiety kicks in."

Next time your engineers are scheduled to interview someone and they see a female name on the resume, they'll form an opinion (even if slight, and even if overridable by interacting with the person) about who the candidate is. Depending on how tired/stressed/bored they are that day, that opinion will play a smaller or bigger role in what they write down in the candidate report.

That bias, by the way, exists today. Trying to justify it on the base of biological differences does nothing to fix it.

>By perpetuating the stereotype that "women are less interested in engineering" and suggesting that your chances of getting a good female candidate are lower, Damore is introducing an unconscious bias against women. After all, "it's likely that she doesn't really like this", "she probably went into engineering because her parents pushed her", "maybe she's great now, but she'll lose interest once anxiety kicks in."

A ("women in general are less interested") does not imply B ("woman job candidates are less interested"). A would only imply B if there were equal numbers of man and woman engineers. But there are fewer. It's entirely possible for "women are less interested in engineering than men" and "women that go into engineering are far more interested than men that go into engineering" to both be true.

So that hiring bias is based on non-logic in the first place. Considering the possibility of A does not legitimize B.

> That bias, by the way, exists today. Trying to justify it on the base of biological differences does nothing to fix

You presupposed that the bias is why the disparity exists in the first place. Its plausible that we completely fix all biases in the industry and the gender ratio does not change whatsoever, or even gets worse.

Well, really, the bias is the problem, not the disparity. So if we fix the bias, sexual harassment, and sexist behavior, that is a good outcome in and of itself, regardless of the gender ratio.

> You presupposed that the bias is why the disparity exists in the first place

What in my comment tells you that? I made a conscious effort not to bring that up.

> Its plausible that we completely fix all biases in the industry and the gender ratio does not change whatsoever, or even gets worse.

This argument sounds like the global warming denier argument "What if it's not true? What if we make the world a better place to live for nothing?"

It is plausible, but right now we have no way to measure it. We do, on the other hand, know that unconscious bias is affecting prospective female candidates. Why don't we focus on fixing the existing problem first?

My apologies.

> Why don't we focus on fixing the existing problem first?

Sounds good.

The problem with this view is that you assert such unconscious biases exist, but provide no evidence. Moreover it's a classic "she's a witch" kind of accusation. Nobody can refute it because the entire theory is that everyone (or every man) is guilty without even realising it.

You should know that unconscious bias training has been shown to make no difference to outcomes. The science is dubious. Of course, you can always try to fix the theory by claiming the impact is minimal but ... if the impact is so tiny, why worry about it?

Diversity initiatives have long since left the realm of debatable science and fact and turned into a new religion. Science is replaced by faith. I don't think I'm biased, I can't perceive any bias in myself, but I KNOW it's true. I must believe.