Oh golly, a quote taken without context. Now read it with context:
>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 principles 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.
That quote does not, in any way, show he "clearly believes men are better at the kind of programming". That section is about the belief that those who work hard should be rewarded, and he does not want Google's culture to change that.
>He thinks women should be casually in the game like doing part time work
This is just plain false. In the actual quote, he says he wants to make Google's culture more inclusive by "endorsing part time work [because it] can keep more women in tech". This does not mean he believes "women should be casually in the game". He is suggesting changes to Google's culture that could support woman's needs (for example, part time would support mothers who want to devote time caring for their children).
Why do you see the need to defend your position with obviously false interpretations? It only takes a casual glance to dispel them. You are reinforcing my point that you are arguing against a phantom of your own invention, not the Google's authors arguments.
But that's not the author's conclusion, that's your conclusion. You are imagining what the author's thought process is and claiming your resulting conclusion is his resulting conclusion. How do you know how that's actually how he thinks? You don't have the ability to say that.
What the author does say, is that statistical evidence shows men and women have differing goals and life outcomes. Researchers have found that Men have a higher drive for status, which in the author's words "leads men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership". The author argues this could explain why we don’t see women in top leadership positions.
Nowhere does the author believe "women can't work as hard." He suggests that men are more willing than women to take stressful positions, which may explain sex differences in top leadership positions.
> how do you interpret what he said?
Honestly, I feel like you are focusing on minor nitpicks and ignoring the core points of the treatise. I view core goal of the treatise is to improve diversity of opinions at google. It's covered in the tl;dr section, which I did copy below.
* Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.
* This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.
* The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.
* Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression
* Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression
* 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. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.
I do think it is easier for a critic to nitpick rather than address the author's core argument.
It's not nitpicking, it's called connecting the dots. His main point is far less interesting than the points I outlined. He's using statistics an research as a tool for making excuses for the current situation. I don't believe he is genuine. It's like phrenology all over again.
>His main point is far less interesting than the points I outlined.
To me, it seems like you aren't able to respond to his claim (suppression of views at Google), therefore you won't do so.
>It's like phrenology all over again
Comparing modern science to phrenology is a false equivalence, because phrenology was invented 200 years ago before the implementation of established scientific protocols, statistical sample sizes, and significance testing, peer review before publishing. The same issue applies to psychoanalysis, it's not backed up by statistics.
>He's using statistics an research as a tool for making excuses for the current situation.
The glaring problem with your view is that these scientific studies:
* Are performed using well established scientific methods
* Have very large (N>500,000) sample sizes
* Meet the standard for statistically significant by orders of magnitude
* Were subject to peer review
* Passed peer review and were published in reputable scientific journals
* Are replicated in other studies done by independent scientists using their own sets of data
I.e. they're well done and follow the modern science method, the same methodology we use to find drugs that cure diseases or report the discovery of new atomic particles. It's extremely well established, and agreed upon by tens of thousands of scientists. And if you do read the scientific papers, they do strongly support the conclusions of sex-based differences in the brain.
His position is backed by science. Yours is not, and you now you have resorted to claiming the science is irrelevant. It's very sad to see educated people make science-denial claims like yours.
Comparing to phrenology is completely appropriate. Phrenology was used to justify certain ideology. You don't think in 100 years the standards won't improve and we won't laugh at people who used this research to justify certain ideological views? His logic is flawed because he has a fixed mindset, which I believe is a logical dead end with little evidence to back it up. He is on the wrong side of history, and I make that opinion strongly.
200-year-old research on phrenology was supported by dozens of data points. Today's research on cognitive sex-differences is supported by billions of data points.
>little [sic] evidence to back it up
And where is the evidence you've brought up that disproves the current scientific consensus? That is, where is your evidence disproving our massive trove of data showing cognitive differences between men and women?
His position is backed by evidence from thousands of scientific studies performed over the past century. Yours is not.
>[something about you predicting the future]
Now you've dropped below rational discourse and resorted to name calling. Do you see how trivial it is to turn your own argument against you?
You don't think in 100 years we won't laugh at people like you who ignore reality to justify certain ideological views? Your logic is flawed because you have a fixed mindset, which I believe is a logical dead end with little evidence to back it up. You are on the wrong side of history, and I make that opinion strongly.
I doubt the scientists would back his position. It's a gross misunderstanding of their research. He takes the research and jumps a huge gap to get to his conclusion.
>I doubt the scientists would back his position. It's a gross misunderstanding of their research. He takes the research and jumps a huge gap to get to his conclusion.
And what might his conclusion be? You don't even bother stating what his conclusion is. You don't even bother providing evidence as to why it is a "gross misunderstanding" of research.
>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 principles 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.
That quote does not, in any way, show he "clearly believes men are better at the kind of programming". That section is about the belief that those who work hard should be rewarded, and he does not want Google's culture to change that.
>He thinks women should be casually in the game like doing part time work
This is just plain false. In the actual quote, he says he wants to make Google's culture more inclusive by "endorsing part time work [because it] can keep more women in tech". This does not mean he believes "women should be casually in the game". He is suggesting changes to Google's culture that could support woman's needs (for example, part time would support mothers who want to devote time caring for their children).
Why do you see the need to defend your position with obviously false interpretations? It only takes a casual glance to dispel them. You are reinforcing my point that you are arguing against a phantom of your own invention, not the Google's authors arguments.