Be honest here -- do you _really_ think there's a way to present the argument that --gasp-- men and women might be different in their abilities that _wouldn't_ trigger a meltdown? I think this memo really highlights the fact that there are Some Things You Just Can't Talk About.
No, you can't, because there isn't evidence that biological differences cause people to choose different careers.
Why would put forth a theory that is opposed to a company's values of equality if you don't have proof?
Most evidence points to socialized factors, not biological ones.
If Damore really cares about this issue, he should study biology and make his case there. He will do more to move the debate forward from within the relevant scientific community by gathering evidence than from the outside.
"Most evidence points to socialized factors, not biological ones."
I'm loathe to post in discussions like this because it's so useless, but points like this make me wonder if I'm just living on a different planet. Do you have children? Of different genders? Because literally every parent I know who has both boys and girls has the simple, non-ideologically-biased experience that boys and girls are vastly different, even if you treat them just the same. My youngest is a boy who was surrounded by pink fairy castles and butterfly coloring books until he was 2 or 2,5. And yet the moment he got his hands on a stick, he'd use it as a play weapon.
And from that observation that boys and girls are different, I wouldn't call it a stretch to assume that men and women might not be exactly the same, either. Why is this not blindingly obvious? I mean, how is saying otherwise not the very essence of "post truthiness"?
I have a similar experience with my children. From an extremely early age, my daughter has "tucked in" toys to bed, rocked them to sleep, etc. She was NOT taught to do this, but just did this as play. My sons can't seem to find a toy that cannot be used as a sword or a gun, to my wife's constant annoyance.
Even with the SAME toys, they are used very differently. For example, all of my kids play minecraft. My daughter loves to build houses with kitchens and bathrooms, bake, and invite people into her house for dinners and parties. My sons fight the monsters, build elaborate towers and castles, and play with explosives.
The question is: Who has tucked in your children? You or your wife? Children know which parent has the same sex and they like to play grown up.
Regarding the shooting and the building, are you sure that you have encouraged your daughter the same way as your sons? Have you looked your daughter into the eyes and smiled when she first tried to fight with you?
And even if you were all supportive in that development, it's still not a fair experiment. As long as your children have friends with traditional values and your children watch TV with advertisements that present pink female princesses and male worriers and builders, children are locked down into their roles.
Well this one is easy to answer, because there have been (over the last 6 years) less than say 50 occasions where we didn't put them to bed together; apart from those 50 occasions, my wife travels a few months out of the year, in which periods I put them to bed. So overall, there is no doubt (no matter how subconsciously biased my 'accounting' might be) that I did the majority of the putting to bed. (to bed putting?)
And well of course there's always the no true scottsman argument - no matter what, one can always put the 'true' equal treatment to question. If you're asking whether I ran a double blind experiment in my home, no I didn't. But we're nit talking about a tiny difference in one observation here. We're talking massive differences in dozens of families (from my observations). And this is for a social context where the ratio if dads and mums and the school gate is roughly 50% (yes I count sometimes), and where the lowest level of education is a bachelor's degree and the median is a PhD. Meaning, we're not talking about representative sample of the population, which you would expect to show the same properties as the population overall; we're talking about a population here that shows high levels of gender equally along many metrics. And despite that, the children show (very) unequal behaviour.
"Equal treatment" is not enough to remove socialization factors.
Kids learn from what their parents do. If a boy's dad is a truck driver, he may prefer playing with trucks, even if given a choice of truck vs. doll. The boy could similarly pick up non-verbal gestures from the dad or mom handling a doll vs. a truck.
Research is often inconclusive or difficult to replicate for these reasons.
Putting forth a theory that gender, on its own, impacts career choices is pretty useless. It probably does, but not in a way that we can adequately quantify. It depends on too many things.
"Putting forth a theory that gender, on its own, impacts career choices is pretty useless. It probably does, but not in a way that we can adequately quantify. It depends on too many things."
head explodes
So you're saying it probably exists, but then conclude it doesn't because it can't be quantified how much? I'm not even saying biological differences explain everything, or even a substantial part; just some part, but you deny that any aspect of difference between preferences in men and women is due to biology? I mean I cannot interpret what you're saying in any other way no matter how hard I try - you're saying that if we can't measure something exactly, it doesn't exist?
> you deny that any aspect of difference between preferences in men and women is due to biology?
head explodes
I don't know how you can read what I wrote and come away with that interpretation. I said it probably does.
I said links between biology and occupation are extremely difficult to measure and there isn't research that does so. This is why a lot of research focuses on babies.
The question has been answered. The dimorphism in gender preferences has been demonstrated (a decade ago) in a very similar fashion in primates who are really not inculcated with "traditional values" or "cultural role models":
I don't think that the study directly answers the question. Choosing role models is different from choosing toys.
If anything, the study suggests that women are equally capable of becoming engineers:
>Unlike male monkeys and like girls, female monkeys did not show any reliable preference for either toy type.
If you follow the pattern of the study, then men would reject 'female' jobs but women are interested in both 'male' and 'female' options. Women not only tuck in toys but also like playing with guns.
However, according to that article, male monkeys like to play more. You could argue that IT is all play and thus it's a better environment for men.
Do you teach your children everything, or send them to school / daycare?
> And from that observation that boys and girls are different, I wouldn't call it a stretch to assume that men and women might not be exactly the same, either
It is a giant leap in logic to conclude that a slight difference in average personality must undermine women's professional abilities in software engineering.
There is no scientific consensus that toy preferences are linked to prenatal testosterone or career choice. Those who say they are linked, such as Damore, are pushing scientism– using undercooked research to back up the status quo.
For me personally, my children went to daycare since they were 3 months old, but for people I know who stayed at home until the children were 2.5 or 3, it's the same. So from observation, I don't find your argument convincing.
I mean, let's be clear here - are you saying that if boys and girls would be kept in isolation, well at least not exposed to the outside world which would fill them with tradtional gender role behaviours, until they are say 3 years old, you're claiming that boys and girls would end up both playing with dolls and playing dressup, and play fight with sticks and climb trees, in equal amounts? Or at least that the ratio of boys/girls having a preference for one thing or another would be the same? Because to me that sound just as preposterous as denying climate change, and it requires a similar level of fact distortion to believe.
As to the second point, I'm not going to argue here what this google guy did or did nit say, I didn't read the thing and frankly I don't care much either. But if one would assume (humour me here) that men and women and not the same (as in, have different preferences - not morally or so), how would that not logically lead to some professions being more preferred by one gender? It would be an extraordinary claim that despite differences, the outcome would be that every profession had people to a ratio matching society in general, along many axises - gender, skin color, etc.
I realize that it's easy to spin my argument as saying that some people are good managers and others can run very fast and that's just the natural order of thing, but that's not what I'm saying at all, so let's all spare ourselves the effort of going there.
And then finally, if some people with certain traits prefer one thing over another, is it then not perfectly obvious and even inevitable that there will be more people of that group doing that thing, and just as inevitable that that does not mean that those who are not like that, aren't automatically unqualified? If you combine two normal distributions, with different modes, isn't the outcome then a mathematical certainty? Including an explanation for the statistically expected properties of each individual?
I'm not saying anything here about software engineering, just trying to establish a baseline to understand your argument. Because you seem to be saying that there can be no differences ever, which is so obviously non-intuitive and irrational that I can't believe this would actually be your standpoint.
> you seem to be saying that there can be no differences ever, which is so obviously non-intuitive and irrational that I can't believe this would actually be your standpoint
Where did I say that?
The notion that either biology or environment determines everything is outdated, according to one environmental biologist [1]. She says modern research is based on the view that "neurological traits develop over time under the simultaneous influence of epigenetic, genetic and environmental influences. Everything about humans involves both nature and nurture"
That said, it's a huge leap to assume that sex differences can determine whether or not someone is likely to be a good software engineer. You said you didn't read it. Well, Damore wrote this,
"I'm simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership."
"This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading."
He goes on to claim that there is a scientific consensus showing this, however, it's easy to see from his sources that there is no scientific basis for that claim.
"There is no scientific consensus that toy preferences are linked to prenatal testosterone or career choice"
This is weasel wording for "there are no difference". But just in case, let me ask flat out - do you think there are any differences between men and women in what sort of activities and/or behaviour they prefer to do, take part in or be around? If so, would it not be reasonable to assume that this would result in different preferences in job choice?
"Everything about humans involves both nature and nurture"
Well yeah that was obvious I thought, but at least we agree on this. So then, if preferences and behaviour are at least partially explained by biology, does it then not follow that men and women would have different preferences? Otherwise, to reach parity, the 'nurture' part should cancel out the nature part.
Again, I'm not going to be lured into saying something specific about software, but wouldn't it follow naturally from what you said (which is the uncontested scientific consensus) that women would, in the aggregate, prefer some other professions than men do, in the aggregate? Furthermore, even if you for some reason say no, do you find it offensive when people say so? Or do you feel that how people answer reflects on them as a person? Because to me, it's like liking hot dogs or not - something that does absolutely nothing to the way I think about someone. Whereas I get the impression that simple, factual things like this is really an identity thing for some - which I just cannot wrap my head around.
>> "There is no scientific consensus that toy preferences are linked to prenatal testosterone or career choice"
> This is weasel wording for "there are no difference".
Demanding research back up your claims is weasel wording? Okay..
> do you think there are any differences between men and women in what sort of activities and/or behaviour they prefer to do, take part in or be around?
Yup.
> If so, would it not be reasonable to assume that this would result in different preferences in job choice?
Yes, but not to the extent the differences affect gender capability overall in roles like tech or leadership, which is what Damore was talking about. That's far from the scientific consensus.
> does it then not follow that men and women would have different preferences?
Biology can play a role in forming different choices of two men. It does not follow that all men would be more suited, on average, than women for roles in tech or leadership.
> I'm not going to be lured into saying something specific about software
Not sure why you feel lured into saying something specific about tech or leadership. If you don't think there are differences there between men and women on average, then we agree.
> wouldn't it follow naturally from what you said (which is the uncontested scientific consensus) that women would, in the aggregate, prefer some other professions than men do, in the aggregate?
Perhaps, but research has yet to show it. I wouldn't assume this is true for things like tech or leadership.
> do you find it offensive when people say so?
No, however it is misleading to say there is scientific consensus about something when there isn't. If I had this kind of discussion with Damore in person, like some at Google did, and he persisted in believing that science says something it didn't, then I would believe he has some ulterior agenda. That politics was a primary agenda of his paper says something. Politics shouldn't be the basis for scientific discussion, in my opinion.
> Or do you feel that how people answer reflects on them as a person?
Everything does. Not much you can do about that is there.
> I get the impression that simple, factual things like this is really an identity thing for some - which I just cannot wrap my head around
I don't know how science is an identity. It can be discussed on its evidence, methods and conclusions. Identity doesn't need to play into it. Science can definitely be misconstrued. But I would say today's top peer-reviewed journals are all of high quality, and if you find a scientist who's published in that sphere, they can give a better overview of this subject than Damore did.
But it would likely cover topics which would suggest differences in gender. This entire debate is absurd. The link between gender and behavior is beyond plausible. Something as simple as psychological effects of being physically smaller than another gender could affect behavior; there are hormonal differences, and we know that decision making is influenced by hormone response. If physical differences between men and women are so obvious, why can't people accept the possibility of sexually dimorphism in psychology? How can one claim to be rational or objective while denying such a possibility?
> why can't people accept the possibility of sexually dimorphism in psychology? How can one claim to be rational or objective while denying such a possibility?
I don't see people denying the possibility that biology plays a role. I see people saying it hasn't been determined to play a role in determining which sex is better or more likely to choose complex modern professions such as software engineering. Damore makes it sound as if this has already been demonstrated by science:
"I'm simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership."
"This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading."
The latter is a conclusory statement. Meanwhile, he continues to claim that his essay is fully backed by research. He denies that anyone has made a proper rebuttal, despite many scientists directly refuting his claims, including one he cited.
But there is nothing to rebut for a scientist without an agenda. Look around you; the plan of egalitarianism transitioned from experiment to propaganda decades ago. We do have scientific evidence of predictable gender differences in ability, the issue is that people like you are SO DESPERATE to deny these cracks in equality theory that such research into gender or racial differences has become taboo. Which means the scientific establishment has been biased and subjective in handling this topic.
Want more proof of bias? The google letter writer was attacked for his writing style and choice of discussion venue, not the contents of the letter. His subject was taboo and so people are still adamant about not discussing it, because in their mindminds, the science is settled. Thats the propaganda talking.
We can give people equal treatment before the law, but we need to recognize that differences in hiring ratios for not have to be indicitave of race or gender bias. It is possible for the numbers to be an emergent effect of group differences.
> But there is nothing to rebut for a scientist without an agenda
Science is the right place to have this discussion, not politics. Scientists have theories, not agendas. True scientists are not ideologues.
> The google letter writer was attacked for his writing style and choice of discussion venue, not the contents of the letter
People have pointed to flaws within both his conclusions and his writing style. His defendants first claimed that media is mischaracterizing what he said; they said they do not understand why people are upset. Then, when someone starts citing his words, Damorians complain they're cherry picking, being nitpicky, or being a grammar nazi.
The way one writes a scientific argument is important. Peer reviewed research goes through many drafts before it's even presented to the public. Thereafter, it can still be the subject of much scrutiny. One cannot simultaneously claim that Damore's paper is both,
(1) Representative of a scientific consensus, and
(2) Undeserving of critique for his writing style simply because he didn't intend for it to be released
> people are still adamant about not discussing it
I find this comment ridiculous as we're discussing it right now, and this has been national news for weeks with hundreds of articles written on the subject, commentary from scientists, etc. If you mean "not discussing in in the right way", then I don't know what to tell you. You don't get to decide how someone else makes their arguments. "Why don't you see it my way?" is not a useful debate strategy.
> We can give people equal treatment before the law, but we need to recognize that differences in hiring ratios for not have to be indicitave of race or gender bias. It is possible for the numbers to be an emergent effect of group differences.
Many do recognize that racism or sexism don't always play a role. I don't work at Google, but, I don't see women assuming sexism every time a male coworker gives a bad review of a prospective female candidate. The question here is whether affirmative action is an appropriate strategy for reducing gender imbalances. I understand many conservatives feel it's not. But, when asked how to correct for various socialization factors (not all of which are sexist or racist -- they can just be habit), their solutions would seem to keep the status quo. One of Damore's suggestions is to "reduce empathy". I can't think anything more inhumane.
Not sure what got you downvoted. There's even a South Park episode about it where Kyle has a surgery to become a black basketball player, which kind of goes in the same direction.
I was just thinking about height. Of course biology affects career choice, and a lot of other things. Doesn't mean men are engineers and women are nurses, but to pretend biology doesn't affect anything is more than hilarious. Which makes people who think that laughable, and they probably don't like it. But hey, you can't prove obedience by agreeing that the sky is blue or a circle is round, it's gotta be something more, like "biology doesn't affect career choice". So whatevs, if it's not that it's something else ^_^
