
Brief thoughts on the “Google memo” - kareemm
https://juliagalef.com/2017/08/08/brief-thoughts-on-the-google-memo/
======
maehwasu
> However, his overall claim that there exist personality differences between
> genders that differentially affect men’s and women’s interest in and
> aptitude for tech jobs, is what people are mostly getting mad at. And that’s
> a claim that seems plausibly true. Not obviously true, but also not a claim
> you would be justified in emphatically dismissing as false, as many people
> have, including Google, who called them “incorrect assumptions.”

This is quite well-put, and gets at the heart of what pisses people off.

There exists a large set of hypotheses which are plausible, and not just
"spaghetti-monster God" plausible, but "> 20% chance this is the case"
plausible.

Many of those hypotheses, however, are shouted down as "racist", "sexist", or
some other "ist" when they come up, and all of their possible costs are then
listed in a litany, with all possible benefits ignored.

It's intellectually stifling, and I'm no longer interested in enabling people
who use that kind of rhetoric.

~~~
someguydave
>It's intellectually stifling, and I'm no longer interested in enabling people
who use that kind of rhetoric.

Not only is it stifling, it is tearing our society apart. If a person believes
one of these "forbidden hypotheses" they sudden find themselves to be the
target of irrational hatred and hostile actions.

Everyone must understand that demonizing people creates demons who may one day
seek violent revenge.

~~~
tajen
> violent revenge

If not violent, we're creating the next generation of bigots.

The current people identifying with James Damore (=men who were promised they
would be selected on skills) are as young as 15 years old. Do we expect them
to be inclusive during the remaining 45 years before their retirement?

I don't even understand how I should adapt my expectations for career. If
competence isn't the criteria anymore, what is, then? Do opportunities now
depend on our ethnicity, gender and religion? "Sorry, we know the situation is
unfair for males, we're only looking for males who don't mind never being
promoted and who know how to shut up." Should I choose an education based on
the male/female balance in that sector? In which direction should a white male
adapt?

~~~
honestoHeminway
Accomplished Diplomacy is the skill of choice. If you can manipulate all those
political warriors and fanatics to support propelling you on - against there
own interests, you may have a career still.

Think of it, less like a race of skilled people- and more, like rising through
the ranks of a political party.

~~~
slindz
But I chose computers because I like clear cut solutions and the lack of
bullshit......

~~~
honestoHeminway
The fundamental problem is- you where to succesfull. Society moved into your
flat, and with society came the priest-caste and the various lords of various
thiefdoms.

------
avaer
> This topic is harmful to people and we shouldn’t discuss it

It would be so very refreshing to hear a company just say "let's not throw
incendiary memos around at work; it upsets people", instead of feeding the
fire with a rationalized social stance.

Actually, I _have_ seen great CEO's defuse situations like this. I don't
understand why it's not done more often.

~~~
Aloha
I take umbrage that its actually harmful - I'd totally get behind the idea
that its a gross distraction.

I really believe truly that each gender (because of biology and societal
gender roles) has been given some unique problems solving gifts - and that
we're shoving square pegs in round holes to gloss that over - but there is no
universality here - I've seen men that are amazing at 'people' problems - and
women who are fantastic at 'thing' problems - gender in my opinion is just
another factor - like experience, knowledge, personality, education (and even
age - often in engineering older _is_ better) and others that factor into
whether someone is suitable for a role.

Right now, however, we as a society are not.. 'evolved' enough to discuss
stuff like this as rational adults - it turns into a very personal argument
very very quickly and ends up doing more harm than the (very real, but) small
good that can be accomplished by taking into account what is inherent to us.

~~~
vanderreeah
On the contrary, it's a sign of our "evolution" that sexist ideas like the one
in your second paragraph are now increasingly subject to fierce rebuttal.

~~~
Aloha
There is a different between refuting (proving it wrong) and rebutting
(stating it is wrong) an idea - I've seen many rebuttals, but few refutals.

People being different should never be used as an brickbat to claim
inferiority - all people are different, and equality is one of the most
important values to be found.

~~~
vanderreeah
Totally agree - but in my opinion, and in the knowledge that this will receive
a lot of downvotes, such statements don't require refuting, only rebutting. In
my opinion, again, only statements which bear at least a nugget of rationality
require the expenditure of one's own rationality in the effort to refute them.

~~~
Aloha
I can argue my statements (and the underlying memo) do have a nugget of
rationality - we can debate on that.

Also, I'm pleased to see you didnt take downvotes either.

~~~
vanderreeah
Your civility is making it hard for me to pigeon-hole you as an unreasonable
reactionary. Please desist.

------
mc32
I previously mentioned that in a previous life, I worked myself thru school
--somewhat blue collar jobs.

People, predominantly older black and white, under-educated, had quite a few
views people who go beyond high school might consider offensive or ignorant
and stereotyping: about race, aptitude, gender, sexuality, weight,
promiscuity, prowess, etc.

You know what --people worked, they joked, occasionally scuffled --and got
over it. They made their money, they saved, they retired.

It could have been better. It could have been more professional. It could have
been nice and bland (in a good way)

You know one thing people didn't shy away from was strong opinions on things,
one way or the other. No one got fired for cursing, or being un-PC. You'd get
sacked for theft, but they called their managers and bosses asses all the
time. I can't imagine Googlers calling their bosses arseholes [even if
deserved]

I sometimes miss blue collar candor. Of course, when you're in it, it gets
tiresome, redundant and unproductive.

------
santoshalper
I find the idealism present in this thread both sweet and optimistic, and
simultaneously incredibly naive. In a way, it's SV/startup culture in a
nutshell. "Anything is possible if we work together and use our brains!"....
"Move fast and break things!"... "What could possibly go wrong?"

The reality is that we are only a generation from a time when not hiring black
people or women for jobs requiring intelligence or competence was standard
operating procedure and saying out loud "You really think hiring a
black/female engineer is a good idea?" would not have been considered
especially controversial. Our parents (or grandparents for some of you) lived
through this time, saw the incredible damage it did to millions of people, and
wisely decided to seal it away with a powerful ward (laws + social taboo).
This is of course an oversimplification of a process that started long ago and
is not finished - but it will have to suffice as a metaphor.

Keep in mind, this process was (and is) a hard fought war with many casualties
- friendships, families, and of course actual lost lives. When I chastise my
73 year old father for not being progressive enough, he reminds me that his
mother, who grew up during the depression in the south, did not consider black
people to be human. His outspoken support for civil rights caused a major rift
in their relationship that never healed before she died.

Of course there are costs to this ward of taboos - as well as the similar ones
we are presently building around LGBT people. Any time an avenue of discussion
is cut off, we are all slightly poorer for it. I would argue however that we
know what is behind that ward - awful things that hurt people - and I would
argue that right now, it is just not worth it. Maybe in a century we will be
ready to have more frank conversations about sex, gender, and race, but I am
pretty sure we are not ready now.

~~~
freetime2
That seems to me like a pretty length way of saying you agree with option 2:

 _Say “This topic is harmful to people and we shouldn’t discuss it” (a little
draconian maybe, but at least intellectually honest)_

~~~
izacus
You should read the post again and perhaps use a bit of generosity this time.

~~~
thinkfurther
But that's all that is there. It says "I would argue for X" and then doesn't
argue for it, just claims that it must be so. So it is just that _minus_
intellectual honesty.

------
gfodor
The core of what he is asking, and failed to drilled into sufficiently in my
view, is exactly what the OP says: what % of the gender gap in various fields
can be explained (within that field specifically) due to demographically
correlated population preferences vs other factors.

I think there are two unforced errors:

\- Trying to tie things back to causation due to biological factors gave
cherry pickers sufficient ammo to snipe him as some kind of supremacist,
sexist, bigot, whatever. Explaining causation was unnecessary for his
argument. All that was needed was highlighting statistical correlations
measured on demographics which could influence career choice. The question
then reduces down to "do these correlations actually influence career choice
or not" not anything about causation. From there, it's easy to ask "if so, how
much? Zero is an acceptable answer."

\- He should have made a good faith argument of what the world looks like if
you assume these demographically correlated attributes have no effect. It was
important that he really highlight other potential explanations, since to
people who disagree with his premise fundamentally, "extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence." Once illustrated, leave it to readers to
decide on the absurdity or validity of that counter example. Some would
consider it a sufficient "proof" by counter example to make his point, others
would not be convinced but at least could digest his argument more likely as
one of good faith not bigotry.

In general, a lack of empathy for the lens through which his biggest, most
vocal critic will read his argument was his undoing. The best path to having
this discussion (regardless of merit) would be to continually buttress the
argument on all sides with qualifiers and signs of good faith to those who
will read it in the worst possible light. He did some of that, but not nearly
enough.

~~~
Griffinsauce
I'd wager a lack of empathy is the source of most of humanity's problems at
this moment.

~~~
vlehto
I think there is lack of trust forbidding that empathy. If you don't trust
that this guy has good intentions, it's very very hard to have any empathy
towards him.

------
matt4077
Yes, there may or may not be biological differences. Or cultural differences.
In fact, it's almost certainly both, and it really doesn't matter.

The single most important argument people like this ex-Googler never seem to
understand is that they're confusing what is with what ought to be.

If there's one defining characteristic of humanity, it's our ability to
overcome biology (the 'hardware',so to speak), using our unique 'software' of
self-awareness and abstract reasoning.

Even if there were jobs that women were less qualified for, or had less
interest in, we would want lower the difference, with equal representation if
possible.

Take politics as an easy example: it's a profession that is closely associated
with a bunch of stereotypical 'male' characteristics, such as the pursuit of
power and the willingness to engage in conflict.

BUT: even if women as a group had a lower propensity to seek elected office,
they still have an interest in being represented somewhat proportionally.

That argument easily extends to leadership positions in the private sector,
and it has become relevant for the IT industry because of the growing power of
technology over all aspects of life.

~~~
gfodor
> Even if there were jobs that women were less qualified for, or had less
> interest in, we would want lower the difference, with equal representation
> if possible.

I agree that a 50/50 split in men and female software engineers seems like a
desirable thing. If it existed today I would not consider it surprising, and I
would consider it to be a great thing. That said: is this also true for
bricklayers and construction workers, who are basically 100% male? What about
nurses or child care givers, who are predominantly female?

How do you decide which jobs that have gender skew warrant specific attention
towards a balanced gender ratio? All of them? The ones that don't involve
physical labor? In sports we accept men on average have higher physical
strength and endurance than women, hence league separation, so perhaps gender
skew is expected here and uncontroversial for the same reasons? What about the
jobs that are particularly high paying or high status? Should it be the case
that everyone should get an equal share of the pie of value for these
desirable fields, but less desirable fields do not matter because of their
high supply? Perhaps its just the jobs that just don't seem to make any sense
as to why gender would skew them that are the ones we should worry about?

I think answering this question concretely and consistently is a pre-requisite
to having a constructive debate about this subject. There is nothing to me
particularly special or interesting about software engineering in particular
that makes it stand out among other fields that are heavily gender skewed that
do not seem to cause nearly as much debate, other than that it seems counter-
intuitive that there _should_ be any such imbalance, given the nature of the
work. Perhaps that is enough, a "gut check" if a field should be gender
dominated. If the "gut check" says "that doesn't make sense", we should strive
for equality.

But here we are, back at a facet of the original memo's thesis: when those gut
checks pass they are probably based upon internalized models we have for
gender preferences. If you are being uncharitable, stereotypes. If you are
being nice, statistically significant correlations of preferences tied to
gender, backed by evidence.

~~~
matt4077
> is this also true for bricklayers and construction workers...?

No, it is not–and I tried to make that argument: you want female CEOs and
politicians and software engineers not (just) for the sake of each of these
CEOs and engineers. You want it because these roles come with power over other
people, either directly, because they make the law or they design the software
we all use. And also, quite generically, they are well-paid, and money is also
power.

There are, obviously, no absolutes in this: I wouldn't for a second doubt that
I, as a white male can be adequately represented by a black congresswoman.

But I can easily see that, for example, more women at the CXO level could lead
to better company-financed childcare.

I think what's important to mention is that this isn't a zero-sum game where
any advances by women create equal and opposite losses for men: when women
fail to advance to the level that their skills would usually warrant (not just
because they didn't get that top job, but also because they got the impression
that they should rather go into nursing than medicine etc.), then we are, as a
society, letting these skills go to waste.

To see this mechanism, just consider what would happen if we prohibited
everyone born in the summer months to work: would that make it easier for the
other 3/4 to find a job? Of course not: their loss of income would result in a
loss of demand, and therefore jobs, of equal proportions.

This effect, together with the idea that higher diversity seems to also result
in better performance of companies, should more than compensate any first-
order losses that better representation may initially bring.

And, specifically to your question about bricklayers etc.: of course nobody
complains about not having access to something that they don't want. But women
being underrepresented in some of these labor jobs doesn't mean they're
getting a better deal than men: the female overrepresentation in nursing alone
probably makes up for it, considering how many nurses there are. And I'd even
say us men have at some point collectively decided that housework is rather
unattractive, and women do the vast majority of that.

~~~
gfodor
By your separation of "direct vs indirect" power it seems hard to know where
the line is. Arguably, my barista has more power over me than any software
engineer, because my barista can poison me if they so choose. It seems like
any argument can be made that if someone is in a field that can influence
other human beings they have power, so it seems hard to pin down. (though i
agree some roles are clearly power oriented, like executives and political
roles.)

> "And I'd even say us men have at some point collectively decided that
> housework is rather unattractive, and women do the vast majority of that."

This to me is a pretty huge reach (and seems vaguely sexist) but if you accept
this then I don't see how you can not just apply what you said here to other
fields. Do you think women seek out housework?

------
ng12
"Intellectual honesty" \-- that's the phrase I couldn't think of. It seems to
me the stronger the condemnation the greater degree to which his arguments
were misrepresented.

------
retube
I don't understand why it's such big news. No matter what's in it, it's just
some random guy who happens to work at google. It's not a senior exec, it's
not an official google position, it's.... nothing. I just don't understand why
what this guy thinks warrants discussion?

~~~
VarFarYonder
It's not about the guy. It's about what he said. And what he said is highly
polarizing.

~~~
hangonhn
But anyone can say or write something idiotic and inflammatory (just for the
sake of argument, let's assumed that the memo was such), would it have become
this huge thing if he didn't work at Google? If not, then why is Google placed
on such a pedestal and why do we lionize and in turn pillory Googlers? I think
part of the problem is the place Google occupies in the popular imagination.
It's sort of this lightning rod and poster child of Silicon Valley. Had this
happen at most company, it would have simply been an HR issue at that company.

~~~
liaukovv
It sparkled a discussion because it wasn't idiotic. It makes sense and it
causes cognitive dissonance among certain parts of the population.

------
angersock
Author does good here, but perpetuates the same mistake most people talking
about the memo do:

There were additional sections after the "hypothesis", which had specific
policy suggestions--most of which were aimed at helping the situation for a
broader class of people and for improving visibility into the process. That
somehow keeps getting missed.

~~~
troupe
And he also pointed out that people are scared to actually talk about these
things at Google. Considering he was fired, that seemed like a pretty on the
mark observation.

~~~
VarFarYonder
If worked at Google and thought the evidence suggests that due to natural
difference in the sexes, women are less likely to seek a job in tech -- that's
not an ethical opinion on whether that is as it should be, but an opinion
(whether right or wrong) on how things are -- then I'd be more scared than
ever of voicing that opinion.

~~~
troupe
Yes, and if the evidence he was using was wrong the best thing Google can do
is to explain why it is wrong to change the perception. Instead, they are
basically telling people that if they look at the evidence and reach a similar
conclusion, they stand a chance of being fired for talking about it.

If someone points to the fact that there are many more blacks in the NFL than
can be accounted if football talent is randomly distributed in the population
and points to some evidence that maybe there are biological differences behind
those numbers, the worst thing you can do is try to punish them for thinking.
If they are using bad data, address that. If they are making a logical error,
address that. But you can't just try to punish them because they looked at the
statistics and the evidence and reached a conclusion that you don't like, but
don't want to explain why you think it is wrong.

------
pavlov
The real tragedy in the discussion is this assumption, quoted from the OP:

 _" His hypothesis implies that personality differences mean a smaller
percentage of women will be interested in and/or qualified for a Google job
than men"_

Empathy and social intelligence are actively disqualifying factors for a job
at Google, or software in general? That is so wrong on so many levels.

I really like Bob Wyman's take on this:

[https://medium.com/@bobwyman/back-in-the-1970s-when-i-
first-...](https://medium.com/@bobwyman/back-in-the-1970s-when-i-first-got-in-
the-software-business-i-remember-there-being-a-much-higher-f70e8197fbd9)

~~~
freetime2
I completely agree that communication and people skills are necessary to be a
great programmer.

But consider that in order to get a job as a programmer, I first had to spend
4 years taking relatively intensive courses in math and computer science (even
longer if you go back to elective courses in high school), and empathy was not
an important factor in getting through my coursework or examinations. Sure
there are other paths into the industry, but no matter how you get here, the
fact is that learning to code is intensive.

Consider also that a large portion of the population can't pass a FizzBuzz
programming interview (at least if Jeff Atwood is to be believed). And if you
can't write FizzBuzz, no amount of empathy in the world is going to make you a
good programmer.

So yes, "soft skills" are tremendously important. But "hard skills" take
priority. And whatever the cause may be, the fact is that right now there is a
larger proportion of men than women who possess those hard skills.

~~~
pg314
> But consider that in order to get a job as a programmer, I first had to
> spend 4 years taking relatively intensive courses in math and computer
> science (even longer if you go back to elective courses in high school), and
> empathy was not an important factor in getting through my coursework or
> examinations. Sure there are other paths into the industry, but no matter
> how you get here, the fact is that learning to code is intensive.

If you look at the number of maths majors compared to the number of computer
science majors, this argument isn't very persuasive. The former had more than
40% women in 2012, the latter less than 20%.

[1] [http://www.randalolson.com/2014/06/14/percentage-of-
bachelor...](http://www.randalolson.com/2014/06/14/percentage-of-bachelors-
degrees-conferred-to-women-by-major-1970-2012/)

~~~
freetime2
Couple of thoughts on the percentage of female math majors...

First - a significant percentage of math majors eventually go into teaching. I
wasn't able to find the exact percentage, but 3 of the 5 most common jobs for
math majors are in teaching. Second - the types of math courses that
undergraduate CS majors take is different from the types of courses that math
majors take - especially math majors who are planning to go into teaching. CS
degrees tend to focus more on discrete math and algorithms, whereas as math
degrees focus on... well... I don't actually know what math degrees require.
This is pure anecdote (and probably bound to piss off a few math majors), but
I remember taking a group theory course in my 4th year and all of the math
majors in the course seemed to struggle far more than the CS majors in the
course.

So if you consider that math major often means teacher, then no I don't think
that data point about 40% of math majors being female does much to dispel
traditional gender stereotypes.

[https://datausa.io/story/06-16-2016_math-
teachers/](https://datausa.io/story/06-16-2016_math-teachers/)

------
chmike
> 2\. Say “This topic is harmful to people and we shouldn’t discuss it” (a
> little draconian maybe, but at least intellectually honest)

This is so wrong in so many ways. Don't call back in question that the
universe was created in 7 day, that the earth is flat, global warming etc.
Because it is harmful to believers ?

It's not just a difference in personality. It's a difference in behavioral and
intellectual capability. Denying or repressing it is plain stupid. This essay
proves that something is totally wrong in the way people handle this issue.
But this is sadly not a surprize.

~~~
freetime2
I think it's fair for an employer to say to its employees. After all, you are
there to get work done, not solve all of the problems in the world.

But in this particular issue I think that Google actually opened the door by
implementing a diversity program that favors one group of people over another
(note: I personally have no issues with affirmative action programs, but let's
at least be intellectually honest about what they are), and forcing employees
to sit through special training. Now he is complaining about workplace
conditions. And firing employees for complaining about workplace conditions is
not ok (and potentially illegal in California).

------
DataWorker
What happened to the good old days of vim vs emacs?

The real basilisk is believing basilisks exist. Heterodoxy strengthens us all
and if you chose to exclude the smart people because their thoughts are
unhelpful, or patently offensive, you might find yourself without any allies
when you need them most.

~~~
nippples
> What happened to the good old days of vim vs emacs?

Whoa, whoa. Are you trying to start WW3?

~~~
kobeya
Nah, it's just a precursor skirmish for spaces-vs-tabs.

~~~
niuzeta
Okay, now we're talking about Armageddon. Why bring it up when one option is
clearly better than the other?

~~~
teddyh
Neither! [http://nickgravgaard.com/elastic-
tabstops/](http://nickgravgaard.com/elastic-tabstops/)

------
babesh
I think very few men even if they agree with point 1, would dare advocate that
at their workplaces for fear of getting fired.

------
dvfjsdhgfv
> However, his overall claim that there exist personality differences between
> genders that differentially affect men’s and women’s interest in and
> aptitude for tech jobs, is what people are mostly getting mad at. And that’s
> a claim that seems plausibly true. Not obviously true, but also not a claim
> you would be justified in emphatically dismissing as false, as many people
> have, including Google, who called them “incorrect assumptions.”

I'm sorry, the last sentence is not true - Pichai was very careful not to say
which parts of the memo were "incorrect assumptions".

------
_pmf_
Note that Sundar Pichai is very clearly in category 2, i.e. he does not
dismiss the memo as untruthful or expressly voices disagreement.

What irks me is that the discussion in the main stream media ignores the fact
that someone was fired for writing relevant information in a forum explicitely
introduced by the employer to anonymously voicing workplace opinions (a "safe
space"), not by "circulating a memo". Maybe discussions in this forum can be
restricted to arguments about whether the fried chicken was particularly bad
today.

~~~
freetime2
_What irks me is that the discussion in the main stream media ignores the fact
that someone was fired for writing relevant information in a forum explicitely
introduced by the employer to anonymously voicing workplace opinions (a "safe
space"), not by "circulating a memo"._

Citation on this point? I have been following the news on this story pretty
closely and have not been able to find out much about how the "memo" was
initially "published". I agree that if true, this would be relevant to whether
or not he deserved to be fired.

~~~
_pmf_
Search for "The document was first posted to an internal company forum". I
cannot find an authoritative source, but it seems much more plausible to me
than James Damore mailing it to the global Google email list. If you know
enterprisey social networks, posting on some forum there might send
notifications to subscribers (IBM Connections does this, for example), but
stating "James Damore wrote a memo" is very misleading.

Now, I don't deny that Damore is somewhat of a (smart and polite) troll, but
he played fair within the rules set by Google by posting to a forum dedicated
to workplace issues. His message to SJWs is clearly that he hates the game,
not the players, but Google responds by banning an opposing player instead of
honestly acknowledging the fact that they have a large part of the workforce
with a conservative mindset who are silenced by company policy.

------
shadowmint
> His hypothesis implies that personality differences mean a smaller
> percentage of women will be interested in and/or qualified for a Google job
> than men, but that doesn’t mean any of the women at Google fall below the
> “qualified” threshold.

I think its fair to say that not everyone shares that view.

This is probably the key to controversy in my mind. You could read it that
way.

However, you can choose to interpret the sections about 'Hiring practices
which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing
the false negative rate' and 'Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive
and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in
conscientiousness, which is required for much of the drudgery and maintenance
work characteristic of a mature company.' as 'some people we're hiring don't
cut it, we should hire more white men'.

That's not what it says. You don't have to interpret it that way.

...but clearly _a lot of people did_.

My advice? Stop defending it. You can talk about these issues _without_ this
memo.

Forget the memo. The memo was stupid and misguided. Releasing it internally at
work was unreservedly stupid. ...but what's done is done.

Do you want to spend the next year talking about the memo, and the specifics
of 'did it or did it not _technically_ say such and such', or the actual
issues he was trying to raise?

~~~
imron
> 'Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity”
> candidates by decreasing the false negative rate'

Imagine you have 100 people applying for 10 positions, and the demographic
breakdown of applicants (based on current trends in tech) is 20 women and 80
men.

Let's also say that being male or female doesn't give you any special
aptitude, and that the aptitude of all candidates regardless of gender follows
a normal distribution along a bell-curve.

Because of that and because of Google's standards, let's say that only 25% of
all candidates have the skills and qualifications necessary to work at Google,
which breaks down to 5 women and 20 men.

Once again assuming a normal distribution with neither men nor women over or
underrepresented in skill level, then without any sort of correcting for
diversity, candidates would need to be in the top 10% of all candidates to
receive a job offer (10 / 100). , this is 2 women and 8 men, leaving us with a
false negative rate (i.e. people skilled enough to work at Google but who get
declined) of 3 women and 12 men.

But with an eye for diversity, Google decides to hire all the qualified women
(5), with the remaining positions taken by men, so 5 and 5, a 50/50 split.

Each of the candidates is qualified and capable of working for Google, but the
false negative rate for women has been reduced from 3 to 0. This is what he
meant by an effectively lowered bar by decreasing the false negative rate. The
women now only need to be in the top 25% of all women candidates, whereas the
men need to be in the top 6.25% of male candidates.

There's nothing false or wrong about that statement, it's just maths that
happens as a result of the diverse hiring practices skewing the distribution
of candidates, with the bar being 'effectively' lowered for the diverse
candidates from top 10% to top 25%.

This has the unfortunate side effect that over time, if you are taking the top
6.25% from the non-diverse group (men in this case), but the top 25% from the
other group then the non-diverse group will eventually have on average more
high-performers (which affects things like salaries, promotions and more).

It's not to say that men are better, just that the hiring practices have been
structured to select men from a higher performing percentage of the
population. You would get the same results in favor of women if you were only
selecting the top 6.25% of women vs the top 25% of men.

~~~
tomp
Your analysis assumes that it's always the best candidate that's hired. Given
how much tech companies are afraid of false positives (i.e. hiring candidates
that turnout to be bad), I'm not sure that assumption is warranted. It's more
likely that there's a bar, and _everyone_ that clears that bar could be hired,
and then a (random) sample of those people are.

So in the above example, it's still top 25% of women _and_ men that are hired,
it's just that a top-25% woman has a higher chance of being hired (because of
"fast-tracking" or other affirmative action policies) than a top-25% man.

Personally I find it hard to believe that the companiesdoing affirmative
action manage to do it without lowering the bar, but it's definitely logically
and statistically possible.

~~~
imron
> Your analysis assumes that it's always the best candidate that's hired.

Which is something Google has gone on record as saying it does, see for
example here: [http://www.businessinsider.com/how-google-hires-
exceptional-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/how-google-hires-exceptional-
employees-2016-2/#1-set-an-uncompromisable-high-standard-1)

But you are correct in that my analysis makes several assumptions that might
not hold up in real life, it was meant merely to show that the statement from
the original memo doesn't mean (as many people incorrectly thought) that
Damore was saying Google was lowering its standards for diversity hires.

> Personally I find it hard to believe that the companiesdoing affirmative
> action manage to do it without lowering the bar

Ok but even assuming as you do above that a random sample is hired such that
"it's still top 25% of women and men that are hired," then you have lowered
the bar for everyone from 10% to 25%.

Yes that still meets their own internal requirements, but is what the author
meant when he said 'effectively' lower the bar by decreasing the false
negative rate.

------
my_first_acct
Recycling (and slightly modifying) a previous comment [0]:

Certain topics, that otherwise might be interesting to discuss, are surrounded
by minefields. One such topic is the distribution of intellectual ability
within subgroups of the population. This minefield was not put in place by a
repressive government. Nor was it secretly put in place overnight by a fanatic
band of social-justice zealots.

My observation, which I will offer without citation, is that this particular
minefield was put in place, mine by mine, over a period of decades, through a
process of fairly broad societal consensus.

To those who suggest clearing the minefield, thus permitting this topic to be
discussed freely in public, I will invoke the principle of Chesterton's fence
[1]: Before you talk of removing the mines, you need to show that you
understand why the minefield was created in the first place, and you need to
explain why now is the time to remove it.

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14970661](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14970661)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fence)

~~~
jamesrcole
> _I will invoke the principle of Chesterton 's fence [1]: Before you talk of
> removing the mines, you need to show that you understand why the minefield
> was created in the first place, and you need to explain why now is the time
> to remove it._

That's a bit different to what the Wikipedia page describes it as. It
describes it as being to important to understand the reasons for X before
trying to change X. It doesn't say anything about needing to show that you
understand it, and needing to explain why now is the time to remove it.

Those two additional requirements seem unreasonable for wanting to talk about
some topic. For example, I would imagine that, 50-100 years ago, in a lot of
the world, the idea of discussing the legitimacy of gay marriage would have
been mostly taboo in public. To say that anyone wanting to broach the topic
needed to show why the taboo was created in the first place, and why then was
the time to remove it, seems unreasonable to me.

\----

As a sideline, that Wikipedia entry is, in its current state, pretty poor
quality. Here is a quote from it:

 _History is full of examples of negative outcomes that resulted from the
failure to understand this admonition. Pandora opened a box containing all the
world 's evils. Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil,
despite God's admonition not to, and the whole world was plunged into original
sin_

~~~
kobeya
> That's a bit different to what the Wikipedia page describes it as. It
> describes it as being to important to understand the reasons for X before
> trying to change X. It doesn't say anything about needing to show that you
> understand it, and needing to explain why now is the time to remove it.

That seems like the same thing to me...

~~~
jamesrcole
Understanding X is one thing, having to provide a demonstration of that to
others, that is considered adequate to others, is another.

Understanding the reasons for X before trying to change X is separate from
needing to show why the present time is right for changing X.

------
jack9
> 1)/[sic]he never made a case for why we shouldn’t think other factors are
> even bigger

Really? The memo wasn't about answering life's questions, but to propose
narrow solutions with based on pointed evidence. Preference or not, attacking
the hypothesis because you want a different one answered is idiotic and is not
a proper response. It's basically a common SJW ad hominem. "You just aren't
smart enough to understand what's going on here!"

Julia might want to look at the nordic countries that have pushed the gender
gaps even wider with some very sophisticated progressive social policies to
prevent other factors.

------
_pmf_
In addition to people in favor of affirmative action and people opposed to
affirmative action, there's the large class of people who are in favor of
affirmative action, but against the political correctness pressure of having
to act like they believe this in for the benefit of all instead of the
explicit benefit of the affected minority.

------
inopinatus
This column is set in a modern edition of Baskerville, one of my all-time
favourite typefaces and (unlike Garamond and Optima) one that has now
transitioned beautifully to a pixel display. Ironically the first time I saw
Baskerville on a screen it was the heavy glyphs of Google's early (ca.1998)
logo, in which it seemed to me rather flabby and unwell. So it is delightful
to see this variant, like an old friend showing up looking happy and healthy.
I love the vitality of those broad-shouldered, energetic capitals, and the
careful flourishes of the italic form that so gracefully engage us for asides
and for emphasis! And that open bowl on the 'g' for which I am always such a
sucker.

One day I hope there will be a usable screen variant of Garamond. I've had a
tinker and I know it's beyond my own very limited design abilities to achieve.

The typography of the Google Memo, by contrast, is simply dismal and a sorry
reminder of why I don't use Google Docs.

------
Robelius
I don’t doubt that the writer of the memo had the best of intentions with this
memo. And there’s even some parts that I could support.

But the main thing that gets to me is the idea of biological differences being
partially to blame. He views males as predetermined to be better engineers.
And he was a senior engineer who was in a hiring position. Someone who is
hiring engineers, that views female engineers as biologically inferior for the
job, allows for a system of discriminatory hiring to occur.

~~~
ng12
> that views female engineers as biologically inferior for the job

Did you read the article? Here's the money quote:

> His hypothesis implies that personality differences mean a smaller
> percentage of women will be interested in and/or qualified for a Google job
> than men, but that doesn’t mean any of the women at Google fall below the
> “qualified” threshold.

None of his expressed views lead me to assume that he'd think less of a female
candidate that made it through the screening process -- and that's a viewpoint
he's explicitly concerned about protecting. Even if some of his opinions did
lead him to have biases at least he's open about them and interested in
examining them which is the first step to fixing them.

