
What scientists think about the biological claims made by a Google employee? - ebola1717
https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-biological-claims-made-in-the-anti-diversity-document-written-by-a-Google-employee-in-August-2017/answer/Suzanne-Sadedin?share=13d40fd1&srid=Q
======
Klockan
> argues that cognitive sex differences influence performance in software
> engineering.

Damore never argued for this, he argued that cognitive sex differences could
possibly influence interest in software engineering work as it done today and
that difference in interest could partially explain the gender gap in tech. He
then suggest that we try alternate approaches when we try to increase women's
representation since they might work better, which hints at him thinking that
women would be valuable as engineers at Google, just that the current arguably
misplaced diversity efforts might not achieve that goal.

~~~
kybernetikos
> Damore never argued for this

Is the articles quote unfair then? It explicitly calls out an apparent jump
from preferences to abilities in the original. (My emphasis)

>>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. 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.

>

> At what point did we jump from talking about personalities to abilities?

~~~
Klockan
Difference in preferences usually results in difference in abilities due to a
difference in life choices, that is how I interpreted it. So if biology has
any effect on preferences then biology indirectly influences ability but it is
still nothing that can't be overcome by someone who likes the subject.

~~~
kybernetikos
> Difference in preferences usually results in difference in abilities due to
> a difference in life choices, that is how I interpreted it.

Indeed, but the relationship is not necessarily simple and requires
argumentation rather than handwave.

------
throwaway417164
Google CEO Sundar Pichai (note to employees):

> Our co-workers shouldn’t have to worry that each time they open their mouths
> to speak in a meeting, they have to prove that they are not like the memo
> states, being “agreeable” rather than “assertive,” showing a “lower stress
> tolerance,” or being “neurotic.”

Evolutionary biologist Suzanne Sadedin (quora answer linked here):

> It’s true that women and men, on average, have been found in some studies to
> differ in empathizing/agreeableness, systematizing, gregariousness versus
> assertiveness; and neuroticism.

------
Boothroid
Am I the only one that sees an inconsistency between the touchy feely world of
inclusiveness and diversity within these US tech companies, and the Darwinian
harshness of life outside them in the US? I'm thinking of what seems to an
outsider like a generally held callousness towards those that fall through the
cracks, and a focus on individual agency as being the sole determinant of
success, ignoring very real factors like background etc.

~~~
slindz
No. Plenty of people see what's happening and play along because it's pretty
dangerous not to.

This guy was naive enough to try and present a rational and measured
suggestion for meaningful improvement.

------
anonymoushn
> The passing mention of IQ is interesting, since it has nothing to do with
> gender, which is the focus everywhere else. He’s presumably talking about
> race, but he doesn’t want to be branded a racist, so he keeps the reference
> subtle. So why risk doing it at all? It’s a dog-whistle to the alt-right.

He could be talking about a difference in variance of IQ between genders,
which has been observed in some studies.

------
craigsmansion
It's great that someone took the time and had the peace of mind to write down
this firm rebuttal.

Sexist or not, the original manifesto was anti science. How so many whose
paycheck depends on the implementation of logic got hoodwinked into defending
what basically amounts to an political pamphlet by a couple of references
baffles me.

~~~
zimablue
More scientists have written in defense than opposition, and even the most
hardened opposition concedes the validity of some of his sources.

~~~
craigsmansion
> More scientists have written in defense than opposition

Yes, and all of them underlining the argument that women are indeed different
from men, which isn't contested in the slightest.

What remained uncontested is the sloppy science. In science you present a
claim, construct an argument, and reach a conclusion.

You can't construct an argument that doesn't support your conclusion and then
proclaim it must be valid because it has something to do with the initial
claim.

What happened here was:

-Fact: Women are different than men.

-Observation: There is a difference between men and woman in IT.

-Conclusion: this difference in IT must be based on the primary difference between men and women.

or

-Fact: all goats breathe

-Observation: Plato breathes

-Conclusion: Plato is a goat.

I hope everyone recognises this fallacy.

It's pointless to keep presenting evidence for the initial fact. What you need
to do is introduce new facts that construct a solid argument that includes
your observation and logically binds it into the conclusion.

As the quora article points out, that's not what happened.

On top of that (or underneath) there's also some political la-ti-da going on,
which is fine for a memo, and if it had been restricted to that, I doubt it
would have caused this much commotion.

TL;DR (also, don't use that term in any sort of treatise that you want to
sound scientific) if you want to use science to shield you from negative
reactions to postulating an unpopular idea, make sure it's sound.

~~~
zimablue
So you're saying that he stated some science, which you're not disputing, and
then made an argument from those grounds that moved from science into
politics, and you don't agree with the argument he made.

That's not anti-science, attempting to root your discourse in science is
absolutely pro-science. At best you can say that the parts which led on from
the science were "non=science" \- well yeah, by definition.

~~~
craigsmansion
> then made an argument from those grounds

Except that's exactly what he didn't make. It severely lacked implications
that tied his facts and arguments to his conclusion(s).

> you don't agree with the argument

"Since in the original memo a conservative argued towards a conservative point
of view, and you oppose that, you must be a non-conservative arguing towards a
non-conservative point of view."

That doesn't follow.

> attempting to root your discourse in science is absolutely pro-science.

New Earth creationism, anti-evolution, etc. Let's try and be realistic here.
Interpreting conclusions of actual science to derive truths that were never
implied by said conclusions to further base your own argument on is
intellectually dishonest and not "pro-science".

~~~
nicolashahn
Your Plato metaphor is unfair, because we already know Plato is a man, not a
goat, from fairly conclusive evidence before you present your statements.
However, Damore has put forth that the current societally accepted reason for
the skewed IT gender distribution (prejudice against women) has less than
conclusive evidence backing it up.

Your assertion of the memo's claim:

-Fact: Women are different than men. -Observation: There is a difference between men and woman in IT. -Conclusion: this difference in IT must be based on the primary difference between men and women.

This is close to what I believe Damore was saying, only replace 'must be' with
'may in part be and we shouldn't rule out the possibility just because it's
politically incorrect to discuss.'

Here's what I claim the current politically correct claim is:

-Fact: There have been cases of sexism found in IT. -Observation: IT as a whole is a sexist industry. -Conclusion: this gender difference in IT must be based primarily on this sexism.

However, is this a foregone conclusion, given the current studies found on it?
I know of several attempts which have been made but none are any more
persuasive to me than Damore's theory, either being too small, flawed(often
for the same reason Damore felt the need to write the memo and why he was
fired), or just inconclusive. And it seems anecdotal evidence makes up a large
part of our reason for believing it as a society.

It's quite possible the truth lies in a mixture of both, in fact I'd say I'm
almost certain of it. However, for some reason everyone is outraged at the
suggestion that there might be a drop of truth behind what Damore was saying
even though he wasn't claiming gender inferiority, merely preference.

Additionally, I don't believe he was misusing the conclusions of the
scientific studies he cited. The prime example is his claim of women being
more 'neurotic,' and people immediately assume he's calling them inferior.
Whereas there was no value judgment in the original scientific study (which
was widely accepted prior to the memo) or his application of it and may very
well indicate a preference not to work in IT.

------
asdfologist
Regardless of whether or not you agree with the original manifesto, why
couldn't Googlers have a civil discussion like that Quora thread instead of
firing him?

~~~
ben_w
Amongst many other reasons, because stuff like that 'manifesto' actively harms
Google by harming a significant minority of their employees who might, if
nothing was done about it, leave the industry because it was the last straw
after a lifetime of harassment and devaluation.

------
dvfjsdhgfv
Thank you for this submission. This is basically the first scientist
disagreeing with Demore. The previous ones (five of them I think, submitted to
HN and quickly flagged) basically agreed with what he said. I think we can now
start to have a normal discussion with arguments, based on studies and
evidence, rather that name calling (although Suzanne's answer is not entirely
unemotional, but that's her right).

~~~
orthoganol
You realize she does lead her comment/ TL;DR with "He's secretly pushing an
alt-right agenda"?

~~~
s_kilk
The guy is absolutely pushing an alt-right agenda, it's plain to see in the
manifesto, and that's before we get to his guest appearance on a prominent
alt-right YouTube show.

~~~
orthoganol
> absolutely

You don't know that, and I get little impression of such from his Bloomberg
appearance today: [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2017-08-10/fired-
engin...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2017-08-10/fired-engineer-
damore-i-feel-google-betrayed-me-video)

Even so you are aware the Quora question is "What do scientists think about
the biological claims?", so the ad hominem is not only a distracting annoyance
but is also undermining of one's claim to objective impartiality.

~~~
kybernetikos
I doubt the respondant would claim objective impartiality, and if they did,
their article would quickly make clear that they have a background and
situation that colours their view of the issue and that they feel very
strongly about it and are emotionally engaged with it.

None of this means that they are wrong on the substantive points they make
though, even though you're right that the alt-right claim isn't helpful. In
fact I got the impression of someone who feels very strongly about the issues,
but who is still trying to engage logically and reasonably and in good faith,
even if they slip occasionally. Much the same can probably be said for the
original memo author.

------
nippples
> what scientists think

> one scientist's opinion

We're reaching "both sides of the climate change debate" levels of spinning
here.

~~~
IshKebab
Yeah this must be how climate change deniers feel about the scientific view of
climate change. It really feels like it's just one scientist's work against
another. I don't have time to actually read their studies so how should I know
who to believe?

Of course this is much worse than climate change because that's 'hard science'
where it's relatively easy to get good evidence. Psychology seems to be barely
better than guesswork.

~~~
nippples
> Psychology seems to be barely better than guesswork.

It depends on the school of thought and experimentation methods.

Some, for example, will focus almost exclusively in easily measurable
physiological responses to stimuli and draw very restricted conclusions on
their experimental results.

Others will sit on a desk, reflect on their past and speculate extensively
about human nature based on that.

But yeah, it's a rather soft science.

------
IshKebab
I got as far as this:

> > On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These
> differences aren’t just socially constructed ...

> His implicit model is that cognitive traits must be either biological (i.e.
> innate, natural, and unchangeable) or non-biological (i.e., learned by a
> blank slate).

Within a few lines of each other. I think she is reading what she wants to
read.

------
s_kilk
TLDR; manifesto guy was egregiously wrong in basically all assertions.

~~~
dublinclontarf
Author has misread, misunderstood, and misrepresented manifesto guys doc,
attributed motives AND tried to tie this into the alt-right.

~~~
pawadu
I think at this point we can all agree that Damore tied himself to alt-right
by doing those interviews.

edit: I find it interesting that most comments criticizing the guy is heavily
downvoted while his supporters claim _they_ are being gagged

~~~
LyndsySimon
> I think at this point we can all agree that Damore tied himself to alt-right
> by doing those interviews.

I don't think we can.

There is no consensus regarding what the "alt-right" _is_ , even among those
who self-identify as members.

------
Numberwang
Should HN not be consistent and censor this side of the debate too? I don't
understand this site sometimes.

