
The Google Memo: What Does the Research Say About Gender Differences? - plainOldText
https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/08/10/the-google-memo-what-does-the-research-say-about-gender-differences/
======
jfaucett
If only we would start looking at people as individuals and not as groups we
arbirarily define and lump people into, we might make some progress towards
removing discrimination and bias in our society.

I think almost anyone would agree that we should not punish/reward any person
for some arbitrary trait they can't control like their gender, race, sexual
preference, etc. And that we should only care about the person's character,
work ethic, and ability - to not so eloquently paraphrase MLK.

The fact that someone can agree with that above statement and then turn around
and support policies/activism that reward or punish groups of people based on
those very characteristics just mentioned is a viewpoint I honestly can't
understand.

I would be very interested in hearing an honest argument as to why we should
have more women in tech or more men in daycare or more X in Y, instead of more
people in Y who like Y and are passionate about Y and want to improve the
world through Y whether they are men or women or gender fluid or whatever they
want to be.

------
Method-X
>Damore argues that a company that was completely free of bias and
discrimination would not end up with a 50/50 gender split in all job functions
because there are population differences in some traits that might influence
the jobs men and women seek out and succeed at. His memo is structured as an
argument against a position he refers to as “the extreme stance that all
differences in outcome are due to differential treatment.”

Finally, someone actually gets it.

~~~
probably_wrong
I think the problem is: maybe this is what the memo _intended_ to say, but
what it _actually_ said is slightly different. In order to support this
position, the post authors had to...

* throw away the biology argument, because it is impossible to prove

* throw away the claims about leadership, because they are poorly defined

* make an explicit contrast between abilities and interests, a point the memo didn't clarify

Had the author made _only_ that point, it would have been much better
received, I think.

The problem is everything else.

~~~
luckydude
I think part of the problem is Damore's age and experience level. From
everything I've managed to gather, he was well intentioned. But the stuff he
said violates the "dinner party" rule of what you aren't supposed to discuss
in mixed company. He was posting to a board that supposedly allowed, even
encouraged, that discussion but the reality is that google was just giving lip
service to that discussion, they didn't think anyone would actually go there.

I feel for google, this puts them in a tough spot. That said, I think they
acted too quickly on this one. I'm baffled that google, with all their money,
didn't plop a pile on Damore and tell him, sorry dude, this is a rats nest you
have stirred up, you need to go away quietly with your bag of gold. Firing him
just escalated it and now he's suing and it's gonna be in the news cycle that
much longer.

------
ideonexus
It's fascinating to me to watch different online cultures debate this and
watch each culture cherry-pick the studies that best support their position.
Do you believe in gender differences in personality and aptitude? You can find
dozens of papers to support that position. Do you believe such differences do
not exist? You can find dozens of papers to support that as well. There is a
deluge of research on this topic going back decades--even centuries depending
on your filters.

It's like the old nature vs nurture debate. I grew up with academics
constantly bringing up the questions of blank slates versus inherent human
nature in my schooling. Then I started hanging out with young Ph.Ds in a wide
variety of sciences. I learned from them that the debate itself is generally
regarded as nonsense by many modern academics. Anyone who has deeply immersed
themselves in the research knows that there is a vastly complex web of
interactions between genetics and environment that is impossible to untangle
with our current tools and methodologies. Anyone who tells you otherwise is
merely exposing their Dunning–Kruger.

That's how I feel about this gender-differences debate flaming up all week on
HN. I completely understand the passions it raises on both sides, but everyone
is talking past each other because no one is understands this subject well
enough to be humbled by its incredible complexity and how much we still don't
know about it.

------
j45
Thus was a nice read, thanks for sharing.

2 comments I have received about how a narrative of diversity has ended up
becoming about genderism being the only kind of diversity lens worth looking
through:

\- capable folks who are excluded because they are not part of the majority
already have to deal with the challenge of having to be a 1.x times better
than the average person getting the position.

\- folks in the majority negatively affected by having more competition for
those positions may be upset they may have to be 1.25 times as good as the
other guy had to, which is frightening.

There is no question people aren't the same for many reasons.

There is no question that people who are competent for a role are overlooked.
I don't think this gender conversation is meant to head towards a conversation
of a new form of casteism, or eugenics... but certainly shares some
similarities of what people should, or shouldn't be allowed to do.

------
HoppedUpMenace
You can come to an understanding as to why the state of things are the way
they are through careful research and positing. You cannot, however, use said
research to draw an absolute conclusion on any group of people, as to say that
X won't ever show any interest in Y because studies show X, on average, will
pursue Z.

Additionally, after reading so many comments from the past few days and
generally in the past on HN, it seems to me that everyone is desperate to
prove either 1 or 0 of any given argument or problem in life, with any number
of studies or figures. I feel people here really miss the mark when it comes
to social issues, such as those faced by minorities and other groups that have
historically felt marginalized by society. It really is not about 50/50 gender
ratios or balanced races in the workplace, nor is it about marginalizing "The
White Man", its about getting people to understand that there are issues that
people face that you may not ever face in your life, but they do exist,
whether you want to believe it or not, and it does not help when people
dismiss those issues by pointing to studies or personal anecdotes, the world
really does not revolve around any one person or group or thought perception.

------
IshKebab
This seems like the only decent non-ranty response so far. Skip to the
conclusions if it is too long.

------
malchow
Heterodox, indeed!

