ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 9th August 2017, 07:35 AM   #281
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,997
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
No Google employee would ever dare say so in a memo, because so much pride and angst and nerd chicness is at stake, but...

...coding is easy.
Yep. The learning curve the first time you code is very overwhelming. But it's not a super-difficult skill that calls for unique talents, it's a regular skill learnt through practice and experience.
__________________
"The presidentís voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesnít exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2017, 07:36 AM   #282
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,702
As a computer programmer I agree. Unless we're talking about high-level stuff.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2017, 07:44 AM   #283
d4m10n
Master Poster
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 2,685
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
My conclusion: There won't be an open and reasonable debate on this issue.

Not here, not in another thread, and certainly not across all of society.
It really shouldn't be all that hard for us to debate the merits of the scientifically testable claims made in the Damore memo, especially in a forum dedicated to doing skepticism.

ETA: The values and ethics claims at hand are considerably murkier.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

Last edited by d4m10n; 9th August 2017 at 08:18 AM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2017, 07:47 AM   #284
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,702
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
It really shouldn't be all that hard for us to debate the merits of the scientifically testable claims made in the Damore memo, especially in a forum dedicated to doing skepticism.
Doesn't matter if we call the forum the Rational Skeptics' Logic Forum. It's like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Adding skeptical-sounding words doesn't make it more skeptical.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2017, 08:11 AM   #285
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,451
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Why? Why would you want to change it so they will like them more? Would you change the hairdressing industry to make it more interesting to men? How about coal mining, to make it more interesting to women?

Of course you can change things, but I think that, despite not being natural phenomenon, these things find their own "balance" naturally. Take capitalism for example. It's a more-or-less natural consequence of how humans operate. Sure it creates inequalities, but if you try to force communism just to put everyone on the same level, you might find that it'll clash with human nature quite a bit and won't work in the long run.
Why not? Sure change the hairdressing industry to make it more interesting to men. any suggestions? I'm pretty sure coal mining has changed a lot in the last century anyway so if there are things that can be done to make it accessible for women then go for it.

I dont think the idea that things find their natural balance is particularly compelling as an argument. Business leadership is not a meritocracy as it stands and there is no reason to believe it results in the best leaders. It appears to filter for the kind of traits we would probably not want in a friend or acquaintance. There is no particular reason it should be that way other than that's how it has been when you don't correct it.

There is a huge difference between communism and unfettered capitalism and both are equally undesirable. We intervene in the economy all the time to avoid unwanted outcomes no reason why we can't intervene in the workplace too. If the result is better for everyone then nobody is losing.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2017, 08:14 AM   #286
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,702
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Why not? Sure change the hairdressing industry to make it more interesting to men. any suggestions?
Why would I suggest a solution to a non-existent problem? I have no problem with some fields being female-dominated and others being male-dominated. That's expected, as far as I'm concerned.

Quote:
I dont think the idea that things find their natural balance is particularly compelling as an argument.
It's an observation, not an argument.

Quote:
Business leadership is not a meritocracy as it stands and there is no reason to believe it results in the best leaders.
No but you need input to produce output. If far fewer women go into business and management it stands to reason that, meritocracy or not, fewer will be at the top.

Quote:
There is a huge difference between communism and unfettered capitalism and both are equally undesirable.
Yes but do you understand the point I was making, other than as a springboard for being pedantic?
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2017, 08:18 AM   #287
d4m10n
Master Poster
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 2,685
A friend of mine posted this around the same time James Damore was outed and fired.

Possibly of some interest and relevance here . . .
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2017, 08:21 AM   #288
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,451
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
If there isnt a 50:50 in applicants, then a company attempting to reach a parity is a) preventing another company from doing so and b) likely offering positions to less qualified individuals (unless the underrepresented demographic is 'natually' superior in those skills, which is an argument that accepts differences).

ETA: I'm all for diversity, but this is not how to get there.
You might have a point if the actual gender balance weren't 80/20 in Google tech roles rather than 55/45.

It would be a very strong point even then though as it would only then raise the issue of why the applicant balance was so out of whack and why they aren't getting enough applicants who were female.

The gender balance in tech isn't even close to the point where I would take claims of we have done our best but that's just the way it is seriously. There are systemic issues there. Even more so in some other countries as well like Japan and Korea.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2017, 08:23 AM   #289
Joe Random
Graduate Poster
 
Joe Random's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,703
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
"More than 60 women consider suing Google, claiming sexism and a pay gap"

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...action-lawsuit

Like I said, nobody wins.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

I'd say diversity consulting firms and sensitivity training companies positively love the current environment. Lawyers, too, but they tend to prosper no matter what.
Joe Random is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2017, 08:27 AM   #290
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 13,346
What's the ratio of ladies to gentleman taking postgraduate studies in STEM fields?
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2017, 08:36 AM   #291
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,451
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Why would I suggest a solution to a non-existent problem? I have no problem with some fields being female-dominated and others being male-dominated. That's expected, as far as I'm concerned.



It's an observation, not an argument.



No but you need input to produce output. If far fewer women go into business and management it stands to reason that, meritocracy or not, fewer will be at the top.



Yes but do you understand the point I was making, other than as a springboard for being pedantic?
1. You may expect it but that doesn't really mean anything. I mean you could use that argument for anything. all you are doing there is accepting a cultural status quo. That would seem odd enough for entire fields but you were talking about leadership which isn't a field but a seniority. Women just don't want to be bosses seems to be an odd conclusion to reach.

2. It's an observation but a meaningless one. All things left to their own devices will find some kind of equilibrium. The question is whether we can intervene to find a better one.

3. Yes that does stand to reason. But again that's not really meaningful. There are plenty of women and men in business who don't get into leadership roles who could no doubt do fine jobs in those roles. Better than those who do get there in many cases I would argue. So you need to look at the traits being selected for by the current system and see if they are actually the traits you want to select for and if you are excluding good leaders from the pool because of the system as it stands.

4. Well I don't know if I understood it but you appeared to be suggesting that imposing one bad system on people could be just as bad or worse as letting nature take its course. But again that's nothing to do with the question at hand when I'm talking about making improvements to the current system. I'm not quite sure what the significant of the communism comparison was as I presume you aren't comparing making the workplace more female friendly to imposing communism.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2017, 08:37 AM   #292
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,451
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
What's the ratio of ladies to gentleman taking postgraduate studies in STEM fields?
Varies significantly by country which I think is strong evidence that culture and environment is a huge factor vs genetics.

From memory I think it's about 20% women with stem tertiary education in the US. If I remember rightly the Middle East is quite high for some reason Japan is one of the lowest I think.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"

Last edited by Archie Gemmill Goal; 9th August 2017 at 08:41 AM.
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2017, 08:45 AM   #293
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 13,346
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Varies significantly by country which I think is strong evidence that culture and environment is a huge factor vs genetics.

From memory I think it's about 20% women with stem tertiary education in the US. If I remember rightly the Middle East is quite high for some reason Japan is one of the lowest I think.


I would think, then, that there, rather than at hiring, is where the problem lies.

This might invite criticism, and it's only an idea to explore, but wouldn't it be more reasonable, when hiring graduates, to mandate a hiring ratio split approximately the same as the gender split in graduates?
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2017, 08:53 AM   #294
paulhutch
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Blackstone River Valley, MA
Posts: 2,018
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
The diversity director should have wrote something like this

https://amp.businessinsider.com/goog...ty-tech-2017-8
It wouldn't surprise me if she felt the same way. However since she has barely had time to organize her office staff I'll give her a break since the first couple weeks at a new job are not usually when you do your best work.
paulhutch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2017, 08:55 AM   #295
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,702
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
1. You may expect it but that doesn't really mean anything.
Of course it does. You have a large population with two significantly different subgroups, and various potential careers that can be chosen. You don't think the differences between the subgroups lead to an expectation of varying choices?

Quote:
all you are doing there is accepting a cultural status quo.
That has nothing to do with my argument. If the cultural status quo would be 50:50 parity, I would be arguing against it.

Quote:
Women just don't want to be bosses seems to be an odd conclusion to reach.
Why is it odd?

Quote:
2. It's an observation but a meaningless one. All things left to their own devices will find some kind of equilibrium.
You think that's meaningless? I think that's one of the most meaningful observations made by man.

Quote:
3. Yes that does stand to reason. But again that's not really meaningful.
I'm starting to notice a pattern here.

Quote:
There are plenty of women and men in business who don't get into leadership roles who could no doubt do fine jobs in those roles.
And? What does that have to do with my point?

Quote:
4. Well I don't know if I understood it but you appeared to be suggesting that imposing one bad system on people could be just as bad or worse as letting nature take its course. But again that's nothing to do with the question at hand when I'm talking about making improvements to the current system. I'm not quite sure what the significant of the communism comparison was as I presume you aren't comparing making the workplace more female friendly to imposing communism.
The point of the analogy was that we might be trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, or a solution that goes way beyond solving the problem. Equality for women was never about sameness or parity.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2017, 08:56 AM   #296
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,702
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
I would think, then, that there, rather than at hiring, is where the problem lies.

This might invite criticism, and it's only an idea to explore, but wouldn't it be more reasonable, when hiring graduates, to mandate a hiring ratio split approximately the same as the gender split in graduates?
That has always been my own thought on this: If you're going to impose a quota at all, at least have one that makes sense in context.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2017, 09:03 AM   #297
paulhutch
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Blackstone River Valley, MA
Posts: 2,018
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
"More than 60 women consider suing Google, claiming sexism and a pay gap"

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...action-lawsuit

Like I said, nobody wins.
As the article points out the DOJ investigation that began in April is what spurred the lawsuit and this memo is just icing on the cake for the plaintiffs lawyer. The on going DOJ investigation into pay discrepancies combined with the brand new diversity director not being up to speed yet is why the CEO had to cut his vacation short to come back and oversee this issue. It almost as if the senior software engineer waited until all the conditions were right, active DOJ invetigation, new diversity director not settled in yet and CEO away on vacation, to publish the memo for maximum effect, but the timing may just be a coincidence.
paulhutch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2017, 09:08 AM   #298
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,451
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
I would think, then, that there, rather than at hiring, is where the problem lies.

This might invite criticism, and it's only an idea to explore, but wouldn't it be more reasonable, when hiring graduates, to mandate a hiring ratio split approximately the same as the gender split in graduates?
Well it's all connected and could be chicken and egg. If more women were in stem fields then more women might want to go in to them. It's complicated and complex. You also see women tend to drop out of stem at higher rates and fewer go on to phds. More will end up as science teachers than research scientists.

When you are trying to overcome a status quo then the system needs a bit of a nudge. If you simply accept where things are today then nothing changes. I don't know what the right number is but it would seem that neither 50/50 nor 80/20 would be optimal in the short term for hiring. Maybe it's 65/35 or 70/30 or 60/40? Or maybe it's just doing your utmost to promote stem to women and hire as many good women as you can and make the workplace suitable and comfortable for women and then let the chips fall where they may.

I'm not and never have said the outcome has to be 50/50 but we should make an effort to get it as close to that as we can and only give up when we are pretty sure we have given it our best shot.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2017, 09:17 AM   #299
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 13,346
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Well it's all connected and could be chicken and egg. If more women were in stem fields then more women might want to go in to them. It's complicated and complex. You also see women tend to drop out of stem at higher rates and fewer go on to phds. More will end up as science teachers than research scientists.

When you are trying to overcome a status quo then the system needs a bit of a nudge. If you simply accept where things are today then nothing changes. I don't know what the right number is but it would seem that neither 50/50 nor 80/20 would be optimal in the short term for hiring. Maybe it's 65/35 or 70/30 or 60/40? Or maybe it's just doing your utmost to promote stem to women and hire as many good women as you can and make the workplace suitable and comfortable for women and then let the chips fall where they may.

I'm not and never have said the outcome has to be 50/50 but we should make an effort to get it as close to that as we can and only give up when we are pretty sure we have given it our best shot.

The trouble I have is you're asking companies to hamstring themselves in graduate selection. They are simply not allowed to pick the best from a large pool. They're asked to pick half from a large pool and the other from a very small pool. It lowers the quality of graduates on offer.

This is a ball that needs to be in the court of educators, education administrators and politicians, not imposed upon businesses, I think.



Oh, and just as an aside, is there a push for a 50:50 split in the sex of midwives?
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2017, 09:20 AM   #300
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,451
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Of course it does. You have a large population with two significantly different subgroups, and various potential careers that can be chosen. You don't think the differences between the subgroups lead to an expectation of varying choices?



That has nothing to do with my argument. If the cultural status quo would be 50:50 parity, I would be arguing against it.



Why is it odd?



You think that's meaningless? I think that's one of the most meaningful observations made by man.



I'm starting to notice a pattern here.



And? What does that have to do with my point?



The point of the analogy was that we might be trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, or a solution that goes way beyond solving the problem. Equality for women was never about sameness or parity.
Maybe that's where we are talking past each other then because I have never argued for sameness or equality of outcome. I've been arguing for removing barriers. If we remove all the barriers and women still don't want to be engineers or leaders then I don't think we should force them to. That would be a bit silly.

However having worked in engineering for twenty years and been involved in leadership for ten I don't think we are anywhere near the point where we can say the current balance is the natural one. There are still huge systemic barriers.

And I find the idea that women don't want to be leaders ridiculous on its face because in every company I have worked for there has always been at least one female director. But these have always been either the HR director or the legal director. So it seems women are good enough and have the desire to lead in engineering businesses. That situation is not an accident and it's far from some genetically defined biological balance.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2017, 09:21 AM   #301
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,451
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
The trouble I have is you're asking companies to hamstring themselves in graduate selection. They are simply not allowed to pick the best from a large pool. They're asked to pick half from a large pool and the other from a very small pool. It lowers the quality of graduates on offer.

This is a ball that needs to be in the court of educators, education administrators and politicians, not imposed upon businesses, I think.



Oh, and just as an aside, is there a push for a 50:50 split in the sex of midwives?
No I'm not hamstringing them. Because I'm not dictating they hire anyone not capable of doing the job. I'm merely not giving them the easy out of saying well that's just the way it is while making no effort to change the situation.

I don't know why people keep raising the issue of other female dominated roles. I don't have any issue with pushing for greater parity there either. If there are systemic barriers to men taking up jobs then they should be addressed too.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"

Last edited by Archie Gemmill Goal; 9th August 2017 at 09:23 AM.
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2017, 09:23 AM   #302
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 13,346
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
No I'm not hamstringing them. Because I'm not dictating they hire anyone not capable of doing the job. I'm merely not giving them the easy out of saying well that's just the way it is while making no effort to change the situation.

Sorry, the 'you' was not meant to be accusatory. I should have used 'one', which I do so often around here to avoid this situation.
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2017, 09:26 AM   #303
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,702
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Maybe that's where we are talking past each other then because I have never argued for sameness or equality of outcome.
Oh, I wasn't implying that you had; simply that this was the general point of my communism analogy.

Quote:
I've been arguing for removing barriers. If we remove all the barriers and women still don't want to be engineers or leaders then I don't think we should force them to. That would be a bit silly.
Indeed. Equality of opportunity, as much as possible, is the best solution to me. If the outcomes are different, we can look into it to make sure there's no discrimination involved (an admitedly difficult task) but social engineering in order to reach an ideological goal that has no basis in anything else would be equally silly, imo.

Quote:
However having worked in engineering for twenty years and been involved in leadership for ten I don't think we are anywhere near the point where we can say the current balance is the natural one. There are still huge systemic barriers.
That may be true. Can you give an example?

Quote:
And I find the idea that women don't want to be leaders ridiculous on its face because in every company I have worked for there has always been at least one female director.
Careful now. No one means that to say that no woman wants to be a leader, only that on average they don't tend to aggressively seek promotions or leadership roles as men.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2017, 09:55 AM   #304
sir drinks-a-lot
Illuminator
 
sir drinks-a-lot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Cole Valley, CA
Posts: 3,016
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
No Google employee would ever dare say so in a memo, because so much pride and angst and nerd chicness is at stake, but...

...coding is easy.
What does that even mean? Coding what?

But CS in general is not easy. Data structures, algorithms, etc. Not that most people doing coding do that sort of thing.


Quote:
If there were jobs manually counting the corn flakes in cereal boxes, and the counts had to be exact or else the employer would suffer massive revenue losses, I would expect those jobs to be mostly filled by men. But of course in that case it wouldn't be any point of pride, nor would a relative lack of women in the field be considered a social problem, even though those women who actually did choose that career would be just as good at it as men.
I can think of lots of jobs with gender imbalances. For example, heavy equipment operators and miners are usually men, elementary school teachers are usually women. As a matter of fact, I think it may be tougher to think of jobs that don't have such an imbalance!

Also, I don't really think that there is a large portion of the female population that is just chomping at the bit to write code on computers. Look at the whole field of math and engineering - not many women even in the pure math fields that pay next to nothing. If there's a problem at all, it seems like it has to be more of the "gender roles are socialized from birth" argument.
__________________
I drink to the general joy o' th' whole table. --William Shakespeare
sir drinks-a-lot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2017, 09:59 AM   #305
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,451
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Sorry, the 'you' was not meant to be accusatory. I should have used 'one', which I do so often around here to avoid this situation.
Yeah don't worry I don't take offence even if it was meant as me. But I just disagree with the point. The stem pool is already too small and the efforts to make it more attractive to women only grow the pool.

Nobody is asking Google to hire duds. They are picking from the creme de la creme anyway and there is no reason to think the very best girls are worse than the very best boys at being Google employees.

Factor in the huge error margins on recruiting the best people anyway and it's simply an excuse as far as I can see at least for the big attractive employers. If you are a tiny startup in nowhere, Indiana maybe you can't find a woman to do the job. If you are Google... don't even try to argue it.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2017, 10:12 AM   #306
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,451
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Oh, I wasn't implying that you had; simply that this was the general point of my communism analogy.



Indeed. Equality of opportunity, as much as possible, is the best solution to me. If the outcomes are different, we can look into it to make sure there's no discrimination involved (an admitedly difficult task) but social engineering in order to reach an ideological goal that has no basis in anything else would be equally silly, imo.



That may be true. Can you give an example?



Careful now. No one means that to say that no woman wants to be a leader, only that on average they don't tend to aggressively seek promotions or leadership roles as men.
My objection to the communism argument was that it seemed to be saying that we can't seek to make things more equal than they currently are. That sounds a lot like the idiots that scream Communism whenever some kind of better healthcare system is proposed in the US.

You could argue it's just natural that the rich get good good healthcare and the poor get bad or no healthcare and we shouldn't be trying to impose some idealistic ideology based on nothing to make it more equal.

Any argument for the status quo implicitly assumes that the status quo is at least about right. I'd have to have some pretty strong evidence to convince me that men are genetically 4 times more likely than women to enjoy science or engineering.

Your argument that men are more likely to aggressively seek promotions is not an argument for more male leaders being right. It's an argument that aggressively seeking the role shouldn't be the differentiator in getting it and more should be done to seek out the right people for the role.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2017, 10:17 AM   #307
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,702
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
My objection to the communism argument was that it seemed to be saying that we can't seek to make things more equal than they currently are.
It wasn't meant as such. It was meant as saying that communism is a theory that might look good on paper, but as soon as you introduce the human variable the whole system collapses because it just doesn't fit with it. Similarily I think imposing or pushing for standards of parity where no such realistic expectation has been justified is doomed to failure or worse.

Quote:
You could argue it's just natural that the rich get good good healthcare and the poor get bad or no healthcare and we shouldn't be trying to impose some idealistic ideology based on nothing to make it more equal.
I'm not bothered that rich people have access to more options than me, including in hearthcare. However we could quibble as to what the minimum standard of universal health services is.

Quote:
Any argument for the status quo implicitly assumes that the status quo is at least about right.
Not necessarily right, but better, perhaps. Depends on the statu quo, I guess.

Quote:
I'd have to have some pretty strong evidence to convince me that men are genetically 4 times more likely than women to enjoy science or engineering.
How about hunting? Do you need strong evidence to convince you that men are more predisposed to it than women?

Quote:
Your argument that men are more likely to aggressively seek promotions is not an argument for more male leaders being right.
No, it's an argument that more male leaders is expected. You're confusing my descriptive argument for a prescriptive one.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2017, 11:31 AM   #308
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 79,228
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
What? You asked me for a process that resulted in balance in this instance, and I said that it's the same processes that govern other stuff including evolution. I didn't say that this situation is like evolution. Jeez.



No, that's not what I did -- in essence or otherwise. I never said or implied that the result was good due to it being natural. I suggest you read my posts more carefully.
I suggest you consider your use of words more carefully in future so that they say what you want them to say without you having to elaborate.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2017, 11:32 AM   #309
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 79,228
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
If there isnt a 50:50 in applicants, then a company attempting to reach a parity is a) preventing another company from doing so and b) likely offering positions to less qualified individuals (unless the underrepresented demographic is 'natually' superior in those skills, which is an argument that accepts differences).

ETA: I'm all for diversity, but this is not how to get there.
What "how" is not how we get there? Not being facetious but we don't have how Google does approach the problem they seem to perceive exists.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2017, 11:33 AM   #310
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 79,228
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You chose touching, specifically. You didn't say killing, or sneezing. You can't blame people for thinking that your choice of touching was supposed to be relevant to your argument.
You have not followed the discussion.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2017, 11:36 AM   #311
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,702
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I suggest you consider your use of words more carefully in future so that they say what you want them to say without you having to elaborate.
Of course you'll blame your failure to read on me. I just explained to you why your intepretation is nonsense. How about you make a case for said interpretation?
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2017, 11:41 AM   #312
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,451
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
It wasn't meant as such. It was meant as saying that communism is a theory that might look good on paper, but as soon as you introduce the human variable the whole system collapses because it just doesn't fit with it. Similarily I think imposing or pushing for standards of parity where no such realistic expectation has been justified is doomed to failure or worse.



I'm not bothered that rich people have access to more options than me, including in hearthcare. However we could quibble as to what the minimum standard of universal health services is.



Not necessarily right, but better, perhaps. Depends on the statu quo, I guess.



How about hunting? Do you need strong evidence to convince you that men are more predisposed to it than women?



No, it's an argument that more male leaders is expected. You're confusing my descriptive argument for a prescriptive one.
Ah again maybe that's the point of disagreement then. I agree with you saying you would expect more male leaders in the current system but my point is that there is no reason to think that the current system is producing the optimal outcome and that the gender imbalance is at least evidence to suggest that it isn't.

And I don't think that it's fair to men either. It's fair to a certain type of man. I think the proverbial term for them is *****.


If there were enough people to go around it might not be a huge issue other than for gender activists but the elephant in the room for STEM is that there aren't enough good candidates to go around. So if the field is excluding women or anyone else the it's shooting itself in the foot.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"

Last edited by Archie Gemmill Goal; 9th August 2017 at 11:45 AM.
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2017, 11:48 AM   #313
pharphis
Graduate Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,233
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
I'm a little bit amazed that people here don't see a problem with writing a long memo filled with references attempting to argue that science shows that women are more neurotic than men, so you girls shouldn't really expect to get jobs in STEM fields at the same rate as men do.
Please read the memo yourself or at least the corrections to your position before spouting the same nonsense strawman.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Simpsons did it!
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

I don't have any opinions anymore.
I was familiar with the classroom clip but didn't know about the Skinner section. Extremely poignant, as usual. Either women are special little angels who have all these great traits that men don't have, in which case biological differences exist and we should anticipate differences in human choices and therefore career paths, OR men and women are identical and so quotas are a pointless expense since they provide no difference, since men and women are identical. You can't have it both ways!

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Why not? Sure change the hairdressing industry to make it more interesting to men. any suggestions? I'm pretty sure coal mining has changed a lot in the last century anyway so if there are things that can be done to make it accessible for women then go for it.

I dont think the idea that things find their natural balance is particularly compelling as an argument. Business leadership is not a meritocracy as it stands and there is no reason to believe it results in the best leaders. It appears to filter for the kind of traits we would probably not want in a friend or acquaintance. There is no particular reason it should be that way other than that's how it has been when you don't correct it.

There is a huge difference between communism and unfettered capitalism and both are equally undesirable. We intervene in the economy all the time to avoid unwanted outcomes no reason why we can't intervene in the workplace too. If the result is better for everyone then nobody is losing.
Friends don't make good leaders. Likewise, parents who act as friends don't make good parents. They don't exhibit enough authority. Why you think changing what a leader is to make it more appealing to women baffles me. The whole point is that a leader has certain qualities and a role. Apparently, qualities and a role that men are more likely to fit the mold of. Women exhibit higher agreeableness, after all. (ON AVERAGE ON AVERAGE ON AVERAGE, for those readers who continue to seem incapable of good reading comprehension).
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post


1. You may expect it but that doesn't really mean anything. I mean you could use that argument for anything. all you are doing there is accepting a cultural status quo. That would seem odd enough for entire fields but you were talking about leadership which isn't a field but a seniority. Women just don't want to be bosses seems to be an odd conclusion to reach.

2. It's an observation but a meaningless one. All things left to their own devices will find some kind of equilibrium. The question is whether we can intervene to find a better one.

3. Yes that does stand to reason. But again that's not really meaningful. There are plenty of women and men in business who don't get into leadership roles who could no doubt do fine jobs in those roles. Better than those who do get there in many cases I would argue. So you need to look at the traits being selected for by the current system and see if they are actually the traits you want to select for and if you are excluding good leaders from the pool because of the system as it stands.

4. Well I don't know if I understood it but you appeared to be suggesting that imposing one bad system on people could be just as bad or worse as letting nature take its course. But again that's nothing to do with the question at hand when I'm talking about making improvements to the current system. I'm not quite sure what the significant of the communism comparison was as I presume you aren't comparing making the workplace more female friendly to imposing communism.
Presumed improvements. Efficacy of affirmative action policies aside (something I'm not sure has been demonstrated) it is always presumed that "diverse" = better.
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Maybe that's where we are talking past each other then because I have never argued for sameness or equality of outcome. I've been arguing for removing barriers. If we remove all the barriers and women still don't want to be engineers or leaders then I don't think we should force them to. That would be a bit silly.

However having worked in engineering for twenty years and been involved in leadership for ten I don't think we are anywhere near the point where we can say the current balance is the natural one. There are still huge systemic barriers.

And I find the idea that women don't want to be leaders ridiculous on its face because in every company I have worked for there has always been at least one female director. But these have always been either the HR director or the legal director. So it seems women are good enough and have the desire to lead in engineering businesses. That situation is not an accident and it's far from some genetically defined biological balance.
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
No I'm not hamstringing them. Because I'm not dictating they hire anyone not capable of doing the job. I'm merely not giving them the easy out of saying well that's just the way it is while making no effort to change the situation.

I don't know why people keep raising the issue of other female dominated roles. I don't have any issue with pushing for greater parity there either. If there are systemic barriers to men taking up jobs then they should be addressed too.
Notice the added "if" which is usually added when talking about possibly being barred from female-dominated careers. Whereas with male-dominated careers, the barriers are just presumed to be there. I see from other comments you might actually have some evidence for your claim due to experience but I didn't see you share what those barriers are, yet.
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
It wasn't meant as such. It was meant as saying that communism is a theory that might look good on paper, but as soon as you introduce the human variable the whole system collapses because it just doesn't fit with it. Similarily I think imposing or pushing for standards of parity where no such realistic expectation has been justified is doomed to failure or worse.
Well said.
pharphis is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2017, 11:49 AM   #314
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,702
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
I agree with you saying you would expect more male leaders in the current system but my point is that there is no reason to think that the current system is producing the optimal outcome and that the gender imbalance is at least evidence to suggest that it isn't.
How is the gender imbalance evidence against it, unless you assume that there actually are no differences between the two sexes?

Quote:
And I don't think that it's fair to men either.
I don't expect reality to be fair, unfortunately.

ETA: How about my hunting analogy?
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか


Last edited by Argumemnon; 9th August 2017 at 11:53 AM.
Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2017, 11:54 AM   #315
pharphis
Graduate Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,233
Even if we're going to pretend that evolution stops at the neck (for those who pretend men and women are identical regarding behavior and preferences, despite every piece of evidence suggesting the opposite) we should STILL expect differences from a 50:50 ratio in at least some jobs (which will necessarily lead to differences in other jobs).
The reason?

Men are capable of the most physically demanding jobs, more often than women. So you will have more men as police officers, military personnel, firefighters, loggers, etc.

The 50:50 agenda is ridiculous on its face, given the above. Now, I wouldn't be surprised if some jobs do have a 50:50 balance, but I would not expect it to be the most common ratio even ignoring our brains.
pharphis is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2017, 11:56 AM   #316
pharphis
Graduate Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,233
I'm going to listen to this now, an interview with James Damore (the memo writer), another google employee and Jordan Peterson. (50 mins)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU

Last edited by pharphis; 9th August 2017 at 11:57 AM.
pharphis is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2017, 12:01 PM   #317
Delphic Oracle
Master Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,192
Also some failure to keep in mind that random distribution is not even distribution, even if we are purely equal in all aptitudes.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2017, 12:09 PM   #318
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,451
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
How is the gender imbalance evidence against it, unless you assume that there actually are no differences between the two sexes?



I don't expect reality to be fair, unfortunately.

ETA: How about my hunting analogy?
The gender balance is evidence because it's such a huge difference and quite variable across cultures. It's not an assumption that there are no differences but an assumption that the differences are not huge enough to account for the gap and not variable enough to account for the variances from one country to another.

Not only that but given that we need more stem grads we need to find ways to increase the pool despite any genetic differences that do exist.

I don't expect reality to be fair either but I don't use that as an argument to preserve unfairness where it exists and not to correct it if we can. Especially at a company like Google who are all about using our intellectual to make a better reality.

Striving to change the status quo is what stem is all about. In every respect. We get the future we envision. I'm struggling to understand your viewpoint as it seems to be lacking imagination. A future where stem is much more gender balanced isn't impossible. Easily than getting to mars I imagine.

Could you imagine arguing that we shouldn't go to mars because we are all just stuck on earth and that's the reality and the way things have always been?
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2017, 12:13 PM   #319
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,702
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
The gender balance is evidence because it's such a huge difference and quite variable across cultures. It's not an assumption that there are no differences but an assumption that the differences are not huge enough to account for the gap and not variable enough to account for the variances from one country to another.
Well, there is certainly both a genetic and cultural component. I still don't see the problem. Certain cultural norms will as a matter of course change the distribution of the genders in various fields. Unless there's an actual barrier to entry, however, I don't see the issue.

Quote:
I don't expect reality to be fair either but I don't use that as an argument to preserve unfairness where it exists and not to correct it if we can.
My point is that you can't correct the inherent unfairness, so it fall into the "if we can" clause.

Quote:
Striving to change the status quo is what stem is all about.
Yes but we're not talking about change for change's sake, hopefully. That's why we have to establish that the change is reasonably expected to be an improvement.

Quote:
Could you imagine arguing that we shouldn't go to mars because we are all just stuck on earth and that's the reality and the way things have always been?
Yes, I can. I can imagine that you need good reasons to invest in such a monumental project. Those reasons exist, but they may not convince enough people to get it going.

Hey, you still ignored my hunting analogy!
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2017, 12:14 PM   #320
Archie Gemmill Goal
Illuminator
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,451
Originally Posted by pharphis View Post
Even if we're going to pretend that evolution stops at the neck (for those who pretend men and women are identical regarding behavior and preferences, despite every piece of evidence suggesting the opposite) we should STILL expect differences from a 50:50 ratio in at least some jobs (which will necessarily lead to differences in other jobs).
The reason?

Men are capable of the most physically demanding jobs, more often than women. So you will have more men as police officers, military personnel, firefighters, loggers, etc.

The 50:50 agenda is ridiculous on its face, given the above. Now, I wouldn't be surprised if some jobs do have a 50:50 balance, but I would not expect it to be the most common ratio even ignoring our brains.
Yes great. But the current ratio you appear to be defending is 80/20. Can you support that as the right one? Because that seems even more ridiculous on its face.

Or 87/13 in the police?

96/4 for firefighters?

Is there any number that would make you see an issue or can we just ignore your input as without reason?
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:40 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.