[abalone]

This is not merely sexist. Amidst his rambling "evolutionary psychology" argument he also protests racial diversity programs.[1] And his explanation for that? It's buried here:

"Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ and sex differences)." (emphasis mine)

So women are bad at programming because of evolution and non-whites/asians are bad at it because they're dumb. According to science. Does dressing this up in pseudo-academic prose make it any less racist?

[1] "Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race"

[mrchicity]

How is that racist?

Racist is "I think all Mexicans are dumb, so I won't hire any or even give them an interview. I hate Mexicans."

Racism is not "Groups of humans evolved dramatically different physical characteristics, vulnerability to health conditions, ability to consume foods like lactose, and countless other characteristics. There's some evidence to suggest they may have different distributions of skills required to do this job well. Even if there are no innate differences, there are certainly cultures that prioritize learning the skills we require more than others.

I wouldn't be surprised to see different groups represented at different rates vs. the general population at this job. However, I'm smart enough to realize there are extremely skilled and extremely unskilled members of every group, and I'd gladly interview and hire from any."

[abalone]

There is a long history of seeking pseudo-scientific explanations for racist beliefs. See for example, phrenology and eugenics.

I am actually glad that you concede that "cultures" can affect learning, not merely evolution. While most people usually use that term to blame minorities for their disadvantages (i.e. culture means "their" culture), it also means that you implicitly accept that living in a (shared) culture with systematic racism and discrimination over several centuries can perhaps negatively affect skill acquisition as well.

[mrchicity]

Of course. There's rarely a single cause for anything.

But in today's world, real systematic discrimination in hiring and employment isn't likely to be the main driver at places like Google. When you're selecting for individuals several standard deviations above the mean in ability, even very slight shifts in the population mean dramatically affect the number you'll find at such a threshold. This is a touchy third-rail subject, one we'd probably do well not to discuss much, but when the alternative is constantly being told that you're racist or prejudiced, people will naturally want to fight back.

If the city police or local factory had extremely lopsided racial representation, I'd be much more inclined to believe it's due to prejudice. Any average person can do these jobs. Even if there are differences between groups, all groups would have a huge number of people around the average range.

And I'm not saying this out of some attempt to claim supremacy, justify prejudice, or advocate for eugenics. My family is from Portugal. If I had to wager, I wouldn't bet on Portuguese being at the top of the heap intellect-wise, on average. Look at who's winning the Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals--it's not people like me most of the time. Still, we should treat every person as an individual, with respect and dignity.

[fidgetPing]

Hold on, do you deny that IQ has a strong heritable component and that there's a well-documented IQ difference between different populations? Cause that's all he's saying, while also emphasizing that these statements mean little when referring to specific individuals.

[abalone]

Lots of problems connecting IQ with race and heritability, well researched. See for example:

the "heritability" of IQ - the degree to which IQ variations can be explained by genes - varies dramatically by socioeconomic class. Heritability among high-SES (socioeconomic status) kids was 0.72; in other words, genetic factors accounted for 72 percent of the variations in IQ, while shared environment accounted for only 15 percent. For low-SES kids, on the other hand, the relative influence of genes and environment was inverted: Estimated heritability was only 0.10, while shared environment explained 58 percent of IQ variations.[1]

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/why-peo...

[mrchicity]

This is evidence that we should invest more in early childhood enrichment and healthy food for the poor, so everyone can reach their potential. Genetics determine the capability of your engine, but you still need to feed it with gas.

It doesn’t justify lowering the bar for hiring, creating quota systems, or engaging in positive discrimination.

[lawnchair_larry]

Why did you say women are bad at programming because of evolution and non-whites/asians are bad at it because they're dumb?

I read his paper 3 times, and from what I can tell, that claim didn't exist until you made it.

This is why we can't have honest conversations. By all means, disagree with things that he is saying, and engage him on any points that you feel need to be corrected. But don't disagree with things he quite obviously isn't saying. That doesn't get us anywhere.

[abalone]

> I read his paper 3 times, and from what I can tell, that claim didn't exist until you made it.

I literally directly cited the "paper", as you call it. Specifically "evolutionary psychology" and "IQ" explaining the gender and race performance gaps, respectively.

[npxcomplete]

Strawman bump