[ntuch]

> a population of engineers is not randomly selected so isn't appear guasian with respect to averages of the global population

That's totally irrelevant - so irrelevant that the fact you posted it suggests you don't understand what's being discussed here.

The "manifesto" didn't say anything even remotely in the same universe as, "male employees of Google are different from female employees" (a claim to which you might respond, "that's not true because engineers aren't randomly selected."

The manifesto explained why there are fewer females in the field of engineering.

It's like if I point out that there are fewer Asians playing professional basketball because Asians tend to be shorter. Your statement is like saying that professional basketball players aren't selected randomly, they're selected (in part) for height. Totally irrelevant to a discussion of why there are fewer overall.

I'm on mobile right now. If you like, I'll gladly take apart the rest of your post when I get home. But this bit is a good start. It's really indicative of the kind of person who has criticized the memo.

[lordCarbonFiber]

In your "counter" example you highlight my point. Asians, on average, might be shorter, but if you come in with that knowledge and then present the conclusions that asians in professional basketball perform worse than others (exactly what this individual attempted to do with women) would be insane since the asians that do play basketball professional tend to be just as tall as everyone else that does [As an aside, basketball is huge in china and they placed 6th at the last Olympics so it's a nonsensical example anyway]. And it's relevant because it's his fundamental thesis.

As for the field of engineering as a whole, he completely ignores the fact that ratios in other high stress high prestige professions such as medicine and law [0][1] (which have dramatically higher barriers to entry than technology while also having a much stronger historical precedence for being male dominated [we forget that programming was female dominated until the 70s]), while not even, hover at around 2:1[0][1] as opposed the 4 or 5 :1 we see in technology.

He made no verifiable claims that the women in tech were performing at any lower level just attempted to use global stats (questionable ones at best as noted above) to justify painting diversity initiatives as unnecessary.

The sad thing is there are some kernels of not terrible ideas burred at the bottom of all the pseudo science bullshit. I'd love to see more programs opened up to all engineers, because again, just because the average male is more assertive doesn't mean the average male software engineer at google is.

[0]http://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/physicians-by-gende...

[1]https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/m...

[ntuch]

> asians in professional basketball perform worse than others

Can you quote the exact portion of his post that made this claim?

If not, then why did you state it??

> he completely ignores the fact that ratios in other high stress high prestige professions such as medicine and law [0][1] (which have dramatically higher barriers to entry than technology while also having a much stronger historical precedence for being male dominated [we forget that programming was female dominated until the 70s]), while not even, hover at around 2:1[0][1] as opposed the 4 or 5 :1 we see in technology.

That sucks that he ignored that. Fortunately, others have addressed it. Here you go:

http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagger...

(in particular, section IV). So, there it is, addressed, as you requested. You are still wrong, and the google engineer is still right.

[micahbright]

>and then present the conclusions that asians in professional basketball perform worse than others (exactly what this individual attempted to do with women)

Could you quote exactly the line where he "attempted to do the same with women who work at Google"?

That would be pure gold. I read the memo, but I don't recall that part.

I'm thinking, one of us may have our blinders one. I just want you to do the work since it is your claim, and it's a 10 page memo.

[lordCarbonFiber]

It's implicit in the thesis. It's there in the very first fucking line if you use [0] source.

Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.

The fundamental disconnect between people like the OP and companies like google is over the the idea that there is an untapped well of talent locked away in groups under represented in the space. That's the whole reason these diversity programs exist.

You can look no farther than the countless blog posts on how hard interviewing and sourcing candidates that get upvoted here. Candidate acquisition is hard and expensive and it is not helped by exclusionary hiring practices. [1]

As much as we'd love to live in a world where we all spoke lojban and full meaning in language was implicitly clear, we're stuck with English so context and tone matter.

At best you have a tone deaf person writing a tasteless memo full of bad science and incorrect assertions, at worst you have all the toxic thinking that makes a lot tech such awful places to work. Engineering deserves better than bad math and dog whistles. It's really hard to argue "discrimination" when as a white guy in tech every team you're on will be full of people like you, think like you, hire like you and all the existing metrics are designed based around how you were raised. Like, there really is nothing in this world easier, than being a white dude in tech in my experience so it's very difficult to take any thing said there in good faith.

[ntuch]

So the answer to the question: Could you quote exactly the line where he 'attempted to do the same with women who work at Google'?

is, "no, I cannot quote that, because I just made it up."

> It's implicit in the thesis.

You lie.

> It's there in the very first fucking line if you use [0] source.

No, it's not. You have no rebuttal, and you're just making things up. You're wrong, and you're attempting to conceal it with lies.

[micahbright]

> Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership.

You're saying this implies that the author thinks women working at Google perform worse than men at Google?

I just want to make sure I understand exactly what you mean, and for anyone who is reading what was written above, this might clarify.

[craigsmansion]

> It's like if I point out that there are fewer Asians playing professional basketball because Asians tend to be shorter.

Let me stop you right there and black swan you for a moment before the argument deteriorates into an alt-right "Freedom of speech" argument.

-Do you contest there are female (software) engineers, or at least one female software engineer, in the highest echelons that are completely technically on par with their male counterparts?

-Can you prove that these female engineers (or even this single female engineer) has a "man brain" that allows her to be on par with her male counterparts?

If you cannot do that, the rest of any argument is bupkis. Until then, females should be assumed to be equivalent regarding that task.

Any large employer that does not attempt to correct this potential disparity to add to their workforce is stealing from its shareholders--to put it in conservative terms, and consequently, correcting any mistakes with regards to this equality objective is fully legitimate.

The manifesto explained nothing, but postulated that "guys like things and girls are emotional and that's why they make worse engineers, which makes the hiring process unfair" which doesn't follow, at all.

Maybe he just got fired for being terrible at logic and science; not a great trait in an engineer.

[ntuch]

> Do you contest there are female (software) engineers, or at least one female software engineer, in the highest echelons that are completely technically on par with their male counterparts?

Why would I contest that?

After I just said, "there are fewer Asians playing professional basketball because Asians tend to be shorter."

Your question is like asking, "do you disagree with the fact that yao ming is at least as tall as other basketball players"

Seriously man, WTF are you doing? Are you even reading my posts???

> Can you prove that these female engineers (or even this single female engineer) has a "man brain" that allows her to be on par with her male counterparts?

What??

[craigsmansion]

> Why would I contest that?

Good, you do not contest that, which, frankly, would have been a silly thing to do.

> After I just said, "there are fewer Asians playing professional basketball because Asians tend to be shorter."

So, "there are fewer women in IT because women tend to be [biological argument]"

Now what here is the [biological argument]?

We've already established that there is at least one woman who is just as capable a programmer or software engineer as any man could be.

That means this woman is exceptional because either:

A) She has a specific biologically determined male trait

or

B) She is not exceptionally different in any biological way but somehow has a unique environment that allows her to be an exceptional programmer.

Occam's razor suggests B here, in the absence of extra-ordinary evidence to suggest A.

Therefore it would be prudent for any employer to offer a benefit for women to shortcut the much complicated and convoluted environmental and social factors that are involved in the B scenario.

Any interlocutor who claims to have found evidence of the [biological component], and as such support A, but does not back this up rigorously, can be assumed to be working against the interests of the employer. Whether this is for ego, political, or religious reasons is irrelevant.

[ntuch]

> Good, you do not contest that

Literally nobody has ever contested it. The google manifesto didn't contest it. You just imagined it. You're arguing against a straw man. You always have been.

> So, "there are fewer women in IT because women tend to be [biological argument]"

> Now what here is the [biological argument]?

If we go back to talking about women, you're just going to start imagining straw man again. You seemed to have a moment of clarity when I mentioned asians and basketball, so stick with that.

There are fewer asians in the NBA because asians tend to be shorter, on average. Even though that's true of the average, Yao Ming is over seven feet tall.

Not me, and not the google guy have ever said anything except the previous two sentences. Yet for some reason, here's what you have made up, entirely on your own, out of whole cloth: "There are fewer asians in the NBA, and those that are in the NBA are all shorter than the men in the NBA" <--- that's your straw man. That's not the argument that's on the table.

And this:

> She has a specific biologically determined male trait

is just another example of you not getting it. "Height" is not a "specific biologically determined <group> trait."

It's possible for a group of people to be taller on average, or shorter on average than another group. But that doesn't mean that "short" is a "biologically determined asian trait."

Here's a picture of the straw man you're arguing against: http://i.imgur.com/QurucPk.png

You must think that's what the google manifesto claimed, otherwise you wouldn't have said "specific biologically determined male trait."

Here's a picture of what everyone else except you is actually talking about: http://i.imgur.com/005ojrV.png

There are more men than women available at certain points on the line, but if you selected only people at some specific point, then men and women would have exactly the same value - just like how, there are fewer asians at the point on the line labeled, "seven feet tall" however, if I selected people at that point, Yao Ming would be seven feet tall.

It's really sad to me that your entire objection was based on a straw man. Some guy lost his job, and a lot of people are angry, and it's all because you imagined something that wasn't there. It's basically a witch hunt. You're seeing witches and demons where none exist. Congratulations, you're the modern equivalent of a superstitious person imagining dangers in the dark.

[craigsmansion]

> You're arguing against a straw man. You always have been.

No, I'm setting up the premise for a logical argument. One you apparently refuse or are unable to follow.

> Not me, and not the google guy have ever said anything except the previous two sentences.

Right. I could work my way through the tedious document again and point out the compendium of ever increasing logical fallacies and plain dumb non-scientific assertions, but, I'm not getting paid for it, and at this point it's no use throwing good science after bad and Google made the right choice already. I don't have to convince anybody.

Suffice to say: the people at Google are generally smart and saw through all the bullshit and rightfully fired the guy in spite of knee jerk protestations from what appears to be mainly conservatives with a bruised ego, lack of understanding of scientific reasoning, and an Internet connection.

> It's basically a witch hunt. You're seeing witches and demons where none exist. Congratulations, you're the modern equivalent of a superstitious person imagining dangers in the dark.

Sorry, but science and reason are not on your side here. Maybe you should calm down instead of assume a partisan position and reason from that. Bad facts make for bad science.

[ntuch]

> I'm setting up the premise for a logical argument

Nope. You're arguing a straw man. You're lying about the contents of the memo.

> I could work my way through the tedious document again and point out the compendium of ever increasing logical fallacies and plain dumb non-scientific assertions

You're lying. You cannot do that. You can only argue against straw man of your own creation.

> the people at Google are generally smart and saw through all the bullshit and rightfully fired the guy in spite of knee jerk protestations from what appears to be mainly conservatives with a bruised ego

Nope. The people at Google are mainly leftists whose egos were bruised by having the truth presented to them. Instead of refute anything in the memo, they made knee jerk protestations (and often violent threats, as leftists tend to be bullies).

> science and reason are not on your side here.

Oh yes they are. The claims made by the memo are absolutely correct. You cannot even begin to address them, which is why you prefer to lie through straw men.