opinion on google/damore story?

But here's a good starting place: The share of women in computer science started falling at roughly the same moment when personal computers started showing up in U.S. homes in significant numbers.

These early personal computers weren't much more than toys. You could play pong or simple shooting games, maybe do some word processing. And these toys were marketed almost entirely to men and boys.

This idea that computers are for boys became a narrative. It became the story we told ourselves about the computing revolution. It helped define who geeks were, and it created techie culture.

Propagandhi711 wrote:well to be fair, a place like google hires the best of the best and at those rarified levels maybe there arent enough talented women because they're supposedly far more heavily weighted toward the middle of the bell curve compared to men. I agree such arguments were made in the past to keep them out of professions but to deny all logical arguments as it's inconvenient to current narrative sucks.

"The only people who still say that kind of thing about those fields are unsuccessful men who need someone to blame. But in the tech industry, these stereotypes are still quite strong. "


same sentiment was expressed by larry summers about 10 yrs ago, was he also unsuccessful and needing someone to blame?

Propagandhi711 wrote:too much guessing, not enough following

Propagandhi711 wrote:well to be fair, a place like google hires the best of the best and at those rarified levels maybe there arent enough talented women because they're supposedly far more heavily weighted toward the middle of the bell curve compared to men. I agree such arguments were made in the past to keep them out of professions but to deny all logical arguments as it's inconvenient to current narrative sucks.

Propagandhi711 wrote:"The only people who still say that kind of thing about those fields are unsuccessful men who need someone to blame. But in the tech industry, these stereotypes are still quite strong. "


same sentiment was expressed by larry summers about 10 yrs ago, was he also unsuccessful and needing someone to blame?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:I'm not sure biology is what is keeping women away from CS/Eng. Women are beating men in total STEM degrees in all fields except CS/Eng/Physics. Yes more women getting math degrees too. The reason there are fewer women at companies like Google is because there are fewer women in CS and Eng.  

Also see this:
https://qz.com/730290/harvey-mudd-college-took-on-gender-bias-and-now-more-than-half-its-computer-science-majors-are-women/

I remember someone doing a study of mathematical ability of academic professionals. The results as I recall were that the averages between men and women were close with men having a slight edge but real difference was in the distribution's upper tail where men were more numerous farther along the tail. Most women (and men) do not have Fields medal level math ability.

My opinion for most STEM work well above math ability is sufficient.  Focusing on the extreme upper tail (Fields medal type people) distracts from the task of developing a qualified workforce and probably dissuades talented girls from pursuing STEM.  Nobody wants to pursue an activity where they are told they have a biological handicap.

That said it was not right to fire Damore. 
That sends a terrible message to the younger gen.

pravalika nanda wrote:

what are you smoking, max? that guy can never get a date. esp not with any woman at google now. sundar could see that he was going to languish in some corner and be ostracized by everyone and stay single forever so he fired him. that was very kind of him, don't you think?

pravalika nanda wrote:aside, I don't give a shit about what happened at google. but that guy is wrong about women. women are lagging behind just like black men because they have been second class  citizens for thousands of years.

SomeProfile wrote:There were two things Damore mentioned in his write-up, both of which cannot be denied:

1. Men and women are inherently different, both physiologically and psychologically.

SomeProfile wrote:These physiological and psychological factors go a long way in explaining the differences in their performance at the work place.

Idéfix wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:well to be fair, a place like google hires the best of the best and at those rarified levels maybe there arent enough talented women because they're supposedly far more heavily weighted toward the middle of the bell curve compared to men. I agree such arguments were made in the past to keep them out of professions but to deny all logical arguments as it's inconvenient to current narrative sucks.

It's not a logical argument just because it sounds plausible. It would be a logical argument if it was backed up by strong evidence. AFAIK there is no strong evidence for this hypothesis.

Propagandhi711 wrote:"The only people who still say that kind of thing about those fields are unsuccessful men who need someone to blame. But in the tech industry, these stereotypes are still quite strong. "


same sentiment was expressed by larry summers about 10 yrs ago, was he also unsuccessful and needing someone to blame?

He said that about science, not about law or medicine. I should broaden my comment to: "But in the tech industry STEM fields, these stereotypes are still quite strong."

Idéfix wrote:

SomeProfile wrote:These physiological and psychological factors go a long way in explaining the differences in their performance at the work place.

In the context of most positions at Google, this is not an established fact. Neither Damore nor you have backed up this assertion with solid evidence.

pravalika nanda wrote:women are lagging behind just like black men because they have been second class  citizens for thousands of years. he should be fired not for being some kind of outlier but for being so fucking dumb. now that's a problem.

smArtha wrote:

pravalika nanda wrote:women are lagging behind just like black men because they have been second class  citizens for thousands of years. he should be fired not for being some kind of outlier but for being so fucking dumb. now that's a problem.

Black Men were second class citizens in Africa for thousands of years? When did white people colonize and enslave Africans?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

smArtha wrote:

pravalika nanda wrote:women are lagging behind just like black men because they have been second class  citizens for thousands of years. he should be fired not for being some kind of outlier but for being so fucking dumb. now that's a problem.

Black Men were second class citizens in Africa for thousands of years? When did white people colonize and enslave Africans?

Why you haven't heard of South Africa or Zimbabwe (Rhodesia)?

southindian wrote:
James Damore is an idiot. Period. And he knows that know. He has nothing except giving TV interviews.

SomeProfile wrote:

southindian wrote:
James Damore is an idiot. Period. And he knows that know. He has nothing except giving TV interviews.

Hardly! He has a fat Google-sized settlement package to look forward to. Plus, he has a long line of right wing girls ready to date him now. And once he gets that settlement package from Google, even left wing girls will join the line... if they have not already!

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:well to be fair, a place like google hires the best of the best and at those rarified levels maybe there arent enough talented women because they're supposedly far more heavily weighted toward the middle of the bell curve compared to men. I agree such arguments were made in the past to keep them out of professions but to deny all logical arguments as it's inconvenient to current narrative sucks.

It's not a logical argument just because it sounds plausible. It would be a logical argument if it was backed up by strong evidence. AFAIK there is no strong evidence for this hypothesis.

Propagandhi711 wrote:"The only people who still say that kind of thing about those fields are unsuccessful men who need someone to blame. But in the tech industry, these stereotypes are still quite strong. "


same sentiment was expressed by larry summers about 10 yrs ago, was he also unsuccessful and needing someone to blame?

He said that about science, not about law or medicine. I should broaden my comment to: "But in the tech industry STEM fields, these stereotypes are still quite strong."

no STRONG evidence as there is no way to separate the social conditioning aspect from innate sex driven ability from past data (taken over past 100+ yrs). however this article written by a woman claims there's something something to innate sex differences in the rarified 1%.

if google hires 1% of top 1% to write predictive search algorithms that can beat work being done by anyone else in the world, then it does stand to reason they're more likely to land men disproportionately.

methinks where this nerd went wrong is that he feels google's work is solely limited to writing those faster algos and nothing else. he doesnt realize the amount of collaboration that happens at even a purely technology company like google that requires other skills that the .01% jocks may not have but women might excel at...

Dave Lubinski, a psychology professor at Vanderbilt University, also studies the SAT scores of precocious 7th graders and tracks what happens to them in their careers. The oldest cohort is now 50 years old. He says once you narrow the population down to the 1 percenters in math, boys do score slightly higher. “But conditional on being in the 1% of math, the girls have better verbal skills.”
This suggests women may be less likely to be extreme math stars, but they display a more well-rounded intelligence. It’s hard to separate out what’s biological and environmental because intelligence reflects what you study and how intensely you pursue it. People are often drawn to what they are good at and what they have access to. Lubinski and his coauthors observed that women are more drawn to working with people and jobs that prize communication. Many talented women, for a number of reasons like discrimination or just their personal preferences, don’t end up as research scientists.

https://qz.com/441905/men-are-both-dumber-and-smarter-than-women/

SomeProfile wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

SomeProfile wrote:These physiological and psychological factors go a long way in explaining the differences in their performance at the work place.

In the context of most positions at Google, this is not an established fact. Neither Damore nor you have backed up this assertion with solid evidence.

In the context of Google, is it an established fact that differences in performance between men and women is due to external factors such as discrimination against women, misogyny, etc.? And not due to factors inherent to the delivery of personal results by the men and women themselves? In fact, the opposite seems to be the case in Google since inception. Yet, women don't seem to be doing as well as men at Google even so many years after it was established, and even after getting preferential treatment, and reverse discrimination in their favor all these years. Wonder why!

Idéfix wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:well to be fair, a place like google hires the best of the best and at those rarified levels maybe there arent enough talented women because they're supposedly far more heavily weighted toward the middle of the bell curve compared to men. I agree such arguments were made in the past to keep them out of professions but to deny all logical arguments as it's inconvenient to current narrative sucks.

It's not a logical argument just because it sounds plausible. It would be a logical argument if it was backed up by strong evidence. AFAIK there is no strong evidence for this hypothesis.

Propagandhi711 wrote:"The only people who still say that kind of thing about those fields are unsuccessful men who need someone to blame. But in the tech industry, these stereotypes are still quite strong. "


same sentiment was expressed by larry summers about 10 yrs ago, was he also unsuccessful and needing someone to blame?

He said that about science, not about law or medicine. I should broaden my comment to: "But in the tech industry STEM fields, these stereotypes are still quite strong."

no STRONG evidence as there is no way to separate the social conditioning aspect from innate sex driven ability from past data (taken over past 100+ yrs). however this article written by a woman claims there's something something to innate sex differences in the rarified 1%.

if google hires 1% of top 1% to write predictive search algorithms that can beat work being done by anyone else in the world, then it does stand to reason they're more likely to land men disproportionately.

methinks where this nerd went wrong is that he feels google's work is solely limited to writing those faster algos and nothing else. he doesnt realize the amount of collaboration that happens at even a purely technology company like google that requires other skills that the .01% jocks may not have but women might excel at...

https://qz.com/441905/men-are-both-dumber-and-smarter-than-women/

Even if we assume for a minute that women are less likely to be extreme math stars than men, the idea that Google hires only extreme math stars is incorrect. I know several guys who are not extreme math stars who work there. A lot of work in a large company involves working with people to get things done, and many roles including engineering require strong interpersonal skills. Most of Google's workforce is not inventing bleeding-edge algorithms, they are doing product design, marketing and sales work, not to mention large departments of corporate work that you would find at any other Fortune 500 company.