<story><title>The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google</title><url>https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320/amp</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>DuskStar</author><text>There are actually a few studies showing gender differences in infants and monkeys. (males preferentially looking at&amp;#x2F;interacting with mechanical things, females faces&amp;#x2F;dolls) From that, you can assume that there are at least some biological differences in behavior between the sexes - and thus differing workplace representation is not necessarily 100% derived from social pressures. And if that&amp;#x27;s the case, achieving a 50&amp;#x2F;50 Female&amp;#x2F;Male split in every profession might not be desirable.&lt;p&gt;So I must agree with the author on his assertion that men and women are mentally different. I&amp;#x27;m not sure that those differences would cause women to be less interested in CS, but it isn&amp;#x27;t quite as unsupported a position as you&amp;#x27;d think.&lt;p&gt;EDIT: There&amp;#x27;s also the possibility that IQ variances differ between genders - with males having higher variability - and thus more males at the upper (and lower!) ends of the range. If CS attracts primarily high IQ individuals, that would also result in a gender gap. (this is what I&amp;#x27;d assume he meant with the reference to IQ in &amp;quot;Why we&amp;#x27;re blind&amp;quot;) &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;sci-hub.cc&amp;#x2F;10.1016&amp;#x2F;j.intell.2006.09.003&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;sci-hub.cc&amp;#x2F;10.1016&amp;#x2F;j.intell.2006.09.003&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>Hnrobert42</author><text>Yeah. I was willing to give him a fair hearing until he listed a handful of differences between men and women that he ascribes to biology without any factual support.&lt;p&gt;And therein lies the unconscious bias against which he is railing. To him, there is no question that men and women, on average, are fundamentally different in ways that affects their ability to and interest in work in tech.&lt;p&gt;I agree with him that folks shame those his viewpoint into silence. I&amp;#x27;m not entirely sure that&amp;#x27;s a bad thing.</text></item><item><author>Quarrelsome</author><text>There is bad with the good. The suggestion that men and women ARE different is taboo. The premise that the differences between them are social as opposed to literal is a much easier way to force the same point (and IMO more correct but I respect I lack the science to be certain). This person lacks tact and the way they view the entire political sphere as just left&amp;#x2F;right is ultimately of concern. Way too simplistic outlook IMO.</text></item><item><author>factsaresacred</author><text>I fail to understand the outrage but attribute that to the fact that few bothered to read the document before allowing themselves to be outraged by it - such is the shallow, feeling-fueled, hysteria-laden media cycle of today.&lt;p&gt;The doc presents a point-of-view, grounded in reality. Furthermore it&amp;#x27;s not &amp;quot;anti-diversity&amp;quot;, but rather anti-discrimination - specifically &amp;#x27;positive &amp;#x27;discrimination which it discredits while presenting alternative policies that are more inclusive (according to the author) and reflective of inherent psychological differences.&lt;p&gt;Have I read it wrong? Somebody correct me if I missed the controversial bits.&lt;p&gt;Edit: OK, it comes off the rails a little at the &amp;quot;Why we’re blind&amp;quot; section but overall it&amp;#x27;s food for thought (and no doubt a catharsis for many Right-leaning Googlers).&lt;p&gt;Since when is dialectics grounds for ostracism?</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>AlexandrB</author><text>&amp;gt; males preferentially looking at&amp;#x2F;interacting with mechanical things, females faces&amp;#x2F;dolls&lt;p&gt;Then why are most politicians male?&lt;p&gt;The problem with this line of reasoning is that it can be used to support almost any status quo because there&amp;#x27;s no obvious connecting line between childhood preference for &amp;quot;mechanical things&amp;quot; and STEM career preference later on. In particular, modern software development is highly collaborative and involves no &amp;quot;mechanical&amp;quot; parts at all. It&amp;#x27;s often closer to prose than mechanical engineering - focused on structure and organization rather than numbers and analysis. Not to mention the plethora of counter-examples in the form of &amp;quot;technical&amp;quot; degrees and careers where women are closer to 50%: &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.onwie.ca&amp;#x2F;resources-tools&amp;#x2F;statistics&amp;#x2F;canadian-engineering-undergraduates-female-enrollment-by-discipline&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.onwie.ca&amp;#x2F;resources-tools&amp;#x2F;statistics&amp;#x2F;canadian-engi...&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>
<story><title>The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google</title><url>https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320/amp</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>DuskStar</author><text>There are actually a few studies showing gender differences in infants and monkeys. (males preferentially looking at&amp;#x2F;interacting with mechanical things, females faces&amp;#x2F;dolls) From that, you can assume that there are at least some biological differences in behavior between the sexes - and thus differing workplace representation is not necessarily 100% derived from social pressures. And if that&amp;#x27;s the case, achieving a 50&amp;#x2F;50 Female&amp;#x2F;Male split in every profession might not be desirable.&lt;p&gt;So I must agree with the author on his assertion that men and women are mentally different. I&amp;#x27;m not sure that those differences would cause women to be less interested in CS, but it isn&amp;#x27;t quite as unsupported a position as you&amp;#x27;d think.&lt;p&gt;EDIT: There&amp;#x27;s also the possibility that IQ variances differ between genders - with males having higher variability - and thus more males at the upper (and lower!) ends of the range. If CS attracts primarily high IQ individuals, that would also result in a gender gap. (this is what I&amp;#x27;d assume he meant with the reference to IQ in &amp;quot;Why we&amp;#x27;re blind&amp;quot;) &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;sci-hub.cc&amp;#x2F;10.1016&amp;#x2F;j.intell.2006.09.003&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;sci-hub.cc&amp;#x2F;10.1016&amp;#x2F;j.intell.2006.09.003&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>Hnrobert42</author><text>Yeah. I was willing to give him a fair hearing until he listed a handful of differences between men and women that he ascribes to biology without any factual support.&lt;p&gt;And therein lies the unconscious bias against which he is railing. To him, there is no question that men and women, on average, are fundamentally different in ways that affects their ability to and interest in work in tech.&lt;p&gt;I agree with him that folks shame those his viewpoint into silence. I&amp;#x27;m not entirely sure that&amp;#x27;s a bad thing.</text></item><item><author>Quarrelsome</author><text>There is bad with the good. The suggestion that men and women ARE different is taboo. The premise that the differences between them are social as opposed to literal is a much easier way to force the same point (and IMO more correct but I respect I lack the science to be certain). This person lacks tact and the way they view the entire political sphere as just left&amp;#x2F;right is ultimately of concern. Way too simplistic outlook IMO.</text></item><item><author>factsaresacred</author><text>I fail to understand the outrage but attribute that to the fact that few bothered to read the document before allowing themselves to be outraged by it - such is the shallow, feeling-fueled, hysteria-laden media cycle of today.&lt;p&gt;The doc presents a point-of-view, grounded in reality. Furthermore it&amp;#x27;s not &amp;quot;anti-diversity&amp;quot;, but rather anti-discrimination - specifically &amp;#x27;positive &amp;#x27;discrimination which it discredits while presenting alternative policies that are more inclusive (according to the author) and reflective of inherent psychological differences.&lt;p&gt;Have I read it wrong? Somebody correct me if I missed the controversial bits.&lt;p&gt;Edit: OK, it comes off the rails a little at the &amp;quot;Why we’re blind&amp;quot; section but overall it&amp;#x27;s food for thought (and no doubt a catharsis for many Right-leaning Googlers).&lt;p&gt;Since when is dialectics grounds for ostracism?</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>saddlerustle</author><text>IQ variance might explain part of the difference in nobel prize winners, but is minuscule at average IQ in tech (~90th percentile).</text></comment>