“Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber” memo goes viral, usual suspects outraged

professore · 14-08-2017 04:36PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You are saying that a woman is not interested in certain careers for biological reasons. What biological reasons? Please explain this more.

It's very well explained in the memo. And it's not "a woman" it's "on average". There is an enormous difference.

Men are on average more interested in things whereas women are on average more interested in people. This has been proven over and over again with experiments with babies and even with primates. https://www.livescience.com/22677-girls-dolls-boys-toy-trucks.html

The "on average" thing is very important as "on average" you are much more likely to get lung cancer if you smoke cigarettes but this doesn't mean that some people won't live to 100 smoking 60 a day. Similarly just because some women are interested in STEM or more particularly programming doesn't mean it's a 50/50 split. My wife is a qualified engineer for example, but she's pretty unusual - and she laughs at the idea that men and women are the same on average.

Same as "on average" men are stronger than women ... this doesn't mean that Katie Taylor wouldn't knock me unconscious but she is unusual.

OR men are on average more violent than women.

Annasopra · 14-08-2017 04:41PM

professore wrote: »

It's very well explained in the memo. And it's not "a woman" it's "on average". There is an enormous difference.

Men are on average more interested in things whereas women are on average more interested in people. This has been proven over and over again with experiments with babies and even with primates. https://www.livescience.com/22677-girls-dolls-boys-toy-trucks.html

The "on average" thing is very important as "on average" you are much more likely to get lung cancer if you smoke cigarettes but this doesn't mean that some people won't live to 100 smoking 60 a day. Similarly just because some women are interested in STEM or more particularly programming doesn't mean it's a 50/50 split. My wife is a qualified engineer for example, but she's pretty unusual - and she laughs at the idea that men and women are the same on average.

Oh. Is that it. The memo says it and my wife laughs at it.

B0jangles · 14-08-2017 04:52PM

If intrinsic biological differences are responsible for the majority of programmers being male and the majority of teachers (for example) being female, why then were teachers mostly male up to around a hundred years ago and why were the original computer programmers mostly female?

silverharp · 14-08-2017 05:10PM

professore wrote: »

It's very well explained in the memo. And it's not "a woman" it's "on average". There is an enormous difference.

Men are on average more interested in things whereas women are on average more interested in people. This has been proven over and over again with experiments with babies and even with primates. https://www.livescience.com/22677-girls-dolls-boys-toy-trucks.html

The "on average" thing is very important as "on average" you are much more likely to get lung cancer if you smoke cigarettes but this doesn't mean that some people won't live to 100 smoking 60 a day. Similarly just because some women are interested in STEM or more particularly programming doesn't mean it's a 50/50 split. My wife is a qualified engineer for example, but she's pretty unusual - and she laughs at the idea that men and women are the same on average.

Same as "on average" men are stronger than women ... this doesn't mean that Katie Taylor wouldn't knock me unconscious but she is unusual.

OR men are on average more violent than women.

Anecdotal but essentially a stereotype are the certain boys in school when I was growing up who were obsessive into electronics/CB radios/Ham Radios and then computers when they came out. They are all engineers now in one shape or another. Even as a parent now yet to see any girls that are into the stuff you more associate with boys. When it comes down to it in this area there are less obsessive girls, they are more likely to see computers for examples as tools and are less likely to be curious as to how they work or how to improve them whereas a small number of boys will want to build their own , are curious about coding and whatnot.
I doubt socialisation has much to do with it , its pretty uncool to be a "geeky" teenager and its not like anyone bigs up male geekiness

silverharp · 14-08-2017 05:22PM

B0jangles wrote: »

If intrinsic biological differences are responsible for the majority of programmers being male and the majority of teachers (for example) being female, why then were teachers mostly male up to around a hundred years ago and why were the original computer programmers mostly female?

when you go across time like that there are other factors, I don't believe teaching is necessarily a male or female job. Men have dropped out by being outcompeted for places by women and men seeing teaching as less of an economic proposition. Why settle for a career that only pays half of another you think you are able for.
With the computer programming your average 1950's computer looked more like a phone exchange, the money was in building them and the programmers weren't paid well and there probably wasn't good alternative work for them.

kylith · 14-08-2017 05:28PM

B0jangles wrote: »

If intrinsic biological differences are responsible for the majority of programmers being male and the majority of teachers (for example) being female, why then were teachers mostly male up to around a hundred years ago and why were the original computer programmers mostly female?

Because teaching has become a lower paid, lower status job and programming has become a higher paid, higher status job.

I swear; if running a creche suddenly started paying really well in 5 years it'd be overrun with men, and people would be writing snotty memos about how women were mentally and biologically unsuited to looking after children.

Grayson · 14-08-2017 05:40PM

kylith wrote: »

Because teaching has become a lower paid, lower status job and programming has become a higher paid, higher status job.

I swear; if running a creche suddenly started paying really well in 5 years it'd be overrun with men, and people would be writing snotty memos about how women were mentally and biologically unsuited to looking after children.

Plus it's down to society. maybe there's less women programmers nowadays is not because they are biologically predisposed to be worse at it it's because it's socially not attractive. Also it's not considered a "female" job.
Girls grow up being thinking it's not a job for them.

So places like google try to make it more attractive and not discriminatory and you get sexist dicks complaining.

silverharp · 14-08-2017 05:41PM

kylith wrote: »

Because teaching has become a lower paid, lower status job and programming has become a higher paid, higher status job.

I swear; if running a creche suddenly started paying really well in 5 years it'd be overrun with men, and people would be writing snotty memos about how women were mentally and biologically unsuited to looking after children.

but doesn't that demonstrate the underlying assumption that men have to be more career minded and chase the cash. As the guy in Ghostbusters said, "If there's a steady paycheck involved, I'll believe anything you say."

Knex* · 14-08-2017 05:51PM

kylith wrote: »

Because teaching has become a lower paid, lower status job and programming has become a higher paid, higher status job.

I swear; if running a creche suddenly started paying really well in 5 years it'd be overrun with men, and people would be writing snotty memos about how women were mentally and biologically unsuited to looking after children.

silverharp wrote: »

but doesn't that demonstrate the underlying assumption that men have to be more career minded and chase the cash. As the guy in Ghostbusters said, "If there's a steady paycheck involved, I'll believe anything you say."

Yeah, this backups the points in memo more than anything...

B0jangles · 14-08-2017 05:57PM

So just like that it's nothing to do with innate biological differences drawing more men than women to programming, it's all about the paycheck?

That was surprisingly easy.

Knex* · 14-08-2017 05:59PM

B0jangles wrote: »

So just like that it's nothing to do with innate biological differences drawing more men than women to programming, it's all about the paycheck?

That was surprisingly easy.

Why do you think these are mutually exclusive?

Bob24 · 14-08-2017 06:04PM

B0jangles wrote: »

why were the original computer programmers mostly female?

I'd like to see numbers to back this up (as well as a clear definition of what is meant by "programmer" and if it corresponds to the software developer jobs we are talking about). Usually people who are making this statement are referring to this 1960s cosmopolitan article but it doesn't say anywhere that women dominated the field at the time. More that they were present in the field which back then seemed like a novelty.

Personally I call BS on this.

kylith · 14-08-2017 06:04PM

Grayson wrote: »

Plus it's down to society. maybe there's less women programmers nowadays is not because they are biologically predisposed to be worse at it it's because it's socially not attractive. Also it's not considered a "female" job.
Girls grow up being thinking it's not a job for them.

So places like google try to make it more attractive and not discriminatory and you get sexist dicks complaining.

Google's 'positive discrimination' these days will pave the way for more girls and young women to see programming as a potential career in the future.

While I agree that hiring a person to do a job solely because of their gender is generally not a good thing, doing things like running women-only events can only attract more women to the career, and that is a good thing.

B0jangles · 14-08-2017 06:05PM

Do you now think women are biologically predisposed to prefer getting paid less than men or something?

professore · 14-08-2017 06:11PM

B0jangles wrote: »

So just like that it's nothing to do with innate biological differences drawing more men than women to programming, it's all about the paycheck?

That was surprisingly easy.

The vast majority of medicine and pharmacy students are women now, two fields that are not known for low pay - but they are two that deal more with people than say coding or working on engines.

professore · 14-08-2017 06:14PM

Grayson wrote: »

Plus it's down to society. maybe there's less women programmers nowadays is not because they are biologically predisposed to be worse at it it's because it's socially not attractive. Also it's not considered a "female" job.
Girls grow up being thinking it's not a job for them.

So places like google try to make it more attractive and not discriminatory and you get sexist dicks complaining.

Since when is being a programmer socially attractive for guys ??? Guys do it DESPITE the negative stereotypes associated with it. Why are girls different?

Bob24 · 14-08-2017 06:19PM

professore wrote: »

Since when is being a programmer socially attractive for guys ??? Guys do it DESPITE the negative stereotypes associated with it. Why are girls different?

This. It is slightly changing now and being a software engineer for the likes of Google can in some cases give social capital. But back just 5 or 10 years ago no one would go into computer science because it would make them more popular or attractive ... they were more going into in because they liked it and in spite of the field seeming pretty boring and uncool to the general population (I suspect a few of us on the thread have personal experience of this :-)).

Dyr · 14-08-2017 06:19PM

Wombatman wrote: »

Any more questions?

I have a few but first lets ask the obvious questions, because the answers dictate whether or not I'll have to use finger puppets to phrase the next questions for ye

You realise that Bernie Sanders didn't run in the Presidential election?

You realise that the democratic presidential candidate is not selected by the voting public?

This is basic enough stuff

B0jangles · 14-08-2017 06:22PM

Bob24 wrote: »

I'd like to see numbers to back this up (as well as a clear definition of what is meant by "programmer" and if it corresponds to the software developer jobs we are talking about). Usually people who are making this statement are referring to this 1960s cosmopolitan article but it doesn't say anywhere that women dominated the field at the time. More that they were present in the field which back then seemed like a novelty.

Personally I call BS on this.

I spoke in error, there does not appear to have been a period when women made up over 50% of computer programmers.

However, in the '60s it absolutely was considered to be a job that was particularly suitable for female workers:

"Given a complex customer problem, a female analyst/programmer will often handle the problem better than would her male colleagues with equivalent experience and ability. Not because businessmen are more lenient or show favoritism toward the female of the species, but because the female is often more sensitive to the nuances of a problem and to the complex interpersonal relations that may be part of the problem. In a very real sense, every computer problem with a customer is also a customer relations problem, and this is where feminine tact, insight, and intuition, combining with solid programming and analytical ability, can really pay off for the girl programmer."

-Your Career in Computer Programming, 1967 I.J. Seligsohn, IBM public relations officer

http://thecomputerboys.com/?p=717

Also 42% of software developers were female in the late '80s in the U.S., a proportion which is close enough to a majority to be worth noticing since the proportion apparently dropped by over 50% in the following 20 years

https://stumblingpast.com/2015/10/18/women-worlds-1st-programmers/

If there truly are fundamental biological differences why have the numbers fluctuated so very much over such an extremely short period?

silverharp · 14-08-2017 06:26PM

B0jangles wrote: »

So just like that it's nothing to do with innate biological differences drawing more men than women to programming, it's all about the paycheck?

That was surprisingly easy.

whoa, I said different times, opportunities for women were less and the computer market was very small. For example in Iran I believe more women do engineering because its their chance for independence or getting away for their families. In Sweden where this stress doesnt exist women choose other careers even though the system if very pro woman

professore · 14-08-2017 06:26PM

The typical male programmer stereotype

Bob24 · 14-08-2017 06:38PM

B0jangles wrote: »

If there truly are fundamental biological differences why have the numbers fluctuated so very much over such an extremely short period?

The nature of the job has changed a lot over time.

Actually the job of analyst/programmer mentioned in what you are quoting is kind of out of fashion and now split across different roles, and for someone who knows the industry it is clear the article you quoted is not insisting on what would be called a software developer job today, but emphasising more on business analysis competencies (and again any industry insider will know there are definitly more female business analysts than female software developers):

"Given a complex customer problem, a female analyst/programmer will often handle the problem better than would her male colleagues with equivalent experience and ability. Not because businessmen are more lenient or show favoritism toward the female of the species, but because the female is often more sensitive to the nuances of a problem and to the complex interpersonal relations that may be part of the problem. In a very real sense, every computer problem with a customer is also a customer relations problem, and this is where feminine tact, insight, and intuition, combining with solid programming and analytical ability, can really pay off for the girl programmer."

The parts I highlighted are also saying that on average women are better than men at certain aspects (namely "nuance of a problem", and "interpersonal relations") so it is agreeing with the memo in saying that on average both genders have different natural strengths and interests. And the specific points they mention related to women are incidentally exactly in line with one of the statement in the Damore memo where he says "Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things , relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing )".

silverharp · 14-08-2017 06:43PM

professore wrote: »

The typical male programmer stereotype

remember wargames?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfJJk7i0NTk

professore · 14-08-2017 06:56PM

It's funny that the modern US liberal viewpoint seems to be that men are bungling idiots while women are brilliant at everything, yet men and women are completely identical in every way and any challenge to that idea is sexist if a white male says it. Crazy I tells ya.

professore · 14-08-2017 07:01PM

B0jangles wrote: »

Bob24 wrote: »

I'd like to see numbers to back this up (as well as a clear definition of what is meant by "programmer" and if it corresponds to the software developer jobs we are talking about). Usually people who are making this statement are referring to this 1960s cosmopolitan article but it doesn't say anywhere that women dominated the field at the time. More that they were present in the field which back then seemed like a novelty.

Personally I call BS on this.

I spoke in error, there does not appear to have been a period when women made up over 50% of computer programmers.

However, in the '60s it absolutely was considered to be a job that was particularly suitable for female workers:

"Given a complex customer problem, a female analyst/programmer will often handle the problem better than would her male colleagues with equivalent experience and ability. Not because businessmen are more lenient or show favoritism toward the female of the species, but because the female is often more sensitive to the nuances of a problem and to the complex interpersonal relations that may be part of the problem. In a very real sense, every computer problem with a customer is also a customer relations problem, and this is where feminine tact, insight, and intuition, combining with solid programming and analytical ability, can really pay off for the girl programmer."

-Your Career in Computer Programming, 1967 I.J. Seligsohn, IBM public relations officer

http://thecomputerboys.com/?p=717

Also 42% of software developers were female in the late '80s in the U.S., a proportion which is close enough to a majority to be worth noticing since the proportion apparently dropped by over 50% in the following 20 years

https://stumblingpast.com/2015/10/18/women-worlds-1st-programmers/

If there truly are fundamental biological differences why have the numbers fluctuated so very much over such an extremely short period?

Good question.

Could it be because women care more what others think of them than men?

B0jangles · 14-08-2017 07:05PM

professore wrote: »

It's funny that the modern US liberal viewpoint seems to be that men are bungling idiots while women are brilliant at everything, yet men and women are completely identical in every way and any challenge to that idea is sexist if a white male says it. Crazy I tells ya.

Who is saying that?

Personally I've done my best to back up anything I've said with as much data as I can find. Most of what is coming back is a mass of personal opinions which mostly seem to be of the type 'Men do X, Women do Y' as a basic and eternal truth, followed by a lot of arguing backwards from that 'fact' to justify that opinion, plus repeated instructions to 'Read the Memo'.

I'm not sure why or when a programmer working in Google became such an unassailable authority on gender representation in the tech industry?

B0jangles · 14-08-2017 07:05PM

professore wrote: »

Good question.

Could it be because women care more what others think of them than men?

What does that even mean in that context?

IRE60 · 14-08-2017 07:13PM

There is a very interesting article in the Economist this week - it argues (rather well) that he shouldn't have been fired. It says that the 'debate' the memo suggested take place is now dead in the water. They say that the CEO should have countered his 'thesis' in a separate memo and not hammer free speech (regardless of where you stand on this)

suicide_circus · 14-08-2017 08:26PM

IRE60 wrote: »

There is a very interesting article in the Economist this week - it argues (rather well) that he shouldn't have been fired. It says that the 'debate' the memo suggested take place is now dead in the water. They say that the CEO should have countered his 'thesis' in a separate memo and not hammer free speech (regardless of where you stand on this)

But we're not interested in debate. Only conformity and compliance with approved doctrine.

IRE60 · 14-08-2017 08:31PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

But we're not interested in debate. Only conformity and compliance with approved doctrine.

Strangely enough that was mentioned in a separate article!

“Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber” memo goes viral, usual suspects outraged

Comments