Seriously geetee72? You’re actually agreeing with someone who feels it is appropriate to judge the ability of someone to do a job simply on whether they happen to be a man or not?
Are you saying, if you were recruiting for a technical position, you would choose a man over a woman for the role?
If that’s not the case, you disagree with the whole premise of what he is saying.
If you agree? Well, actually, I’m not even sure I can say what I’m thinking without expecting a very long ban hammer...
Rachel
Yeah, but aren't boobies brilliant though!
Don't say that at work either.
Seriously geetee72? You’re actually agreeing with someone who feels it is appropriate to judge the ability of someone to do a job simply on whether they happen to be a man or not?
WOW!
No, not remotely. I'm not saying that. No one is, not even Jordan Peterson.
Where the hell did you get that idea from?
Are you saying that we should specifically prioritise some candidates because they are either women or BEM just because they are (all other things being equal)?
allthegear - Member
Are you saying, if you were recruiting for a technical position, you would choose a man over a woman for the role?
Surely gender should not be a question for recruitment but if they (companies) artificially employ difference gender etc, just to be politically correct to meet quota, then surely there is something wrong is it not? 🙄
Is this the geek version of "I was just telling the truth, what happened to freedom of speech?"
Pretty much, I think it's fundamentally wrong to fire someone for holding an opinion, if they act on that opinion at work by, for instance, not hiring women into tech jobs, then that's a different matter.
If we start firing employees for holding opinions we disagree with there aren't going to be whole lot a people in work tomorrow.
His points are valid (although I dont' particularly agree with them, but obviously there is a train of thought that does)
What was he thinking sending a memo however, foolish in the extreme.
Is there a point at which the political situation is more important than what the scientific data tells us?
Well, Google's tech staff is apparently largely white & Asian men.
You could go off and cherry pick research on the comparative intelligence of Afro-Americans to try to justify this.
But that would be a bit dickish, not to mention politically inappropriate.
If you are the sort of hate-filled right-wing nut job who believes all that crap then you also believe that corporations can hire and fire at will so you're SOL when they decide to do just that.
Unless of course you're a whiny entitled cockbag who embellishes their CV in which case intellectual consistency and honesty is probably not your strong point.
Surely gender should not be a question for recruitment but if they (companies) artificially employ difference gender etc, just to be politically correct to meet quota, then surely there is something wrong is it not?
This would be valid if it were true. However most tech companies are sausage fests and continue to be so. It's not like tech companies hire women who can't do the job just because they are female. It's moronic to suggest they do.
As an aside, how happy would people be if Mr Former-Google-Engineer had said the same thing about an ethnic group? After all, they're far less represented than white people in tech firms.
The problem with posts like this, presented in this fashion is that they aren't conducive to forum discussion. Instead it quickly descends into an arsehole jamboree, with confirmation bias aggressively being bandied about.
I'm out, I'm afraid.
What I am doing is challenging the ignorance of people's views.
Challenging the "ignorance", the views, or indeed the people. Can views be ignorant?
This would be valid if it were true.
Well it sort of is true, that was one of the points the engineer was making in his memo; he claims that in numerous meetings on diversity, none of which were recorded (all other meetings in Google are recorded as part of a programme of transparency and honesty), pressure was placed on people to give preference to women or individuals from a minority ethnic group over other candidates. He's (now) suggesting that this might have been done in this way, i.e. with no paper trail, because Google knows it would be ostensibly illegal.
This is of course debatable; I don't know if it's true or not but I do know that the US for a long time, at a governmental level, did have a policy of positive discrimination, so its not like there isn't precedent for this (BTW I'm not saying that Affirmative Action was wrong; I think in many ways it was entirely justified. I am saying that it existed and that it will have actively disenfranchised some people as a result).
By the way I think the publishing of the memo is something they are all encouraged to do - I might be wrong about this but it was done as part of a 'think tank' exercise, where employees are encouraged to write papers, share ideas, stimulate debate etc as part of a drive to promote intellectual debate, rigor and creativity.
The problem with posts like this, presented in this fashion is that they aren't conducive to forum discussion.
That's not a problem with this post, it's a problem with this subject. The debate gets shut down every time by the things you cite and not just here, everywhere.
That is the very problem that Prof. Peterson is specifically railing against.
Seriously geetee72? You’re actually agreeing with someone who feels it is appropriate to judge the ability of someone to do a job simply on whether they happen to be a man or not?
The guy is not doing that, he is saying men are more likely, based on his analysis of scientific research, therefore a 50:50 split is not the right target i.e. the top graph not the bottom. However, few people understand statistical distributions and think he is saying men are always better.
[img] 
:large[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
There does seem to be a specific problem in computing, and it's been getting worse for 30 years.
bencooper - Member
There does seem to be a specific problem in computing, and it's been getting worse for 30 years.
Women really need to "pioneer" something in the software industry, even something in the social media will do. Some new ideas coz I have not seen anything "new" from them yet.
Ya, they can do software coding but where are the "new" ideas? Where's the "innovation"? 😛
[i]Women really need to "pioneer" something in the software industry, even something in the social media will do. Some new ideas coz I have not seen anything "new" from them yet.
Ya, they can do software coding but where are the "new" ideas? Where's the "innovation"?[/i]
Getting an Apollo spacecraft to the moon and innovative enough for you?
[url= https://www.nasa.gov/feature/margaret-hamilton-apollo-software-engineer-awarded-presidential-medal-of-freedom ]https://www.nasa.gov/feature/margaret-hamilton-apollo-software-engineer-awarded-presidential-medal-of-freedom[/url]
[img] 
[/img]
At least do some basic research you wazzock.
There does seem to be a specific problem in computing, and it's been getting worse for 30 years.
That's interesting data. What's particularly interesting is that it
a) only shows the [u]ratio [/u] between men and women chosing comuter science as an undergraduate major. It does NOT show that the number of women chosing that subject is declining, only that the ratio has declined. It is entirely possible (indeed far more likely given the date range) that the decline in the ratio is because the number of men chosing computer science has risen by a much higher factor than women.
b) the date range is significant. It peaks around 1980; how many people in total do you think were taking computer science as a major at university in 1980? It wasn't many especially compared to today!
Okay, looking at numbers of graduates:
[img] 
[/img]
Nope, no sudden surge in male CS graduates - both peaked mid-80s, then dropped back.
How about if we compare with India where computing has also grown massively?
[img] 
[/img]
Based soley on gut feel ben, I'd have to wonder if that data maybe more representative of poorly phased questioning rather than anything.
I'd be frankly amazed that more people were studying computer science esque subjects in the 80s than [what I'd imagine to be] the boom years of the late 90s.
Based on no facts just gut feel the figures look wrong, to me, as if "web design" for instance isn't included in the figures so the rise of specialisation is actually what your seeing rather than the lack of people studying.
Pure guess though.
Nature nurture blah blah blah
You're right, there was a second peak later:
I've never been able to *hear* sarcasm in post before Ben!
wwaswas - Member
Getting an Apollo spacecraft to the moon and innovative enough for you?At least do some basic research you wazzock.
Crikey, if Obama administration could only find one female to be awarded (award again! 😮 ) from the software industry from the 1960s, they must be desperate or struggling to find another one after her ... 😆
Huston (Woman) we got a problem. 😆
Oh ya, she is not even an "industry" on her own unlike the likes of Giggle, Mybookface, Microsift, Upple, U-bert ... 😆
I'm not sarcastic, I'm just Scottish 😀
Nope, no sudden surge in male CS graduates
But there was a sudden surge in male CS graduates - your graph shows it.
You can clearly see that the rate of change, i.e. the curve, is steeper for men than for women. That would explain why the ratio dropped in the graph you showed earlier. Plus the rate of change in the third graph (the one that shows the double peak) also shows that it was steeper for men in c. 2003 than for women.
Plus this would also explain why there was a noticeable drop in the ratio (again first graph) around 2003. Again it's being driven by an overall increase in both sexes opting for CS, but with a higher increase in male candidates than female.
Of course, this still goes back to the original point; why do more men opt for CS than women. One explanation, which is entirely valid and which I think the data does suggest is [u]partially [/u]responsible, is down to socialisation factors and we should not ignore those and no one, not least I, prof. Peterson or the Google engineer, are saying we should.
Another factor is the differences in background factors between men and women (personality, which then drives motivation and interst). These are small but still significant, i.e. they are real and they are consistent across all cultures suggesting even in counties that do exponentially better at gender equality, such as the Nordics, there is still some persistent difference in expressed choice being made that is not explained by bias or discrimination.
What I cannot fathom, is why the second hypothesis is so abhorent to some people; if a person such as myself acknowledges the first hypothesis that's fine, but if I also acknowledge, postulate or in some way give credibility to the second hypothesis, I get flamed.
Why is that?
I'd hazard a guess that a woman has the capability to be a better programmer than a man, but in reality there is a certain level of 'geekiness' or 'nerdness' required to muster the interest required to learn stuff to the technical depth required to be a good programmer and to also keep learning new stuff to stay relevant.
There may be a genetic link that means more men are likely to have the personality disorders required to be good in that field, or there may not.
But I think women may also be scared off taking that career route as they think that world is full of geeks, which is not really true - amongst the programmers I have worked with in 30 years of programming they have mostly been reasonably normal.
That's where changes are needed, to make that career path more attractive to women, not trying to create diversity by having recruitment targets for women.
And if there are diversity targets then the required qualification levels must definitely not be relaxed.
At work we have a very diverse set of nationalities - that's not because of any targets - it's because the recruitment pool is like that and we take the best candidates. We see very few, if any, women though - maybe in QA but not programming.
There may be a genetic link that means more men are likely to have the personality disorders required to be good in that field,
Interestingly there is more in that comment than you might realise. The hypothesis that Peterson puts forward and which is supported by the data is that the (small) differences in large scale measures of personality between men and women show that on the whole, men tend to score much lower on agreeableness than women.
In the real world, that lower level of agreeableness tends to make men more likely to chose jobs that focused on 'things' rather than people and in women the exact reverse is true (which is why we tend to see more women in care giving/nuturing roles like teaching, nursing and social care than we do men. By the way there is a link to a paper that focused on exactly this feature in the Youtube clip.
And what's wrong with that? Well nothing really; they simply reflect the choices that people make.
However, what is problematic, properly and deeply problematic, is the value we tend to place on those roles (i.e. the care giving roles) versus the technology roles. If being a nurse, teacher or social worker paid the same as say being a systems architect, DB analyst or C++ programmer, I think most of the gender equality issues would evaporate orvernight. They don't however and while it's not hard to see that those roles are paid less becuase by and large they are state financed (rather than privately) it still creates in big delta betwen what the set of all women versus all men earn.
I (and i speak only for myself here) think the issue with your second point is its impossible to separate from the first. You can not objectively assess if these things are a result of millions of years of evolution or of thousands of years of socialisation. (I'm firmly I the camp that its going to be as close to all social as not to matter).
See my mention of SA earlier, it would have been practically impossible to find data which didn't support the natural order of white rule if you took it as your sole sample. Yes the sample data for "your" point is wider but it's just widely spread over societies which, without fail, have marginalised and repressed women over 1000s of years, there is no independent norm, is all inherently sexist and using data from a system which is recognisably flawed and one sided is choosing to be decieved.
If you had this same discussion after 5000 years of equality and your data gave the same result, fair play, but at the moment it's a complete nonsense based on the desire to find a result rather than any sort of conclusive data.
The thing is there's science & there's science.
CBA to read the papers referenced, and don't know much about the field so hard to assess but theres a big problem with the field of psychology, it's inherently subjective in some ways and research is often hugely underpowered compared what's required in other fields of medical science
[url= http://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716 ]
Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science[/url]
Even if there is done truth to it & its a genuinely held greivance the nature of his attack on Google & circulating this memo shows he must have known what was going to happen,
that he ran off to do interviews with some alt-right talk radio trolls straight after, only confirms that he's a Muppet in my non-professionally assessment.
there is no independent norm
I think you make a very valid point and you make it very well. It resonates.
I think there is a valid norm. I think you can draw meaningful inferences by contrasting the results of equality between different cultures and societies. I think this does show that there are some background variables albeit small ones.
I also don't think that it will ever be as close to social as not to matter. You cannot possible dismiss 2 million years of biology as being indifferent to the outcome.
If we disagree though on that point, it will only be about the weight we give to each in offering an explanation.
It's also worth bearing in mind that while societies have marginalised women, they've also marginalised plenty of men as well - all the deaths from hard outside work for example are largely men, suicide is an overwhelmingly male problem, the vast majority of casualties in war are male, you far more likely to be the victim of violence as a man than a women, life expectacny is lower for men but they've until recently been made to work longer.
I'm not saying we haven't marginalised women because clearly we have. I'm simply saying that that process is not asymmetric. I know that this is something that a few people on here will have a major problem but that's OK.
CBA to read the papers referenced, and don't know much about the field
Then I would suggest you just shut up and don't get involved. It's fine to be ignorant about a subject, but if you're opening gambit is 'can't be arsed' to educate yourself, then your opinion is worthless.
Jebus.
Isn't the real point that in an environment where diversity at tech firms has been identified as an issue (incontrovertible), this numpty decided issue a polemic as to why there was a reason parity would never be achieved? What value is there in saying that? I'd have sacked him (or appropriately exited him from the role) for being thick.
I despair of the climate of open bigotry towards women at the moment. Things were supposed to be getting better, but we've reverted to borderline eugenicist arguments about capability.
What is your underlying issue OP? It's not like women are taking over the tech industry at the expense of men! You just sound totally inadequate.
And yet
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170117135943.htm
My point (badly made) was that trying to understand a hugely complicated field of science based on the manifesto of insecure **** who's propped up his Milo yianopolis (sp?) Spoonfed Conspiracy theories with a few hours browsing Wikipedia is not gonna amount to much ....
Wait a minute - are you the guy who started a thread about how unreasonable it was your other half had a period during your holiday, so you couldn't exercise your droit de seigneur?
I despair of the climate of open bigotry towards women at the moment. Things were supposed to be getting better, but we've reverted to borderline eugenicist arguments about capability.
there is no bigotry against women in the IT world - most male programmers would welcome more women into the field (as long as they were as competant) - the fact is that you don't see many cvs from them.
At a recent tech meetup I went to there were a few women there and I didn't see any polarising of the genders in the bar during the break and afterwards (everyone was too interested in getting to the pizzas...).
where diversity at tech firms has been identified as an issue (incontrovertible)
I think you mean gender diversity, and why is it an issue ? If women choose to not fit somewhere on the autistic spectrum but rather live a more normal life and choose a career where they socialise with other people a bit more, then why criticise them for it and force them into a ageist career of endlessly staring at a screen, constantly having to read books to keep up with the industry, work stupid long hours because everyone underestimated the timescales, etc.
You just sound totally inadequate.
The OPs arguments seems a lot less inadequate than your last post...
What is your underlying issue OP?
It was posted very clealy in my orignal post.
this numpty decided issue a polemic as to why there was a reason parity would never be achieved?
Obviously you haven't read his paper (I have). His 'paper', which was well researched and backed up by data, suggested a number of things, one of which was that perhaps completely equal representation might not be possible because differences between men and women.
That's not hostility towards women that just a hypothesis. I don't know why you would want to subjugate the real discussion and move it to something else. But given that this guy got fired, I would suggest that the open hostility is not towards women, but towards anyone who challenges the received orthodoxy.
Isn't the real point that in an environment where diversity at tech firms has been identified as an issue
Well the issue is that we don't have 50/50 representation; perhaps the more relevant question is, why given equality of opportunity do we not see equality of outcome.
The argument is that while we should aim for this, don't be surprised if we don't reach it because of these other variables that are not down to bias or discrimination.
I have provided evidence of the so called "large innovative" software tech companies founded by male.
Ya, no questions about the ability that women can do software coding but how good are they? Where are the software tech companies founded by female? Nyet, nada, zilt, nothing noticeable. 😯
Web design? 😆
Obvious is obvious ...
Ya, no questions about the ability that women can do software coding but how good are they?
you should stop here as it pretty obvious that you know nothing about this subject. Here's a list of some famous and significant names :
https://anitaborg.org/insights-tools/infographics/famous-women-in-computing/
Helen Greiner - cofounder of iRobot answers one of your questions.
more at wikipedia :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_computing
Obviously you haven't read his paper (I have). His 'paper', which was well researched and backed up by data,
Yeah you'll have to list those data, the onus is you or you are just posting unverified opinion
In the real world, that lower level of agreeableness tends to make men more likely to chose jobs that focused on 'things' rather than people and in women the exact reverse is true
And then you find that as you gain seniority, the "things" matter a lot less and your job becomes more about people.
I'm a chartered engineer (with 9% of engineers in the UK being women, it is pretty male dominated). We have a lot of men who have reached positions of some seniority based on their success with things, the problem is that they are totally shite with people.
But then we force social stereotypes on people from such an early age. I've been shopping with my kids for shoes this morning. My two girls are just about to start school. Among the school shoes, virtually all of the girls ones are little more than glorified ballet shoes. Not ideal for the Scottish summer, let alone winter, and crap for playing football in the playground. Boys shoes are all nice and sturdy all round shoes, girls ones are more like dress shoes. What hope do they have when they are pigeon holed so early?
What hope do they have when they are pigeon holed so early?
So what you are saying is that your parenting skills are so poor that you have allowed the world around them to influence them more than you, and your partner ? Sounds a bit glass-half-empty to me.
kimbersor you are just posting unverified opinion
Whereas you (and everyone else lining up to attack the author of a memo they clearly didn't read) are posting lazy ad hominem attacks, personal insults, mischaracterisations and lies.
sexist moron
I find the OPs desire to belittle women using "science" as odious as I find the commentator he is defending
IMHO you are a sexist and worse you think its everyone else is one as you think women are different by which you mean lesser.
an entitled, rich, silicon-valley nerd.
a whiny entitled cockbag
hate-filled right-wing nut job who believes all that crap
he ran off to do interviews with some alt-right talk radio trolls straight after, only confirms that he's a Muppet in my non-professionally assessment.
the manifesto of insecure **** who's propped up his Milo yianopolis (sp?) Spoonfed Conspiracy theories with a few hours browsing Wikipedia
However, I also believe, as do a lot of other people, that the differences cannot be 100% explained just by bias.
...
However most tech companies are sausage fests and continue to be so.
...
It is entirely possible (indeed far more likely given the date range) that the decline in the ratio is because the number of men chosing computer science has risen by a much higher factor than women.
I wonder why that might be.
In unrelated news, here's a photo a friend of mine took earlier today.
[img] 
[/img]
But then we force social stereotypes on people from such an early age.
Indeed.
There may be a genetic link that means more men are likely to have the personality disorders required to be good in that field, or there may not.
As an aside here: research into ASD has historically been vastly weighted towards understanding males on the spectrum. ASD in females is poorly understood and almost certainly massively underdiagnosed.
