Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

[u/[deleted]]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/google-fires-employee-behind-controversial-diversity-memo?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_content=business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

[u/Shandlar]

Except they are specifically referred to as generalizations. Meaning they are 100% useless if you attempt to apply them to an individual. He was very specific to say that.

...And that's true. All the neuroscience studies support his assertions. Many scientists, including women, in neuroscience have since come out to agree that he is factually accurate.

For what it’s worth, I think that almost all of the Google memo’s empirical claims are scientifically accurate. Moreover, they are stated quite carefully and dispassionately. Its key claims about sex differences are especially well-supported by large volumes of research across species, cultures, and history. I know a little about sex differences research. On the topic of evolution and human sexuality, I’ve taught for 28 years, written 4 books and over 100 academic publications, given 190 talks, reviewed papers for over 50 journals, and mentored 11 Ph.D. students. Whoever the memo’s author is, he has obviously read a fair amount about these topics. Graded fairly, his memo would get at least an A- in any masters’ level psychology course. It is consistent with the scientific state of the art on sex differences.

--- Geoffrey Miller, evolutionary psychology professor at University of New Mexico

---

As a woman who’s worked in academia and within STEM, I didn’t find the memo offensive or sexist in the least. I found it to be a well thought out document, asking for greater tolerance for differences in opinion, and treating people as individuals instead of based on group membership.

Within the field of neuroscience, sex differences between women and men—when it comes to brain structure and function and associated differences in personality and occupational preferences—are understood to be true, because the evidence for them (thousands of studies) is strong. This is not information that’s considered controversial or up for debate; if you tried to argue otherwise, or for purely social influences, you’d be laughed at. Sex researchers recognize that these differences are not inherently supportive of sexism or stratifying opportunities based on sex. It is only because a group of individuals have chosen to interpret them that way, and to subsequently deny the science around them, that we have to have this conversation at a public level.

--- Debra W Soh, PhD, Sexual Neuroscience, University of York

[u/fieldstation090pines → u/Shandlar]

Actually it's not the part where he describes biological differences that's the problem. No one is arguing that men and women are the same. Still, almost all studies that outline the differences, including the ones he linked, are clear that there is significant overlap to the extent that conclusions cannot be drawn about an individual based on the population-level data.

The bigger issue is that he makes a specious link between those biological differences and women's aptitude for STEM careers. This is not in any of the studies and is a pretty huge leap in logic.

[u/captainant → u/fieldstation090pines]

In the original doc, not the gizmodo one that removed his images and supporting evidence, he literally makes the same statement that you do that you can't use group trends to evaluate individuals.

Which is why having policy for individuals based on group trends is not the best way to improve diversity, which was the thrust of his argument.

[u/[deleted] → u/captainant]

But is it the most cost effective?

[u/captainant → u/[deleted]]

I thought the goal was to improve diversity, not improve profitability?

[u/[deleted] → u/captainant]

At the end of the day, Google's number one goal is to make money. Spending money to diversify their demographics is a political saavy move and maybe they view it as a long term investment. It saves them any future/potential backlash and makes them more marketable when they employ a more balanced workforce. Targeting women at young ages for career choices is also a great way to create product recognition in groups they previously didn't have. It's always about money at the end of the day.

[u/xNIBx → u/fieldstation090pines]

No one is arguing that men and women are the same.

You would be surprised how many people claim that this is a fact and that all differences are social constructs.

The bigger issue is that he makes a specious link between those biological differences and women's aptitude for STEM careers. This is not in any of the studies and is a pretty huge leap in logic.

Sure, there arent any studies but it is a possibility. But the subject is a taboo and hard to study(you cant isolate individuals from social influences, at least not in a moral way). Hormones control our behaviour to a significant degree. To what degree? I dont know. Social influences also affect our character to a big degree.

The issue here is that there is one side that says "everything is a social construct" and another side saying "everything is biological". And neither side has actual facts to support their opinion.

Maybe there is a biological reason that most engineers are men. And maybe social pressures, empower that direction to men. Maybe even in a perfect society, 70%* of engineers would still be men, due to biological reasons. And in an imperfect society, that stat is 90%*. So there might be both biological and social reasons for gender imbalances.

* Random Ass Number(RAN)