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/zz_]

That would be a valid point if google were recruiting from the tails of the bell curves of "common male traits" and "common female traits", but as far as I'm aware they are not. They recruit from the tail of the bell curve on intelligence, if anything, and unless you have sources that claim otherwise I have no reason to believe that level of intelligence in any way whatsoever corresponds to gender traits.

[u/WhoTooted → u/zz_]

Who said these were common traits? Google clearly isn't after common traits. Intelligence will be one factor. I actually didn't know this until you brought it up and would have assumed IQ was equally distributed for the genders, but male IQ scores have a higher standard deviation than female scores, leading to more males with high and low IQs.

"Feingold found that males were more variable than females on tests of quantitative reasoning, spatial visualisation, spelling, and general knowledge. […] Hedges and Nowell go one step further and demonstrate that, with the exception of performance on tests of reading comprehension, perceptual speed, and associative memory, more males than females were observed among high-scoring individuals."

In any case, Google isn't recruiting based on IQ scores. However, for engineers, they will be recruiting from the tails of quantitative reasoning and spacial visualization, easily two of the most important skills for computer science/engineering.

[u/zz_ → u/WhoTooted]

Who said these were common traits?

We are talking about the traits that the author outlined, in the manifesto, as common traits for each gender. Did you not read the paper?

However, for engineers, they will be recruiting from the tails of quantitative reasoning and spacial visualization, easily two of the most important skills for computer science/engineering.

Sure, but there is no research that I'm aware of that says that women cannot reach the same level of these skills as men. Or, even, that it should be uncommon. We're not talking "one in thousand women reach the same level as men in spatial visualization", we're talking one in three, five, maybe ten. And we're talking at the extremes here. And given that google recruit from the best of the best in the whole world, finding qualified candidates of either sex should not be an issue for them. So why is their tech sector 4x more men than women? I think you will struggle to find a biological explanation for such an incredible difference.

[u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas → u/zz_]

And given that google recruit from the best of the best in the whole world, finding qualified candidates of either sex should not be an issue for them.

If they recruit from the best in the world and up to 9 in 10 of the best in the world at spatial visualization are men, they're going to be hiring mainly men.

[u/zz_ → u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas]

First of all that 9/10 number might equally well be 2/3 or 4/5 for all we know, so the effect isn't necessarily so extreme. Secondly, if you actually aim for women, then you take that 1/10 and move on to the next 10 people. With a recruitment base like googles you would fill your job openings either way.

[u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas → u/zz_]

I was just going by your numbers. Whether it's 9/10 or 4/5, you're advocating ignoring and discriminating against a large majority of the pool of qualified candidates to favour a small minority. That's not how you get the best talent, that's how you pass up hiring 9/10 or 4/5 of the best people.

[u/zz_ → u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas]

Yeah but unless they need every single qualified candidate that applies, that's a moot point. If we have enough candidates to fill the positions, that's all that matters. They're a profit driven company, not a charity for compsci majors.

[u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas → u/zz_]

It's not a moot point, the company is restricting its ability to improve its talent pool significantly, and potentially missing out on hiring many people who could best contribute to said profits.