> The thing is, the guy wrote what many people think - outside of tech.
I agree, but that's also at the core of my (internal) confusion about it. His arguments are not new, at all. As far as I could tell he doesn't present any new evidence to back up his argument, either. So, to those who say "it is important that he spoke out, and that we have this debate": when does this debate end? Assuming we have the debate and reach a conclusion, what happens when I post a similar manifesto in six month's time asserting another conclusion without presenting any new evidence? Surely by that logic we need to have the same debate over again? It'll never end.
"We must debate!" feels very objective until you admit to yourself (as I freely will) that you're coming to this with a preconceived opinion, and won't be content until the debate is settled in the way you think it should be settled.
> As far as I could tell he doesn't present any new evidence to back up his argument, either. So, to those who say "it is important that he spoke out, and that we have this debate": when does this debate end?
The problem is that (inside Google and elsewhere) the debate ended by fiat, not because one side made their case better; and it didn't end in favor of a side with tons of science to back it (not even close). My money is on there not being much of an average difference between the population of each gender when it comes to technical talent. But much more importantly, I'm aware that the science is far from conclusive on the topic, since socialization can be pretty different to untangle. The argument at places like Google is that looking at demographic differences in a population and deciding that it must be caused by discrimination is just assuming that nothing else could possibly contribute.
> "We must debate!" feels very objective until you admit to yourself (as I freely will) that you're coming to this with a preconceived opinion, and won't be content until the debate is settled in the way you think it should be settled.
The irony is thick in this sentence. How do you not understand that if both sides claim the other does this, _the one that's actively trying to shut down scrutiny of their claims_ is by far in the weaker position?
Does it matter, for Google, whether the gap in interest-in-engineering is biological or social? Either way, there's more men doing the sorts of things that get them the skills they need to succeed as an engineer at Google, and it's in Google's best interest to hire every engineer with the necessary skills.
No, it doesn't matter, but it is sufficient if not necessary. Google's answer to socialization problems was going upstream: getting "work in tech/Google" into girls' minds earlier and earlier to combat ostensible messages pushing them away from tech. But it's all founded on the assumption that any population difference in ability must be fixable, if not at the hiring level, then earlier.
As said before, every now and then I involuntary get sucked into this debate, most of the time the other person is drunk or feels safe enough "to speak up". (haha - of course when there are no women around)
When I'm at work, I'm always surprised how they manage to hire 0 women for pure engineering jobs. (This is not my first job by the way.) Even more why there is no real discussion about that, rather: "yeah we found no woman who fits". On the other hand there is an occasional complaint about the gender inequality. Sorry, but you cannot make progress by not talking about the topics or by talking about it but not speaking your mind.
I studied engineering and there was very few women (<20%) in my class. You can't blame companies for having a similar hiring ratio. And the recruitment of the college I went through ("grandes ecoles" in France) is purely based on a math+physics competitive exam, so there is very little selection bias in the first place. So I am not convinced discrimination is the key to explain gender imbalance in engineering jobs.
What if the exams and job interviews are designed by people who are bad at team work? During my studies and also in my various jobs I observed that there is little team work, that many people even openly don't want to do it. (Managed to do it for some things, e.g. Functional Analysis) Maybe there are more ways to approach problems and at least for "real work" it seems that working in a team leads to better results. (Think all this agile thing with pair programming, retros etc etc...)
Don't forget Correlation isn't equivalent with Causation, actually there is neither a <= nor a =>.
I don't see how the exam's and job interview's focus (or lack thereof) on teamwork is relevant. How to make a better exam isn't really on trial here, because no matter how much data suggests that teamwork is as important as technical ability in an engineering role, no company or school will have a moral responsibility to ensure their exams reward good teamwork. The exam is still equally fair to any gender so long as it is totally anonymous.
I agree, but that's also at the core of my (internal) confusion about it. His arguments are not new, at all. As far as I could tell he doesn't present any new evidence to back up his argument, either. So, to those who say "it is important that he spoke out, and that we have this debate": when does this debate end? Assuming we have the debate and reach a conclusion, what happens when I post a similar manifesto in six month's time asserting another conclusion without presenting any new evidence? Surely by that logic we need to have the same debate over again? It'll never end.
"We must debate!" feels very objective until you admit to yourself (as I freely will) that you're coming to this with a preconceived opinion, and won't be content until the debate is settled in the way you think it should be settled.