Google fires employee behind anti-diversity memo

He also casually mentions race alongside gender but never provides any "scientific evidence" as to why race should be an issue in software engineer hiring the same way that he provides at least some kind of testable assertions wrt: women.

Sort of like tacking on "also blacks!" after each statement like we're just supposed to understand.

I've been in engineering for a long time and have seen many changes. Early on it was a totally male dominated occupation and held little interest for women, *NOT* because the work wasn't interesting, but because many women had no interest in spending their day working with a bunch of condescending jerks. 40 years later, that is no longer so prevalent, but there are still plenty of aspects of engineering that aren't technology oriented that discourage many women from the job, the dominance of males in the occupation for a start... or maybe I should say the *type* of males in the job.

While we no longer have one women's bathroom and five men's, there are still plenty of reasons why women find engineering an uninviting career that isn't about them being unsuited to do the work in some way.

Spoken like an engineer. Obviously you would never make it in either sales or marketing. We are "encouraged" in every thing we choose and do every day. If you think otherwise you have failed to be able to see outside your small domain.

So that means women are unsuited for engineering? I've met many an engineer at the low end of that curve. It didn't stop them from getting that job.

Your tests don't show what you think they show.

So why does having empathy preclude a career in engineering?

You just made my argument for me. That is a perfect example of the bias keeping women out, not their preferences.

Just the fact that you are callign them "male" and "female" brains based on their measurable quantities, other than presence of the Y chromosome, shows your bias.

BINGO! The differences are not so large when compared to nature's variations. Clearly we still have barriers to women entering many jobs even if its no longer the HR department or the hiring manager.

The only aptitude test I've ever taken for a job was at the C&O railroad when I was getting a job basically digging ditches. I was so fast at the 3D folding panels into a box that I checked my work three times and when I took it up to the guy at the window he told me to go back and finish it as I had more time.

Spoken like an engineer. If you were in a bar with a mixed crowd the women would have turned to the *other* guys in the crowd, even the geekier women. I see why women are not in engineering.

You need to sound more like Dilbert and less like Wally. Dilbert would at least not drive the women away. Maybe that's the reason for your observed bias, the lower ratio of women close enough that you can actually speak to them.

Now you are talking about problems in the field that can and should be addressed rather than just saying, "there are reasons why women don't want to be engineers".

Kevin Aylward wrote on 8/9/2017 4:10 PM:

It is amazing that you have no understanding whatsoever of what is wrong with your statements.

go on

I can only speak for myself, but I've been discouraged from doing many of the things I did in life. (In most of those cases I can say with hindsight I made the right choice.)

NT

I just read John Doe's post where he says the term "politically correct" is a synonym for "leftist". Now you are saying that's not even the correct term.

So please help me understand what "politically incorrect" means.

You don't understand. John thinks they aren't ruthless enough!

Hmmm... does "ruth"less mean you are without Ruth? I thought Google was trying to have *more* Ruth... :?

I've been "in engineering" longer and have always worked along side female engineers. I don't recall anywhere, except a really small company (2 EEs, 1ME, and 6 embedded programmers), there wasn't a female engineer in the area. I've worked for women, too. No, it's never been 1:1 but if you expect it to be, you're nuts (well...).

Nonsense. Sure, there are plenty of reasons. There are more lucrative things to do that take similar effort.

We "wouldn't make it in either sales or marketinG" because we've been trained as engineers. They are very different things. My boss expects a marketeer to lie to him. ;-)/2

Ya, Google-boy got a bit of a wakeup call. It really is the peak of lack-of-reality-picture that he thought his ideas were so subversive and interesting that Google had to terminate him to "suppress" them. His ideas are common as shit.

What really happened is he made a PITA of himself, was bad PR, and the big G threw him in the trash. If he'd been an indispensable genius and asset to the company they would've found a way to keep him on. They didn't.

Guess he found out who really owned his ass, and it wasn't women.

You have taken up mind reading then?

It doesn't. But lacking the ability to systematise and visualise in 3D is a severe limitation for engineering and science. Some mathematicians I know can visualise things in even higher dimensional spaces and then write the equations down that governs their behaviour.

However, the bias is already established in schools. The recent A level results out yesterday (last pre university exam) show that only 9% of girls took computing (even worse than I thought). In Biology girls outnumber boys 3:2, Chemistry is neutral, Maths is 2:3, Physics 1:3 and Computing 1:10. Those are todays ratios but they were about the same from memory when I was at school (except that Computing didn't exist).

Full survey:

Before there was a computing course the extrema were Sociology 3:1 and Physics 1:3. Some of that is peer pressure to conform but not all of it.

I am not biassed I am using the terms that are used by the researchers.

It is more fundamental than that though. They aren't even studying these subjects at pre university level so never get the qualifications.

Plenty of corporates use aptitude tests and psychological profiling. I am not convinced they work beyond telling you how good someone is at doing tests but seeing how they approach a problem is informative.

You would be surprised. However, for the typical extremum geek in his tatty anorak splashed with remains of pizza you might well have a point.

Never the less the uptake of engineering courses by women is still low. It is an uphill struggle for those promoting women in STEM.

I don't have to read your mind. You are pretty transparent. ;)

Wow! That's such a huge leap from "men do better on testing" to "women can't visualize in 3D".

Now you have hit something important. The classes people sign up for may not indicate aptitude, but rather social norms. It is much more complex than Trump would be able to understand. How about you?

I am reading what you wrote. You say the terms "male" and "female" brains is not equivalent to the person's actual gender. So you are defining the brain "gender" by the properties being measured. Clearly this becomes a cyclical definition when you talk about those groups exhibiting the properties you define them by.

The issue is not how "fundamental" the distinction is, it's how significant it is. Above you talk about females being unable to think in 3D and we know this is not realistic.

Informative in a very unscientific way. "I know it when I see it"

Which is exactly the point. We need to find a way to encourage people to take STEM courses at an early age. Since there is such a discrepancy and we don't fully understand the cause, it only makes sense to put more effort into encouraging females.

Why? There is an over supply of STEMs. Google "STEM myth".

-- Kevin Aylward

When such "tests" are presented to me at an interview, I approach the problem by saying, this interview is over, and leaving.

-- Kevin Aylward

Rarely, but it's happened, approached for a consulting job, they start with such nonsense... like you, I hit the door. ...Jim Thompson

Kevin Aylward wrote on 8/18/2017 1:31 PM:

When I googled that term I found this...

If there is an oversupply of engineers, why are we using H1B visas?