“Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber” memo goes viral, usual suspects outraged

Samaris

odyssey06 wrote: »

Just in the act of which facts your report and which facts you do not report there is a whole world of subjectivity and bias.
Whether I run a story about homelessness or crime on the front page, for example.

Taken further, I can say that a man died because the platform he was standing on gave way.
This is a fact.
The truth is that the man was hanged.

That example has given me the urge to try write a full "newspaper-style" article about someone being hanged while trying to convey accidental and tragic death due to a platform giving way.

Bob24

Samaris wrote: »

Definitely something that can very easily go too far in either direction.

Yes agree it can be either way. And in both cases it need to be watched closely.

One example of practical thing which is already there and worries me is Youtube's latest and fairly sneaky "hate speech" policy (our friend Google again): even if it is not in breach of their terms of use they now reserve the right to de-monetise and de-emphasise content which they feel is "hate speech" (with no clear definition of what hate speech means, no clear justification given when they do it, and *I think* no notification to content publisher when it happens).

So in short they don't want to take the responsibility of deleting content and having to explain why, so they give themselves an arbitrary right to make it more difficult to find and to not pay its producer for it as they would do for every other popular video. Is that censorship is a difficult question to answer and they will provide justifications related to the video being unsuitable for monetisation due to concerned advertisers, but for sure it will tend to reduce the influence and financial ressources of whichever content provider is targeted compared to others (and once you think that Youtube is pretty much the de-facto universal platform for self published video content, that is a lot of unsupervised power in Google's hands).

Dyr

While we're on about echo chambers It's worth noting that most of the big modern technology companies,( Google, Facebook, Apple, Pintrest etc) are based in the most ultra liberal region of the US. They actually exist in a massive echo chamber it's not really surprising that they've become susceptible to group think.

Bob24

Bambi wrote: »

While we're on about echo chambers It's worth noting that most of the big modern technology companies,( Google, Facebook, Apple, Pintrest etc) are based in the most ultra liberal region of the US. They actually exist in a massive echo chamber it's not really surprising that they've become susceptible to group think.

For sure their homes base plays a role. And actually it is worth noting that companies like Dell or Microsoft don't have the exact same political and corporate culture which is dominent in Silicon Valley companies (you could also argue that they are different because they are more mature and "old fashion" which his partly true, but Apple is not a young company in technology terms and it's culture is closer to Google's than to Dell's).

Annasopra

professore wrote: »

His main point is if you have a random sample of 100 men and 100 women, 50 of the men would be INTERESTED (not CAPABLE - INTERESTED) in a STEM career as opposed to 5 of the women. (Disclaimer: I made up these ratios. I'd say for programming you would be doing well to get 2 women who are interested )

This is not solely down to cultural reasons - biology plays a role. Therefore expecting a 50/50 split of men to women in STEM is not reasonable or sensible. He DOES NOT say that women are biologically incapable or anything of the sort, in fact he goes to great pains to say the opposite.

If anyone said we need a 50/50 split in nursing, garbage collection or primary school teaching they would be ridiculed. Why is the same position not taken with STEM?

People want the careers they want. This does have a biological component whether people like it or not.

You are saying that a woman is not interested in certain careers for biological reasons. What biological reasons? Please explain this more.

Sand

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You are saying that a woman is not interested in certain careers for biological reasons. What biological reasons? Please explain this more.

Have you read the memo?

Grayson

Sand wrote: »

Have you read the memo?

He asked someone a question. You could try answering it and stating what the biological reasons are that women don't want to do programming.

Bob24

Grayson wrote: »

He asked someone a question. You could try answering it and stating what the biological reasons are that women don't want to do programming.

To be fair it is getting a bit infuriating to have people repetitively making comments and asking questions which show they haven't read the document which is at the core of everything discussed on the thread. Fair enough Joeytheparrot seems new to the thread, but there is a long history of this happening for posters who have been following it from the start.

In case people can't find the full document, here it is: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf

(actually if a mod or the OP could edit the first post to add a link it might help - what's currently linked on the first post is only the partial copy which was initially leaked by Gizmodo)

odyssey06

Grayson wrote: »

He asked someone a question. You could try answering it and stating what the biological reasons are that women don't want to do programming.

Indirectly... there might be very good reasons why someone who thinks they will be dropping out of the workforce for long periods intermittently would gravitate away from a fast changing role like software development, and into roles where softer skills \ core qualifications are more important.

Disclaimer: Some of the finest programmers in my graduating class were female - but the majority in numbers were male; and if I was picking a software development team, experience would be a determining factor, not gender; and I don't think I have ever seen a development team where the majority of programmers were female.

Hastentoadd

Grayson wrote: »

He asked someone a question. You could try answering it and stating what the biological reasons are that women don't want to do programming.

I think what you suggest is really the problem. It is just utter laziness. Read the pdf. It was a long pdf. It seems folks got bored without reading it. His opinion was absolutely valid. I really wish folks would spend the time to read an opinion before sharing their abhorrance

Sand

Grayson wrote: »

He asked someone a question. You could try answering it and stating what the biological reasons are that women don't want to do programming.

If only someone had already written a memo addressing that particular topic...

Sweetemotion

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You are saying that a woman is not interested in certain careers for biological reasons. What biological reasons? Please explain this more.

That is just stupid.

Equality means equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Everyone should have the same chances as anyone else...... From working in Tech/Studying in tech for years I do think that mean have more of a natural interest in tech. Women do better than men in the leaving cert for a long time now and they simply just dont apply for tech courses that much, men seem to just have more of an interest in this area...... that is not saying that women can't be brilliant in tech. I just think gender quoatas are bs.

Lately people are pushing the idea that the Male and Female brains are wired the same. I think womens and mens brains are wired differently and this makes men better at some things and women better at some things. Differences should be celebrated...not hidden.

Bob24

Public Q&A session he held on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/JamesDamore/comments/6thcy3/im_james_damore_ama/

Wombatman

Bambi wrote: »

While we're on about echo chambers It's worth noting that most of the big modern technology companies,( Google, Facebook, Apple, Pintrest etc) are based in the most ultra liberal region of the US. They actually exist in a massive echo chamber it's not really surprising that they've become susceptible to group think.

Clinton...... ultra liberal....LOL. At least these ultras could have voted for Stein or Bernie.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_California,_2016

Dyr

Wombatman wrote: »

Clinton...... ultra liberal....LOL. At least these ultras could have voted for Stein or Bernie.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_California,_2016

All those companies are based around San Francisco, are you claiming SF is not a bastion of liberal America?

In the first place, why do you think the presidential election results for California is somehow relevant to this?

Why do you think liberals in California would vote for sanders when he didn't run for president and endorsed Clinton?

kylith

Grayson wrote: »

He asked someone a question. You could try answering it and stating what the biological reasons are that women don't want to do programming.

I'm with Joey.

No, I haven't read the memo. I don't particularly want to read it.

I would like proffessore to explain to me why he thinks women biologically aren't interested in programming. Because otherwise you're just piggybacking on someone else's idea without giving it any thought yourself.

CruelCoin

Grayson wrote: »

He asked someone a question. You could try answering it and stating what the biological reasons are that women don't want to do programming.

Apart from mens minds being more logic orientated in an extremely logic orientated field?

Wombatman

Bambi wrote: »

All those companies are based around San Francisco, are you claiming SF is not a bastion of liberal America?

There is no bastion of liberal America. America is a bastion of conservatism.
Are we not talking about ultra liberal America in any case?

In the first place, why do you think the presidential election results for California is somehow relevant to this?

Am .... how a region votes, left vs. right is a good indicator of how conservative or ultra liberal it is.

Why do you think liberals in California would vote for sanders when he didn't run for president and endorsed Clinton?

They voted for Clinton. Surly all these ultra liberals would have voted for Bernie?




Any more questions?

Knex*

Deleted User wrote: »

Equality means equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Everyone should have the same chances as anyone else...... From working in Tech/Studying in tech for years I do think that mean have more of a natural interest in tech. Women do better than men in the leaving cert for a long time now and they simply just dont apply for tech courses that much, men seem to just have more of an interest in this area...... that is not saying that women can't be brilliant in tech. I just think gender quoatas are bs.

Lately people are pushing the idea that the Male and Female brains are wired the same. I think womens and mens brains are wired differently and this makes men better at some things and women better at some things. Differences should be celebrated...not hidden.

Might be time to write an article highlighting the discrimination males face in this country when applying for third level education in a system set up to make them fail.

professore

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You are saying that a woman is not interested in certain careers for biological reasons. What biological reasons? Please explain this more.

It's very well explained in the memo. And it's not "a woman" it's "on average". There is an enormous difference.

Men are on average more interested in things whereas women are on average more interested in people. This has been proven over and over again with experiments with babies and even with primates. https://www.livescience.com/22677-girls-dolls-boys-toy-trucks.html

The "on average" thing is very important as "on average" you are much more likely to get lung cancer if you smoke cigarettes but this doesn't mean that some people won't live to 100 smoking 60 a day. Similarly just because some women are interested in STEM or more particularly programming doesn't mean it's a 50/50 split. My wife is a qualified engineer for example, but she's pretty unusual - and she laughs at the idea that men and women are the same on average.

Same as "on average" men are stronger than women ... this doesn't mean that Katie Taylor wouldn't knock me unconscious but she is unusual.

OR men are on average more violent than women.

Annasopra

professore wrote: »

It's very well explained in the memo. And it's not "a woman" it's "on average". There is an enormous difference.

Men are on average more interested in things whereas women are on average more interested in people. This has been proven over and over again with experiments with babies and even with primates. https://www.livescience.com/22677-girls-dolls-boys-toy-trucks.html

The "on average" thing is very important as "on average" you are much more likely to get lung cancer if you smoke cigarettes but this doesn't mean that some people won't live to 100 smoking 60 a day. Similarly just because some women are interested in STEM or more particularly programming doesn't mean it's a 50/50 split. My wife is a qualified engineer for example, but she's pretty unusual - and she laughs at the idea that men and women are the same on average.

Oh. Is that it. The memo says it and my wife laughs at it.

B0jangles

If intrinsic biological differences are responsible for the majority of programmers being male and the majority of teachers (for example) being female, why then were teachers mostly male up to around a hundred years ago and why were the original computer programmers mostly female?

silverharp

professore wrote: »

It's very well explained in the memo. And it's not "a woman" it's "on average". There is an enormous difference.

Men are on average more interested in things whereas women are on average more interested in people. This has been proven over and over again with experiments with babies and even with primates. https://www.livescience.com/22677-girls-dolls-boys-toy-trucks.html

The "on average" thing is very important as "on average" you are much more likely to get lung cancer if you smoke cigarettes but this doesn't mean that some people won't live to 100 smoking 60 a day. Similarly just because some women are interested in STEM or more particularly programming doesn't mean it's a 50/50 split. My wife is a qualified engineer for example, but she's pretty unusual - and she laughs at the idea that men and women are the same on average.

Same as "on average" men are stronger than women ... this doesn't mean that Katie Taylor wouldn't knock me unconscious but she is unusual.

OR men are on average more violent than women.

Anecdotal but essentially a stereotype are the certain boys in school when I was growing up who were obsessive into electronics/CB radios/Ham Radios and then computers when they came out. They are all engineers now in one shape or another. Even as a parent now yet to see any girls that are into the stuff you more associate with boys. When it comes down to it in this area there are less obsessive girls, they are more likely to see computers for examples as tools and are less likely to be curious as to how they work or how to improve them whereas a small number of boys will want to build their own , are curious about coding and whatnot.
I doubt socialisation has much to do with it , its pretty uncool to be a "geeky" teenager and its not like anyone bigs up male geekiness

silverharp

B0jangles wrote: »

If intrinsic biological differences are responsible for the majority of programmers being male and the majority of teachers (for example) being female, why then were teachers mostly male up to around a hundred years ago and why were the original computer programmers mostly female?

when you go across time like that there are other factors, I don't believe teaching is necessarily a male or female job. Men have dropped out by being outcompeted for places by women and men seeing teaching as less of an economic proposition. Why settle for a career that only pays half of another you think you are able for.
With the computer programming your average 1950's computer looked more like a phone exchange, the money was in building them and the programmers weren't paid well and there probably wasn't good alternative work for them.

kylith

B0jangles wrote: »

If intrinsic biological differences are responsible for the majority of programmers being male and the majority of teachers (for example) being female, why then were teachers mostly male up to around a hundred years ago and why were the original computer programmers mostly female?

Because teaching has become a lower paid, lower status job and programming has become a higher paid, higher status job.

I swear; if running a creche suddenly started paying really well in 5 years it'd be overrun with men, and people would be writing snotty memos about how women were mentally and biologically unsuited to looking after children.

Grayson

kylith wrote: »

Because teaching has become a lower paid, lower status job and programming has become a higher paid, higher status job.

I swear; if running a creche suddenly started paying really well in 5 years it'd be overrun with men, and people would be writing snotty memos about how women were mentally and biologically unsuited to looking after children.

Plus it's down to society. maybe there's less women programmers nowadays is not because they are biologically predisposed to be worse at it it's because it's socially not attractive. Also it's not considered a "female" job.
Girls grow up being thinking it's not a job for them.

So places like google try to make it more attractive and not discriminatory and you get sexist dicks complaining.

silverharp

kylith wrote: »

Because teaching has become a lower paid, lower status job and programming has become a higher paid, higher status job.

I swear; if running a creche suddenly started paying really well in 5 years it'd be overrun with men, and people would be writing snotty memos about how women were mentally and biologically unsuited to looking after children.

but doesn't that demonstrate the underlying assumption that men have to be more career minded and chase the cash. As the guy in Ghostbusters said, "If there's a steady paycheck involved, I'll believe anything you say."

Knex*

kylith wrote: »

Because teaching has become a lower paid, lower status job and programming has become a higher paid, higher status job.

I swear; if running a creche suddenly started paying really well in 5 years it'd be overrun with men, and people would be writing snotty memos about how women were mentally and biologically unsuited to looking after children.

silverharp wrote: »

but doesn't that demonstrate the underlying assumption that men have to be more career minded and chase the cash. As the guy in Ghostbusters said, "If there's a steady paycheck involved, I'll believe anything you say."

Yeah, this backups the points in memo more than anything...

B0jangles

So just like that it's nothing to do with innate biological differences drawing more men than women to programming, it's all about the paycheck?

That was surprisingly easy.

Knex*

B0jangles wrote: »

So just like that it's nothing to do with innate biological differences drawing more men than women to programming, it's all about the paycheck?

That was surprisingly easy.

Why do you think these are mutually exclusive?

Bob24

B0jangles wrote: »

why were the original computer programmers mostly female?

I'd like to see numbers to back this up (as well as a clear definition of what is meant by "programmer" and if it corresponds to the software developer jobs we are talking about). Usually people who are making this statement are referring to this 1960s cosmopolitan article but it doesn't say anywhere that women dominated the field at the time. More that they were present in the field which back then seemed like a novelty.

Personally I call BS on this.

kylith

Grayson wrote: »

Plus it's down to society. maybe there's less women programmers nowadays is not because they are biologically predisposed to be worse at it it's because it's socially not attractive. Also it's not considered a "female" job.
Girls grow up being thinking it's not a job for them.

So places like google try to make it more attractive and not discriminatory and you get sexist dicks complaining.

Google's 'positive discrimination' these days will pave the way for more girls and young women to see programming as a potential career in the future.

While I agree that hiring a person to do a job solely because of their gender is generally not a good thing, doing things like running women-only events can only attract more women to the career, and that is a good thing.

B0jangles

Do you now think women are biologically predisposed to prefer getting paid less than men or something?

professore

B0jangles wrote: »

So just like that it's nothing to do with innate biological differences drawing more men than women to programming, it's all about the paycheck?

That was surprisingly easy.

The vast majority of medicine and pharmacy students are women now, two fields that are not known for low pay - but they are two that deal more with people than say coding or working on engines.

professore

Grayson wrote: »

Plus it's down to society. maybe there's less women programmers nowadays is not because they are biologically predisposed to be worse at it it's because it's socially not attractive. Also it's not considered a "female" job.
Girls grow up being thinking it's not a job for them.

So places like google try to make it more attractive and not discriminatory and you get sexist dicks complaining.

Since when is being a programmer socially attractive for guys ??? Guys do it DESPITE the negative stereotypes associated with it. Why are girls different?

Bob24

professore wrote: »

Since when is being a programmer socially attractive for guys ??? Guys do it DESPITE the negative stereotypes associated with it. Why are girls different?

This. It is slightly changing now and being a software engineer for the likes of Google can in some cases give social capital. But back just 5 or 10 years ago no one would go into computer science because it would make them more popular or attractive ... they were more going into in because they liked it and in spite of the field seeming pretty boring and uncool to the general population (I suspect a few of us on the thread have personal experience of this :-)).

Dyr

Wombatman wrote: »

Any more questions?

I have a few but first lets ask the obvious questions, because the answers dictate whether or not I'll have to use finger puppets to phrase the next questions for ye

You realise that Bernie Sanders didn't run in the Presidential election?

You realise that the democratic presidential candidate is not selected by the voting public?

This is basic enough stuff

B0jangles

Bob24 wrote: »

I'd like to see numbers to back this up (as well as a clear definition of what is meant by "programmer" and if it corresponds to the software developer jobs we are talking about). Usually people who are making this statement are referring to this 1960s cosmopolitan article but it doesn't say anywhere that women dominated the field at the time. More that they were present in the field which back then seemed like a novelty.

Personally I call BS on this.

I spoke in error, there does not appear to have been a period when women made up over 50% of computer programmers.

However, in the '60s it absolutely was considered to be a job that was particularly suitable for female workers:

"Given a complex customer problem, a female analyst/programmer will often handle the problem better than would her male colleagues with equivalent experience and ability. Not because businessmen are more lenient or show favoritism toward the female of the species, but because the female is often more sensitive to the nuances of a problem and to the complex interpersonal relations that may be part of the problem. In a very real sense, every computer problem with a customer is also a customer relations problem, and this is where feminine tact, insight, and intuition, combining with solid programming and analytical ability, can really pay off for the girl programmer."

-Your Career in Computer Programming, 1967 I.J. Seligsohn, IBM public relations officer

http://thecomputerboys.com/?p=717

Also 42% of software developers were female in the late '80s in the U.S., a proportion which is close enough to a majority to be worth noticing since the proportion apparently dropped by over 50% in the following 20 years

https://stumblingpast.com/2015/10/18/women-worlds-1st-programmers/

If there truly are fundamental biological differences why have the numbers fluctuated so very much over such an extremely short period?

silverharp

B0jangles wrote: »

So just like that it's nothing to do with innate biological differences drawing more men than women to programming, it's all about the paycheck?

That was surprisingly easy.

whoa, I said different times, opportunities for women were less and the computer market was very small. For example in Iran I believe more women do engineering because its their chance for independence or getting away for their families. In Sweden where this stress doesnt exist women choose other careers even though the system if very pro woman

professore

The typical male programmer stereotype

Bob24

B0jangles wrote: »

If there truly are fundamental biological differences why have the numbers fluctuated so very much over such an extremely short period?

The nature of the job has changed a lot over time.

Actually the job of analyst/programmer mentioned in what you are quoting is kind of out of fashion and now split across different roles, and for someone who knows the industry it is clear the article you quoted is not insisting on what would be called a software developer job today, but emphasising more on business analysis competencies (and again any industry insider will know there are definitly more female business analysts than female software developers):

"Given a complex customer problem, a female analyst/programmer will often handle the problem better than would her male colleagues with equivalent experience and ability. Not because businessmen are more lenient or show favoritism toward the female of the species, but because the female is often more sensitive to the nuances of a problem and to the complex interpersonal relations that may be part of the problem. In a very real sense, every computer problem with a customer is also a customer relations problem, and this is where feminine tact, insight, and intuition, combining with solid programming and analytical ability, can really pay off for the girl programmer."

The parts I highlighted are also saying that on average women are better than men at certain aspects (namely "nuance of a problem", and "interpersonal relations") so it is agreeing with the memo in saying that on average both genders have different natural strengths and interests. And the specific points they mention related to women are incidentally exactly in line with one of the statement in the Damore memo where he says "Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things , relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing )".

silverharp

professore wrote: »

The typical male programmer stereotype

remember wargames?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfJJk7i0NTk

professore

It's funny that the modern US liberal viewpoint seems to be that men are bungling idiots while women are brilliant at everything, yet men and women are completely identical in every way and any challenge to that idea is sexist if a white male says it. Crazy I tells ya.

professore

B0jangles wrote: »

Bob24 wrote: »

I'd like to see numbers to back this up (as well as a clear definition of what is meant by "programmer" and if it corresponds to the software developer jobs we are talking about). Usually people who are making this statement are referring to this 1960s cosmopolitan article but it doesn't say anywhere that women dominated the field at the time. More that they were present in the field which back then seemed like a novelty.

Personally I call BS on this.

I spoke in error, there does not appear to have been a period when women made up over 50% of computer programmers.

However, in the '60s it absolutely was considered to be a job that was particularly suitable for female workers:

"Given a complex customer problem, a female analyst/programmer will often handle the problem better than would her male colleagues with equivalent experience and ability. Not because businessmen are more lenient or show favoritism toward the female of the species, but because the female is often more sensitive to the nuances of a problem and to the complex interpersonal relations that may be part of the problem. In a very real sense, every computer problem with a customer is also a customer relations problem, and this is where feminine tact, insight, and intuition, combining with solid programming and analytical ability, can really pay off for the girl programmer."

-Your Career in Computer Programming, 1967 I.J. Seligsohn, IBM public relations officer

http://thecomputerboys.com/?p=717

Also 42% of software developers were female in the late '80s in the U.S., a proportion which is close enough to a majority to be worth noticing since the proportion apparently dropped by over 50% in the following 20 years

https://stumblingpast.com/2015/10/18/women-worlds-1st-programmers/

If there truly are fundamental biological differences why have the numbers fluctuated so very much over such an extremely short period?

Good question.

Could it be because women care more what others think of them than men?

B0jangles

professore wrote: »

It's funny that the modern US liberal viewpoint seems to be that men are bungling idiots while women are brilliant at everything, yet men and women are completely identical in every way and any challenge to that idea is sexist if a white male says it. Crazy I tells ya.

Who is saying that?

Personally I've done my best to back up anything I've said with as much data as I can find. Most of what is coming back is a mass of personal opinions which mostly seem to be of the type 'Men do X, Women do Y' as a basic and eternal truth, followed by a lot of arguing backwards from that 'fact' to justify that opinion, plus repeated instructions to 'Read the Memo'.

I'm not sure why or when a programmer working in Google became such an unassailable authority on gender representation in the tech industry?

B0jangles

professore wrote: »

Good question.

Could it be because women care more what others think of them than men?

What does that even mean in that context?

IRE60

There is a very interesting article in the Economist this week - it argues (rather well) that he shouldn't have been fired. It says that the 'debate' the memo suggested take place is now dead in the water. They say that the CEO should have countered his 'thesis' in a separate memo and not hammer free speech (regardless of where you stand on this)

suicide_circus

IRE60 wrote: »

There is a very interesting article in the Economist this week - it argues (rather well) that he shouldn't have been fired. It says that the 'debate' the memo suggested take place is now dead in the water. They say that the CEO should have countered his 'thesis' in a separate memo and not hammer free speech (regardless of where you stand on this)

But we're not interested in debate. Only conformity and compliance with approved doctrine.

IRE60

suicide_circus wrote: »

But we're not interested in debate. Only conformity and compliance with approved doctrine.

Strangely enough that was mentioned in a separate article!