Well one thing I've already posted was that only 20% of Google's tech is female. So if their distribution look more like foreign Stem distribution (especially that of the two largest groups), it'll help their gender gap tremendously. That also likely means either that they haven't (or legally unable to) hire more foreign students or could have a gender bias in their hiring.
Google jobs isn't representative of STEM, more generally, though. Would have to focus more on breakdown in computing.
If that's case then in lieu of more relevant data, there's likely no points to be made around foreign students' impact on gender distribution. The conversation defaults back to only "hire more females google"! Such conversation does not necessarily contradict "be able to hire more Asian engineers google" Not female/don't possess more relevant data so I'm unable to effectively weigh in on this topic further
I was talking about female graduation in computer science. If you want to jump back to Google's gender demographics, then you should also take into account gender ratios among H1-B (70% male) and other visas.
Where was your female graduation in computer science data, I might've missed it. Also, as mentioned big data tech needs as much applied math as coders and female representation there, at least in some schools are almost 50%. I'm only engaging on two arguments: Wanting more diversity in gender for google and wanting to allow google to hire more foreign engineers are not mutually exclusive goals (especially given google is only 20% female tech while foreign H1B numbers are a higher distribution for females). Current H1B Visas cap the percent of applicants from China and India more harshly (as a percent of applicants). These groups have a higher percentage of female students in Stem, which could lead to some hypothesis on whether it's increasing the gender gap % in H1B Visa holders vs % in. SVEPs
I have laid out why he argument was sexist. He clearly tries to say the reason women may not getting promoted is for genetic reasons. You have not disputed this. I have pointed out where he has said this. It is sexist and making a sexist comment at work is grounds for dismissal. Period. Doesn't matter if 95% of what else he said was ok.
I doubt it but to me, that's the best indicator of gender discrimination in hiring practice. I'm sure it's something they have data on that could easily come to light in the lawsuit that Google is facing.
The problem is that wouldn't make people stop feeling discriminated against. If 20% of the company were female and only 10% of their applicants were female, they'd still say that they are disproportionately represented. Having a logical basis for why things are the way they are that has nothing to do with sexism won't get you very far....if anything it'll make people call you a bigot, just ask the former Google employee about that.
I'll repeat again Pinker's quote, which you appear to have not given any thought to even though it directly applies to the ethical issue you are raising: “Equality is not the empirical claim that all groups of humans are interchangeable; it is the moral principle that individuals should not be judged or constrained by the average properties of their group.” You can, of course, disagree with it. I believe it is true, and the consequence is that there is nothing sexist in making a claim about the average properties of men and women that correlate to promotion rate, particularly when there is some evidence to support such a claim. And if such properties are relevant to a given social outcome, there is further nothing sexist in pointing out the obvious that one might partially explain the other.
Enrollment in and graduation from computer science departments in India or China is unrelated. What I stated earlier was that Google plays within the confines of the law. Their employee demographic is probably due most likely to who they can legally hire.
What you link to does not explain promotion rate - you too are making a biased leap of logic to say that the minor evidence that shows personality differences explains why women are not as successful as men. The scientific community rejects your claim. You are espousing that women are not as equipped as men to be leaders. That's dangerous especially in the absence of scientific evidence. This is not about liberalism or conservatism. It's about living in a merit based world.
Fine. You do not see any relation between self-confidence, aggression, etc. and getting promoted in the work place. Hence, for him to suggest one "may explain" the other is wrong. I'll just disagree with that, skip the rest, and propose we end it here.
So you are saying men may be more likely to get promoted not because of bias, because of some studies showing genetic personality differences, correct?
No. Never denied that bias is involved. So you are saying that if bias was completely eradicated, men and women would be promoted at exactly the same rates, despite ample evidence of relevant personality differences that are observable cross culturally?
If bias and culture was eliminated - science says - nothing. As for differences in personality - it's very tricky to say what personality traits will lead to success in corporate environments. Is being aggressive more important to getting a promotion? Or is it having a greater ability to connect to others? The point is that the question you ask is unknowable, but behavioral scientists have not established the link that you and this fellow are trying to establish and explore. I think you may have some bias in you as well to be honest if you really feel that your personality tendencies as a male make you a better candidate over a woman.
You are correct that there is no conclusive science on this -- one way or the other. That has been my point throughout this thread. I posted a link to a debate on this issue by two respected cognitive scientists. Both raised good points. Both pointed to compelling evidence. One of the problems here is we disagree fundamently on what constitutes legitimate grounds for a debate on empirical claims. You take the position that we must assume one side is correct, and the debate is illegitimate unless the other side's case is already proven. Such a stance is hostile to the very process by which scientific inquiry and discussion must be undertaken. Now, if "science" does eventually answer the question and it turns out that a man is statistically more likely than a woman to get into programming or get promoted in a company that is structured as companies today are structured, due to innate differences, does that justify a man feeling that he must be a better candidate than a woman by virtue of his male-ness? Personally. I find jumping to that conclusion, as you evidently would given your smear that I must be harboring feelings that I am superior to women, to be morally objectionable.
What's your point again? How successful Google is as a company? Or how to enable a truly meritocratic system?
