11 ms·

He emphasized in the article that he was talking about patterns, not individuals. So there's no way you could draw the conclusion that he meant to suggest that

by thegenius2000 9y ago

He emphasized in the article that he was talking about patterns, not individuals. So there's no way you could draw the conclusion that he meant to suggest that his female colleagues were any less capable than their male counterparts.

humanrebar 9y ago
The implication of his thoughts was that they were just as qualified but too scarce. This seems to be the position of Google HR as well.
zimpenfish 9y ago
It was pretty clear what he was dogwhistling though. Just because he didn't come out and point blank say "The girls can't code" doesn't mean that wasn't his meaning.
LoSboccacc 9y ago
memo wasn't damning per se, but it's a controversial topic to say the least, whichever side you're on. he was basically playing roulette politics in the wrong setting.
tanilama 9y ago
Patterns are useless until they demonstrate they have predictive power. > A pattern, apart from the term's use to mean "template",[a] is a discernible regularity in the world or in a manmade design. As such, the elements of a pattern repeat in a predictable manner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern So using a lot of text to depict such pattern while on the other hand indicating such pattern cannot generalize feels like wrestling with yourself. Did he try to prove himself that this 'on average' model is a bad model?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ceejayoz 9y ago
> He emphasized in the article that he was talking about patterns, not individuals. So, would "Jews tend to be greedy" or "Italians tend to be lazy" be an acceptable statement in the workplace because they target (supposed) patterns rather than individuals? Would someone espousing those statements be reasonably assumed to give Jewish or Italian candidates a fair hearing? After all, the memo claimed a tendency amongst women towards neuroticism.

humanrebar 9y ago

The implication of his thoughts was that they were just as qualified but too scarce. This seems to be the position of Google HR as well.

zimpenfish 9y ago

It was pretty clear what he was dogwhistling though. Just because he didn't come out and point blank say "The girls can't code" doesn't mean that wasn't his meaning.

LoSboccacc 9y ago

memo wasn't damning per se, but it's a controversial topic to say the least, whichever side you're on. he was basically playing roulette politics in the wrong setting.

tanilama 9y ago

Patterns are useless until they demonstrate they have predictive power. > A pattern, apart from the term's use to mean "template",[a] is a discernible regularity in the world or in a manmade design. As such, the elements of a pattern repeat in a predictable manner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern So using a lot of text to depict such pattern while on the other hand indicating such pattern cannot generalize feels like wrestling with yourself. Did he try to prove himself that this 'on average' model is a bad model?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

ceejayoz 9y ago

> He emphasized in the article that he was talking about patterns, not individuals. So, would "Jews tend to be greedy" or "Italians tend to be lazy" be an acceptable statement in the workplace because they target (supposed) patterns rather than individuals? Would someone espousing those statements be reasonably assumed to give Jewish or Italian candidates a fair hearing? After all, the memo claimed a tendency amongst women towards neuroticism.