Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
On this, will note that I also have some biases of different people based on interacting with them that are rather controversial. The place I worked where I was forced to work HR (I was not hired to administer that department but we had a very short staff there) I noticed that whites in general do WAY more drugs than black Americans. Of all the candidates that I had to screen, I can only remember 5 black potential new-hires that failed a drug screen. On top of that, whites use WAY more different types of drugs than blacks. The blacks who failed using marijuana. They also were applying for low level groundskeeping/maintenance/janitorial positions. The whites primarily applied for management/property manager/construction manager/building maintenance manager jobs and most also had marijuana but also cocaine was VERY prevalent and methamphetamines (this was the early 00s when meth use was more prominent than heroin) I also had a couple whites on heroin.
Due to that, should I have not allowed the white candidates to screen for the new jobs? It costs us $50 a test to test them and a pretty significant amount of the white candidates failed the drug screens.
Men, I discovered are very prone to alcoholism and drinking on the job. I had to go out and field test quite a few maintenance workers for suspected DUI of our company vehicles. I never had to test a female maintenance worker at all. I tested black, Latino, and white men and all who were tested failed and were terminated on the spot.
I still hired men to work in maintenance though and I let them drive company trucks. Just because something "generally" occurs within a gender or ethnic group, doesn't mean that those same things will occur with every person of that gender or ethnic group.
This is a very interesting analysis ~ also interesting because there may be a connection to the current scenario at Google with Mr. Damore's memo or 'manifesto'.
Residinghere2007 identified her own bias based on her experiences on the job. If she had not identified these & sought a rational explanation, it's likely the bias would've remained however on an unconscious level. Being aware of the bias provides one with the opportunity to 'think twice' so to speak, & either self-correct for it or not. Either way, the bias is on a conscious level & can be described & addressed.
The connection to the current scenario may be found here in this very long & thorough examination:
The idea that everyone holds biases and that there is nothing wrong with
having them is a core tenet of unconscious-bias training.
...Lately, unconscious-bias training has emerged as a ubiquitous fix for Silicon Valley’s diversity deficit. It’s diversity training for the new millennium, in which people are made aware of their own hidden biases. It rests on a large body of social-psychology research—hundreds of studies showing how women and minorities are stereotyped. Google turned to it, Lee told me, in part because the company felt that its engineers would appreciate an approach grounded in social science: “That sort of discipline really, really resonated effectively with the hard scientists we have here.” Facebook put unconscious-bias training front and center in its diversity efforts, too; both companies have posted online videos of their training modules, to offer a model for other workplaces. Since then, talk of unconscious bias has spread through Silicon Valley like—well, like a virus
It's likely the diversity training that Mr. Damore & his coworkers attended (perhaps voluntarily or mandatory unsure which?) included unconscious-bias training & most likely implemented by the use of implicit-association tests:
Quote:
...An implicit-association test is a popular way to demonstrate how unconscious bias works. It was pioneered by Anthony G. Greenwald, a psychology professor at the University of Washington, in 1995. The idea is to have people very quickly sort words and concepts, revealing the implicit, or hidden, associations their brains make and the stereotypes that underlie them.
...Shelley Correll, the faculty director of the Clayman Institute for Gender Research at Stanford, gave her first unconscious-bias talk, at Cornell University, in 2003, when, she says, the topic was mostly of interest to academic departments. Now, she says, demand has spiked as tech companies have adopted the training. “Virtually every company I know of is deploying unconscious-bias training,” says Telle Whitney of the Anita Borg Institute. “It’s a fast and feel-good kind of training that helps you feel like you’re making a difference.”
But there’s a problem. Unconscious-bias training may not work. Some think it could even backfire.
...Of late, the problems with unconscious-bias training have become more widely known. None other than Anthony Greenwald, the inventor of the implicit-association test, has expressed his doubts. “Understanding implicit bias does not actually provide you with the tools to do something about it,” he told Forbes. ...
I read the memo and he does not use "Neurotic" as a reason not to hire women. He does not really use it as a pejorative at all.
He asks whether that is the reason most do not pursue a certain field. Given that 80 percent of Computer Science grads are male, these are fair questions.
Unless you believe every college is colluding against women studying Computer Science.
No he did not. Please re-read the memo on this portion. It stated:
Quote:
At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women
back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the
workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story.
He then went on to describe differences in personalities of men and women which he felt were more important or just as important as implicit and unconscious bias. He stated that the following:
Quote:
Personality differences
Women, on average, have more:
● Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally
also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also
interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing).
○ These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social
or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even
within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both
people and aesthetics.
● Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher
agreeableness.
○ This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for
raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences
and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a
women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men
without support.
● Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).
○ This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist
and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.
He basically said that bias against women may be a factor in the lack of representation of women in tech; but he then wen to on to say that it was more than likely their personality differences with men and then listed out what he felt were personality differences.
Ironically, the differences he cited are typical gender biases against women, which were referred to the in the PubMed article that mash posted. Whereas women are raised to fill a traditional role or exhibit specific personalities, same as men/boys with their roles, and due to that people automatically (both men and women) believe these stereotypes (they develop an unconscious bias) and will characterize each gender in a paricular way.
Not sure how you all are not understanding that the above are not biological traits. They are sociological behaviors associated with gender that are influenced and reinforced by societal expectations.
I got from the entire memo (I did read it yesterday afternoon) that they were having a series of discussions about "unconscious bias" against people of different genders and racial/ethnic backgrounds on the forum. Damore's entire memo started with an explanation of sorts, as if he was trying to make a more specific point on particular topics that had already been discussed. This lead me to believe that he had already written words regarding his own gender stereotypes of women. I went back and read it because, like I stated earlier, when I used to be the person in charge of disciplining/firing people over this stuff, I always wanted to give people a chance to correct that behavior. Re-reading this memo in its entirely IMO showed that he may have already been warned and instead of backing off on things he'd been warned about, he did like many of the people I did the same with (usually men lol) and we went overboard trying to make himself look like he really didn't mean anything negative while saying many more negative things than he may not have intended to come across like they did.
Ironically, for me, he showed an "unconscious bias" that he has against women in particular. He went overboard in trying to prove that women "scientifically/biologically were" a certain way when they are not. Also it was evident to me that he was being defensive and had been challenged on previous posts he had made. Interestingly, re-reading the whole thing in its entirety made me less pitiable of him since it was pretty evident to me that he had been warned about this.
The whole thing started off with the title "REPLY TO PUBLIC RESPONSE AND MISREPRESENTATION."
He was being defensive and wrote a very stereotypical and biased manifesto.
No he did not. Please re-read the memo on this portion. It stated:
He then went on to describe differences in personalities of men and women which he felt were more important or just as important as implicit and unconscious bias. He stated that the following:
He basically said that bias against women may be a factor in the lack of representation of women in tech; but he then wen to on to say that it was more than likely their personality differences with men and then listed out what he felt were personality differences.
Ironically, the differences he cited are typical gender biases against women, which were referred to the in the PubMed article that mash posted. Whereas women are raised to fill a traditional role or exhibit specific personalities, same as men/boys with their roles, and due to that people automatically (both men and women) believe these stereotypes (they develop an unconscious bias) and will characterize each gender in a paricular way.
Not sure how you all are not understanding that the above are not biological traits. They are sociological behaviors associated with gender that are influenced and reinforced by societal expectations.
I got from the entire memo (I did read it yesterday afternoon) that they were having a series of discussions about "unconscious bias" against people of different genders and racial/ethnic backgrounds on the forum. Damore's entire memo started with an explanation of sorts, as if he was trying to make a more specific point on particular topics that had already been discussed. This lead me to believe that he had already written words regarding his own gender stereotypes of women. I went back and read it because, like I stated earlier, when I used to be the person in charge of disciplining/firing people over this stuff, I always wanted to give people a chance to correct that behavior. Re-reading this memo in its entirely IMO showed that he may have already been warned and instead of backing off on things he'd been warned about, he did like many of the people I did the same with (usually men lol) and we went overboard trying to make himself look like he really didn't mean anything negative while saying many more negative things than he may not have intended to come across like they did.
Ironically, for me, he showed an "unconscious bias" that he has against women in particular. He went overboard in trying to prove that women "scientifically/biologically were" a certain way when they are not. Also it was evident to me that he was being defensive and had been challenged on previous posts he had made. Interestingly, re-reading the whole thing in its entirety made me less pitiable of him since it was pretty evident to me that he had been warned about this.
The whole thing started off with the title "REPLY TO PUBLIC RESPONSE AND MISREPRESENTATION."
He was being defensive and wrote a very stereotypical and biased manifesto.
Yea whatever.
The fact remain most Computer Science grads are men. Therefore most software engineers are going to be men. NUMBERS.
Why is this? I do not know. Damore merely speculates as others have. I do not see his speculation as anything ignoble because the NUMBERS back it up.
And as I mentioned repeatedly, Lawrence Summers said the same thing and neither you nor anyone else said boo when Obama brought him on.
The fact remain most Computer Science grads are men. Therefore most software engineers are going to be men. NUMBERS.
Why is this? I do not know. Damore merely speculates as others have. I do not see his speculation as anything ignoble because the NUMBERS back it up.
And as I mentioned repeatedly, Lawrence Summers said the same thing and neither you nor anyone else said boo when Obama brought him on.
I don't have a problem with Damore. The OP and many on the thread, including you seem to have a problem with Google.
I also don't have a problem with Lawrence Summers.
I agree that everyone has biases. However, I do believe that we should be conscious about our biases to the greatest extent possible so that they do not have a negative effect on the workplace when we are at work.
Not sure why you brought up Lawrence Summers or Obama in the conversation or why you think I have a problem with Damore.
I honestly feel sorry for him and think he should have backed off to save his job. I don't like to see people lose their jobs.
Everyone speculates but there is a time to speak and time to shut up when you are at work, you should shut up about your explicit biases. They are a liability for the company you work for. I never spoke about the biases I mentioned above that I developed at the job I worked. To do so or act upon those biases would have been against company policy and I could have been disciplined or terminated.
And that proves what, that women aren't fit to be firefighters? Sounds similar to the argument that since there aren't as many women software engineers as men there must be something about women that makes them unsuited for the job.
If you had read your own source you probably would not have included it, it concludes with a statement by the very conservative Pam Bondi:
"With all of the foregoing in mind, I am compelled to the view that minimum height and weight requirements which have the effect of excluding women and individuals of certain foreign extractions do not constitute "bona fide occupational qualifications" within the meaning of the act, nor can they be shown to be necessary for the performance of all the various types of positions here involved. Even though certain police or firefighter duties may require an individual of larger stature, this is, of course, no justification for employment qualifications which deny to women and some non-native-born Americans equal employment opportunities with regard to every position within the department or agency. Cf. Bruton v. Rockefeller, 42 U.S.L.W. 2186 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 9, 1973)." oops
Quote:
Originally Posted by mash123
This is not serious. The reason why women were not ans still not going i numbers to be a firefighters, is because it's extremely hard physical work. Not because of "height discrimination".
It's serious and I have known several female firefighters who were perfectly suited to the job, of course not all women are suited to that work. Just like not all men are going to be MMA fighters
I don't have a problem with Damore. The OP and many on the thread, including you seem to have a problem with Google.
I also don't have a problem with Lawrence Summers.
I agree that everyone has biases. However, I do believe that we should be conscious about our biases to the greatest extent possible so that they do not have a negative effect on the workplace when we are at work.
Not sure why you brought up Lawrence Summers or Obama in the conversation or why you think I have a problem with Damore.
I honestly feel sorry for him and think he should have backed off to save his job. I don't like to see people lose their jobs.
Everyone speculates but there is a time to speak and time to shut up when you are at work, you should shut up about your explicit biases. They are a liability for the company you work for. I never spoke about the biases I mentioned above that I developed at the job I worked. To do so or act upon those biases would have been against company policy and I could have been disciplined or terminated.
Then one wonders why you are on this thread.
I brought up Summers because he said basically the same thing and yet was rewarded with a plum job in the Obama Administration- a crowd I presume most critics of Damore have a fondness for.
I do agree that he was naïve to think this would not provoke a strong reaction. Maybe he saw that Summers survived it.
If you see his interview, he does appear to be super naive. I think he was actually fooled by the fake lefty "inclusive and tolerant" talk at Google.
Well he wouldn't be the last engineer to have some problems with social subtext and norms. It's not a left thing to be "inclusive and tolerant"... nearly every major F500 company now has some line in their hiring page about being inclusive, tolerant, etc. He failed to understand tolerance doesn't mean a company has to accept every personality/belief/etc.
If you see his interview, he does appear to be super naive. I think he was actually fooled by the fake lefty "inclusive and tolerant" talk at Google.
Ahh, well. Live and learn.
Perhaps some woman will teach him how to work and play well with others ~ as well as how to properly decipher and respond to corporate speak. It's a skill.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
