|
Answer» Can we even talk about it?
Don't try to Google it. Try another search tool.
Now if it is it is forbidden to mention on CH, I will not go any further.
You can find it on Twitter.
https://twitter.com/
It shows up in Google Search results just fine... I suppose it is borderline political but it IS tech related.
Just as a synopsis: a now former google employee wrote a long screed about how maybe the reason women aren't in tech is because they don't want to be.
I found it idiotic. It references scientific results, but is not actually constructed in a way that applies to the scientific results it references. For example, the author links to a study that shows women are more interested in "people rather than things", but then uses that to assert that is why Women in tech prefer to work on front end rather than back end software development. That's not even CLOSE to what the study found and the application of it makes zero sense. Not to mention that the additional assertion was made without any additional numbers or information. Just an assertion.
Another example is a citation of a study that showed that women had less ambition and stress tolerance; but he completely ignored the context of the study (which was hardly related to working conditions or jobs, but rather survival type situations) and applied it to software engineering ("it's too stressful for them biologically" was effectively his statement). All the while, he ignored the many far job fields that are much more stressful than software engineering, such as the medical field, which are dominated by women.
They also ignore any contradictory evidence or suggestions for methodology improvements that are detailed in the papers referenced. In some cases conclusions or paragraphs discussing confounding factors directly contradict the conclusions as they are effectively applied in his manifesto.
The author had a pre-conceived narrative, and they found some parts of studies which agreed with it and pounded on it for a few hours while they were on a plane trip. They ignored contradictory information or evidence, ignored other strong theories or research in the same field which didn't directly support their narrative, and then used the bundle of documents they found that supported them to jump to conclusions that weren't even part of those research documents at all, and for which he had no additional evidence to support, and no reasonable way to test, while also completely ignoring QUESTIONS of cause and effect.
Meanwhile, the entire thing is peppered with crap about having an "honest discussion" or an "open debate". And yet, when *one of the researchers who's paper he cited* corrected him on how he had misused their paper and that in fact the paper directly contradicted the conclusions he drew from it- he basically called them an "SJW liberal Concern troll" and blocked them.
It is a death wail screed of somebody CLINGING to a status quo that benefits them. One thing is for sure- he certainly answered the question of why women seem to be avoiding tech- they run into people like him.
Quote One thing is for sure- he certainly answered the question of why women seem to be avoiding tech- they run into people like him.
That is so true. As you said, talented women can go into medicine and get respect.It is stirring up a storm on Slashdot, which, as everybody knows, is full of Captain Neckbeard types. That place is dripping with misogyny. My view is they were right to fire his *censored*.
Although I saw this brave exception:
QuoteYou got fired... (Score:5, Insightful)
by 110010001000 ( 697113 ) on Friday August 11, 2017 04:35PM (#54993597) Homepage Journal
...for drama. You want to write a manifesto? Don't do it at work. Put it on your blog. I would fire you for wasting everyones time with your personal issues.
It's SURPRISING how many of these 'reports' start off with the words "written by an ex-employee"... I was surprised how well it was received in many places, though perhaps I shouldn't have been. It was weird reading something that on the one hand said that there should be less empathy for other social GROUPS and they shouldn't be given extra opportunities, and then on the other says that political conservatives aren't given a fair shake, and there should be efforts aimed at hiring more conservatives (was he serious?). But then to go back and see the comments were largely in support of it, because a lot of users said that they too, have been "concerned about efforts to increase diversity". What does that even mean?
Quote from: Mark. on August 11, 2017, 05:08:36 PMIt's surprising how many of these 'reports' start off with the words "written by an ex-employee"...
I can't find it now, but I heard the author got a new job with a startup that was basically trying to start a "twitter for conservatives" as I recall it being mentioned, which is a very strange initiative.
|
