What is your third way? Everyone has different traits and everyone has the same traits?

I am agreed. We should celebrate our differences, not try to make everyone the same.

I'm also in favor of fostering environments that allow those with particular skills and talents to succeed - and recognizing different skills in different people.

Sure. Who's going to disagree with that?

Apparently Google.

That may be good hiring practice, but it is not raising standards. Here standards being the minimum level of "in a vacuum" objective competency.

If your job is 90% A and 10% B and you only have people who can do A, you should obviously hire people who are good at B. But those people are actually better incrementally than adding more A people, and also that is not at all what "hiring for diversity" means.

This is the real argument for hiring for diversity. The idea of diversity vs meritocracy isn't a false dichotomy in theory, but in practice it sure is because candidate rankings are so ridiculously far from objective.

I stand by my statement that, relative to a theoretical pure meritocracy, hiring for diversity lowers standards.

Relative to practical alternatives, I wouldn't make that statement. Certainly hiring for diversity >>>> hiring for non-diversity.

Well if you define raising standards tautologically then sure it's a tautology.

And I did, so I win.

Neither.

Rational Human Being: "Do you think there are differences between men and women?"

Bladesman87: "Catfood"

Rational Human Being: "Um..."

Of course there are differences, what hasn't been shown is that those differences are expressed the same universally or that they affect performance as an engineer at Google. Saying so implies that women are not suited for the position which is sexist and instantly creates a hostile work place for women at google. Hence the firing.

Agreed.
Not universally, but statistically present. Go read the memo again.

Not said in the memo

Also not said in the memo.

Poor conclusion then?

That is the same thing. While men are statistically stronger than women, not every man is stronger than every woman.
No what he did say is women shouldn't be expected to try and get the tough man coding jobs and should just try for the easy women coding jobs. It's bull**** though because even if his premises were true, which is doubtful, he is ignoring the "inflexible male gender role's" part in creating the modern workplace that these neurotic women are so uppity about.

No, he definitely had to go, can't have someone in the company who has suggested openly that his women and minority coworkers are only there because they got the job of a more deserving white guy.

Do you know what the number is here?

0.1% of Females are stronger than the average male. You are posting out your ass!

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ative_immunity

I'm sure you're below average, but I don't have time to give you a statistics lesson.

Not in the memo. Read it again.

Actually, you can. And actually, you have a RIGHT to question this type of behavior from your company, particularly in California. Relevant law here:
https://www.inc.com/suzanne-lucas/no...iversity-.html

I did read the memo, that is what he is saying. You think that because .1% of females are stronger than the average male, which screams out for a cite, that every man is stronger than every woman, which shows you are bad at math. It's also funny that you think he can't be sexist because he said he wasn't sexist.

Not what he is saying, not in the memo.

Every man is stronger than every woman? WTF are you smoking?? Stop using absolutes. You have no idea how to use statistics. I linked my citation - go ****ing read it. Men on average have 61% more muscle density as well.
I know you're a science denier, but there is an experiment you can try - go arm wrestle the strongest woman you know. It won't even be close.

Perhaps this example might enlighten you:


Doubt it, but meh.


Another stat for you - the strongest man is stronger than the strongest woman. .

Enemy Jigglypuff used sing.

But Google boy is using absolutes, he is generalizing to all women, that's the problem and why he was fired.

No he's not. It's in the memo, go read it.

We've read it. That's why we know it's garbage.

These ****ing idiots couldn't figure this out? The reason you would get more African-American artists in results is because the word "American" tends to appear more often in pages referencing African-American artists.

Talk about snowflakes. Jesus.

Maybe you need to read it again with your head out of your ass?

Wait, Why even read that memo?

Why don't you read it one time first, then we'll talk about who's head is where.

Both are poorly phrased and neither is true.

I've said to you before there are differences between men and women. Those weren't my options.

I'll give you the explanation for option two, which is where you seem to be leaning:

If folks are different, then those folks who's natural traits excel at the task at hand, then wouldn't you expect a disproportionate number of those people in those roles? (Of course the memo makes suggestions how to accommodate for this.)

So, psychological interchangeability makes diversity meaningless. But psychological differences make equal outcomes impossible. Equality or diversity. You can’t have both.

http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/goog...tists-respond/