I’m An Ex-Google Woman Tech Leader And I’m Sick Of Our Approach To Diversity!

[Livnthedream]

Discrimination is new? have fun with that opinion, come back to me when you pass the 1930's and move into this century

I disagree that this is equal to what I did. Since context is notoriously a thing.

Just because you refuse arguments based on you simply disliking them does not mean no meaningful ones have been present, looking at your posting style and history it appears to be a problem you face in every thread you participate, so chances are higher the problem you face is PEBCAK

No, I reject arguments that lack logical consistency. For example: We need skin color/gender because they have different experiences and ways of looking at the world but we don't need Conservatives because they are Nazi's!

If your goal is diversity, you don't just get the diversity that you value. While I agree that there are legitimately viewpoints that should be discarded, like actual Nazi's, what people are choosing to give those labels tends much more towards stupidity than actual value.

It is rather amusing that your whole argument is based on something i did not say, says it all that you need to make up something before you actually respond to it
There were many ways you could have tackled my argument but you decided to go with putting words in my mouth, sadly this makes me lose interest since it tells me you're more interested in winning arguments than actually discussing something.

Please, show me where I did this. So I can point and laugh, and then show you where you are wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, I apologize for assuming you would be reasonable and engage in good faith.

"You belong to x group you have no value!"

"Why won't you engage me in good faith?!"

That sure is some shit grade trolling. Try again.

That...that doesn't answer my question. What have the people studying sex and gender "failed to predict"?

The basic prevailance of their chosen area. Have you seen some of the early assertions that the majority of the population is actually gay, that we only form the relationships that we do in order to breed, but would actually spend our lives with their own sex if breeding wasn't part of the equation? Funny how that string of thought has continued to be perpetuated!

[Acidbaron]

If you agree with this logic then you have to agree with everything the government does. I doubt you want to do that.

Why do i have to agree with everything a government does when i can read what troubles a society through how a government acts? Not to mention i already questioned the approach to this particular issue by the government and questioned how well it will tackle this issue. I do find that acknowledge however is a requirement and i see no benefit to be gained from pretending there is no problem.

Agreeing that there is an issue and Agreeing with someone or something does to tackle that issue are two different things.

To put it even more simpler, when you cut yourself. You agree you have a wound, you have the option to do many things from that point on. That does not mean you'll always agree with going with a cut to see a doctor however, silly example but an attempt to put it really simple.

- - - Updated - - -

I disagree that this is equal to what I did. Since context is notoriously a thing.

No, I reject arguments that lack logical consistency. For example: We need skin color/gender because they have different experiences and ways of looking at the world but we don't need Conservatives because they are Nazi's!

If your goal is diversity, you don't just get the diversity that you value. While I agree that there are legitimately viewpoints that should be discarded, like actual Nazi's, what people are choosing to give those labels tends much more towards stupidity than actual value.

Please, show me where I did this. So I can point and laugh, and then show you where you are wrong.

The problem there is you claim to be the arbiter of what is logic while most of your argumentation is based around putting words in other people mouths, extremes and hyperbole.

If you cannot even remember that you recently attempted to make the case about my point being based around profit while i made no reference for it, continued to repeat my point was about profit i would invest in a new pair of reading glasses or be tested for short term memory loss. In any case since i didn't make myself clear enough, when i said i no longer find this discussion interesting with you, i meant to say that i won't really bother to respond to you further since you attempt to make people defend something what they did not say, this might be interesting on a playground type of level discussion but for me it's rather boring and pointless to continue forward.

[Post]

Why do i have to agree with everything a government does when i can read what troubles a society through how a government acts? Not to mention i already questioned the approach to this particular issue by the government and questioned how well it will tackle this issue. I do find that acknowledge however is a requirement and i see no benefit to be gained from pretending there is no problem.

Agreeing that there is an issue and Agreeing with someone or something does to tackle that issue are two different things.

You said you know it's a problem because they're trying to do something about it. So just because the government says it's an issue means you agree that it is an issue.

[Acidbaron]

You said you know it's a problem because they're trying to do something about it. So just because the government says it's an issue means you agree that it is an issue.

That's quite a leap and one i don't follow.

[Barnabas]

Wait is she assuming the applicants gender?

[Livnthedream]

If you cannot even remember that you recently attempted to make the case about my point being based around profit while i made no reference for it, continued to repeat my point was about profit i would invest in a new pair of reading glasses or be tested for short term memory loss.

You claimed that there wouldn't be a platform for it if it wasn't important. And money is an obvious takeaway that shits all over that line of thought.

In any case since i didn't make myself clear enough, when i said i no longer find this discussion interesting with you, i meant to say that i won't really bother to respond to you further since you attempt to make people defend something what they did not say, this might be interesting on a playground type of level discussion but for me it's rather boring and pointless to continue forward.

No, that isn't how this works. You asserting something ("this is important because people say it is!") doesn't automagically make it true. My pointing out that there are other reasons for at least some of the 'issue' to exist is not putting words in your mouth. It is showing that you failed to examine it closely and made an error in judgement.

[Post]

That's quite a leap and one i don't follow.

You just said we know it's a problem because the government is doing something about it...

You can't say that unless you think every issue the government does something about is a legitimate problem.

[Acidbaron]

You just said we know it's a problem because the government is doing something about it...

You can't say that unless you think every issue the government does something about is a legitimate problem.

Yes i can.

Government acts based on the premise of staying in power, assuming democratically elected here.
Therefor the government acts on what they is an issue for the public, majority of the public.
So we conclude that the government policies is a reflect of what the majority of the public wants.

Now how those policies are acted upon is outside of the public power till the next election cycle but there's no direct involvement unless the public is asked to play an advisory role in any shape or form, being it non-elected representative, council, etc.

Therefor agreeing that there is issue for the majority of the public using the government as a benchmark if they act, is not the same as agreeing with everything the government does as that involves in agreeing with how they decide to proceed. What is something else.

So yes i can since they are different things. Also you say something else now, seeing i had my coffee i missed that you first said to agree with everything it does.

Now you say to agree if the government acts if it is legitimate issue, if i voted said government in power and i am in the majority meaning said government is in power then yes i do believe that if the government acts upon something that there to be an issue. Now how the decide to proceed from that point forward and in what capacity or magnitude that is something you'll find people disagree with as that as i just explained are different matters.

[Trassk]

And why do you assume that won't result in a diverse workforce?

So what your saying is you value diversity over someone's ability to actually do their job good. Please never go into business, nobody deserves to work for such a failing company as that.

[Deleted]

Again, not relevant to what I'm pointing out.

But no, you don't.

What you're pointing out is a mysterious nebula of implied wrongthink and also 97 =/= 90. Please do tell us what's your point, because there's been several people calling you out without you deigning to respond in any kind of effective manner... unless your aim is to just pad post counts.

[Farrarie]

Ok. Why do you assume that being open to diversity runs counter to that goal?

I ment when you inforce diversity its nonsence

did you read what I wrote ?

[Forogil]

What you're pointing out is a mysterious nebula of implied wrongthink and also 97 =/= 90. Please do tell us what's your point, because there's been several people calling you out without you deigning to respond in any kind of effective manner... unless your aim is to just pad post counts.

You might think that 90 and 97 are almost the same, but what if it had been written as this:

In the copious hiring I did at Google, 3% of the people I hired were women. It’s not like I wasn’t trying to hire women. But I was working with a candidate pool composed of 10% women. There was no way I was going to come out of that with a larger percentage of women hires than I did.

So, she had 10% female candidates and thus there is no way that more than 3% of hires could be women? Why are female candidates that much worse than males ones?

Remember that in a trial the numbers are so bad that she (or her former employer) would have to prove that there wasn't discrimination - (assuming the numbers are correct); and she doesn't even hint at this being a problem in her blog post.

[Deleted]

You might think that 90 and 97 are almost the same, but what if it had been written as this:


So, she had 10% female candidates and thus there is no way that more than 3% of hires could be women? Why are female candidates that much worse than males ones?

Remember that in a trial the numbers are so bad that she (or her former employer) would have to prove that there wasn't discrimination - (assuming the numbers are correct); and she doesn't even hint at this being a problem in her blog post.

You understand employers generally seek to pick from the top of the applicant pool, right? Down to the point where when she took in some women because she was desperate to get some they underperformed?

We already lambasted you on the kindergarten napkin math. 10% of applicants women might just mean that in that recruitment drive 30% of them were worth picking over men. What's with the avoidance of statistical ability distribution? That out of 90% male pools you get 97% male representation is not anything worth gawking about, let alone flapping your mouth-bits.

[Post]

Yes i can.

Government acts based on the premise of staying in power, assuming democratically elected here.
Therefor the government acts on what they is an issue for the public, majority of the public..

Like weapons of mass destruction in the middle east, or the horrible effects of the marijuana on our societies.

[Acidbaron]

Like weapons of mass destruction in the middle east, or the horrible effects of the marijuana on our societies.

This is getting tiring if i have to go back and repeat things. Not sure if you are doing it on purpose i did say democratic elected government which of in that region there are few and when it comes to weapons population has no say on it and parties generally play on the defending their nation angle, if you are speaking of the Bush era and Iraq supposed WMD's, America and the UK voted for an invasion, Belgium and its government denied Bush request for support.

Marijuana, the only major negative effects are that we still attempt to keep it illegal what means a recreational drug what has shown to have no long term harmful effects (tests on studies where they suffocate monkies what results in loss of oxygen and supposedly so proving that loss of oxygen causes brain damage, well duh) means the product remains mostly underground, unregulated and not decent system to control its quality if it was legal, the quality would be better, the criminal influence would fade out so would the crime as it did with alcohol, i'm conservative but a modern one and i find we need to fight battles we can win and if we are against marijuana for recreational use we also need to take a look back at controlling alcohol, since it is more harmful to both body and mind, and very addictive to the point that stopping to drink as an addict can lead to death.

Also it would be a whole lot easier if it was legal to create a social control mechanism around it as we do around teens and alcohol, what isn't waterproof but nothing ever will be.

[Forogil]

You understand employers generally seek to pick from the top of the applicant pool, right? Down to the point where when she took in some women because she was desperate to get some they underperformed?

At her new company - at Google she instead argued for non-typical male applications (not more than 2% of the ones she argued for were women).

The important part is that if applicant pool was 10% women - and if the recruits were only 3% women that indicates disparate impact violating the 80% rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact

That is an indication of illegal discrimination in the US; and her former employer would be required to prove that it wasn't discrimination. Saying "couldn't do better" is not enough. Note that Google originally used "brainteasers" as part of recruitment at some point (perhaps during this), and it wouldn't be enough that female applications scored badly on them compared to the male ones - it would still be discrimination, unless they could show that it was related to job-performance (they no longer use brainteasers since they aren't related to job-performance).

Remember that there is a pending lawsuit against Google for gender-based wage and promotion discrimination.

It could be that it wasn't discrimination and the female applicants were in fact not good enough by some objective measure; but then we need to figure out why. Could it be that women feel forced into programming when they don't like it - like she is doing with her own daughter, adding numbers of women that got degrees but cannot do the job? Could it be that women aren't up to Google-standards - and Google just fired someone for saying out loud what they intuitively know. Or are Google just discriminating?

Many questions and this blog answers none of them; and more importantly doesn't even realize that they are important questions.

We already lambasted you on the kindergarten napkin math. 10% of applicants women might just mean that in that recruitment drive 30% of them were worth picking over men.

Don't complain about "kindergarten napkin math" and then do kindergarten napkin math" like the 30% figure.

If you want to compute if disparate impact occurred trust that someone have done the job http://www.hr-software.net/Employmen...rateImpact.htm

[Deleted]

At her new company - at Google she instead argued for non-typical male applications (not more than 2% of the ones she argued for were women).

The important part is that if applicant pool was 10% women - and if the recruits were only 3% women that indicates disparate impact violating the 80% rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact

Oh boy - what are you even trying to say here? That women did better than you expected because 1*0,1*0,2>1*0,1*0,3?

[Elestia]

The answer mirrors your finding. If you have app pools of 9:1 m:f then create a solution that is 1:1.

It's easy... cap the number of male applicants to equal the number of female applicants. Then choose the best candidate. In the short term, yes, you may end up losing talent that didn't make a deadline. In the long term, over many decades, you would see a balanced workforce.

Half of society is female... it's fair to use that as a default metric in the approach to hiring.


Until then, it's up to Google to decide if it has more to gain or more to lose from doing something like this. Their PR would love to make them an idyllic company - but ideals cost money.

[Livnthedream]

The answer mirrors your finding. If you have app pools of 9:1 m:f then create a solution that is 1:1.

It's easy... cap the number of male applicants to equal the number of female applicants. Then choose the best candidate. In the short term, yes, you may end up losing talent that didn't make a deadline. In the long term, over many decades, you would see a balanced workforce.

Half of society is female... it's fair to use that as a default metric in the approach to hiring.


Until then, it's up to Google to decide if it has more to gain or more to lose from doing something like this. Their PR would love to make them an idyllic company - but ideals cost money.

At least you are out about wanting to make the company worse. Good on you!

[TheDestinatus]

The answer mirrors your finding. If you have app pools of 9:1 m:f then create a solution that is 1:1.

It's easy... cap the number of male applicants to equal the number of female applicants. Then choose the best candidate. In the short term, yes, you may end up losing talent that didn't make a deadline. In the long term, over many decades, you would see a balanced workforce.

Half of society is female... it's fair to use that as a default metric in the approach to hiring.


Until then, it's up to Google to decide if it has more to gain or more to lose from doing something like this. Their PR would love to make them an idyllic company - but ideals cost money.

You know who loves terrible hiring strategies that are designed specifically to make your company not competitive? No one. There isn't a single business thats interested in using any support company that is staffed purposefully to not get stuff done. Should have just started your comment with "I have no experience running a company at all" so that you could save people the effort of reading it.