Comment by SolaceQuantum | Hacker News Reader

Comment by SolaceQuantum | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I also read the memo and I think a lot of the science or logic was completely bonkers. For example, he claimed that women were more neurotic, and computer science very stressful, therefore it makes sense that women would naturally not pursue computer science. He also claimed that women were more social, and computer science quite lonely, and therefore it makes sense women would not pursue computer science. These assumptions on how the field of which he worked in were not backed by any science, and IME were completely wrong from basic counterarguments:

* Nursing and social work have a majority women workforce, and are much, much more stressful than any Google job by any reasonable definition of 'stressful'. At least at Google you're not worrying about being exposed to literal biohazardous material or handling actual, extensive child/elder/domestic abuse.

* Being a politician, a director, or a CEO are all extremely social positions- in fact they rely almost entirely on one's capacity to be socially persuasive. They are all almost entirely majority men.

* Computer science is very social in the workplace, by sheer need of doing code reviews. Hell, the popular workflow-du-jour is Agile, which requires regular standups, meetings, review, etc.

Computer science is quite social and pretty low-stress. By women who are apparently biologically directed to social, low-stress positions, a desk job like software development should be perfect!

Damore never claimed that women were "more neurotic". He pointed out that women have slightly more on average of a personality trait that's conventionally labeled Neuroticism, but (if anything) is perhaps better thought of as the reverse of emotional stability. He also didn't claim that computer science was "lonely", only that it emphasizes dealing with "things" as opposed to people, and that women on average are somewhat more likely to find such an emphasis less appealing. The claims are not nearly as "bonkers" as you say, they're about slight variations which are only even detectable at the scale of very large groups, and say nothing whatsoever about what individuals are like in day-to-day life.

They are bonkers because how can computer science deal with "things" when it's almost entirely dealing with people's needs? How can women have on average the "reverse of emotional stability" and yet be driven from an incredibly cushy job (programming at google)?

Programming involves sitting on your own most of the day talking to compilers. Hence developer's famous dislike of distractions, meetings and other social events that disrupt the flow of concentration. It's pretty much the epitome of a job that involves working with things; claiming it's not can only be the product of intense political bias. If computer science is "almost entirely dealing with people's needs" then what kind of job does count as working with things?

> Programming involves sitting on your own most of the day talking to compilers.

Only if you write really, really bad code. Once you're able to write code that works, the interesting question is what code to write. Professional software engineering does in fact mostly consist of talking to people. I say this based on the "intense political bias" of having been a working software engineer for many years.

I don't think there are many jobs that consist primarily of working with things. I suppose jobs that are lonely by nature, like trucker or lighthouse operator, or jobs where your work product is usually developed by one person, like sculptor or fiction writer?

I've also been a software engineer for many years. If you're spending more time talking to people than coding, you aren't a programmer anymore, you're actually more of a business analyst.

My job title in fact is not "programmer." (And I'm not sure I've worked anywhere where that is a title.)

You completely misunderstood Damore.

First of “neurotic” is a psychological term. He was using it in the scientific way, not the colloquial way.

Second, the point is not that all women cannot be programmers. It’s the fact that if the goal is to increase the number of female programmers, you need to change the nature of programming to make it more appealing to the average female. There will always be brilliant female programmers, I’ve worked with many that are better than I ever will be and I admire and learn from them every day. And there will always be women that can thrive in make-dominated areas because of their internal make-up.

But you will never get complete 50/50 gender equity until you change the nature of the job so that the average female will be more interested. That’s the point Damore was making. By making the nature of programming more appealing to more females by making the job in grain with what scientific research says are the differences between men and women, that’s how you fairly increase the number of women without biasing against men.

I am using neurotic in the way Damore is using it, which is the scientific way, that women are in general less capable of handling the 'stress' of computer science work.

Gotta jump on this specifically, first:

>First of “neurotic” is a psychological term. He was using it in the scientific way, not the colloquial way.

Whether or not it was used scientifically doesn't mean much. If I say all HN users named amw have been shown to be sociopaths, does that remove the social burden of the negative association with sociopathy even though I'm specifically referring to the diagnosis from DSM IV?

To the rest: Yes, Damore was making the point that not all women can be programmers. And he was making it with pseudoscience and "intuitive" beliefs that haven't really been shown to have any backing in the essentialist way that he and other apologists have shown them. It's kind of like saying that Charles Murray is "just" demonstrating that professional work just isn't for black people thanks to the "scientific" differences in their IQ: He's not "just" demonstrating anything, he's cherry-picking science for a conclusion he likes, a conclusion that happens to be inherently (and needlessly) discriminatory.

Yes some of his jumps from fact to argument are debatable. The neuroticism idea can be a positive. Those more aware of things going wrong can make great managers, pulling the team up from pitfalls.

I disagree with a straight programmer as being a particularly social role, yes you interact with others. Most of your brain work is optimized towards a machine and that is worlds away from nursing or sales where the primary focus is on social work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com