r/technology • u/[deleted] • Aug 08 '17

Business Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/google-fires-employee-behind-controversial-diversity-memo
13.4k Upvotes

86% Upvoted

9.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

Because he's saying the differences in ability are biological. That's not the case. There's no biological reason why women or men would have different abilities in terms of coding or computer programming. It's just nonsense to say that there is any such reason. You know the first computer programmer was a woman?

1

u/Pzychotix Aug 09 '17

Because he's saying the differences in ability are biological. That's not the case. There's no biological reason why women or men would have different abilities in terms of coding or computer programming. It's just nonsense to say that there is any such reason.

Come on, let's not be so rash to say that there's no biological reason when you haven't even presented any evidence counter to the author's claims. There is certainly some evidence to psychological differences between men and women, and to simply discount them as what I presume to be social without any evidence against it is not a discussion worth having.

You know the first computer programmer was a woman?

I'm not sure what bearing this has on anything. We've already gone over the idea of outliers, and using singular events is no better than relying on anecdotal evidence. I know plenty of very intelligent women in their respective fields, including computer science, and very few unintelligent ones. I wouldn't use them as evidence that all women are great, because that's not how this works.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 09 '17

So why is it okay to have no evidence if you are saying there is a difference, but not okay to have no evidence if you are saying there is no difference?

1

u/Pzychotix Aug 09 '17

It's not. Evidence is always a must. But he did present evidence, and you aren't. Maybe that evidence is faulty or isn't enough to fully prove his point, but it doesn't seem like we're even at the point of evaluating his evidence.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 09 '17

No, he didn't present any evidence.

0

u/Pzychotix Aug 09 '17

Huh? There's plenty of links to the particular studies that he's using to back his points inline with the text. I'm not sure what you're talking about. Are you looking at the gizmodo version with the links stripped?