RECENTLY, WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING IMPORTANT ISSUES LIKE CAN
WOMEN ACTUALLY SUCCEED IN TECHNOLOGY?
CAN THEY CODE?
INSTEAD OF TURNING TO PSEUDOSCIENCE AND VAGUE IDEAS
OF WHAT A MERITOCRACY IS, LET'S TURN TO SOME ACTUAL CODERS.
THERE WAS RESEARCH DONE ON GET HUB WHICH WAS A MASSIVE
COLLECTIVE OF PROGRAMMERS AND CODERS WORKING TOGETHER IN AN
OPEN SOURCE COMMUNITY TO SEE, ONE GROUP OF RESEARCHERS WENT TO
SEE IF WOMEN WERE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST IN CODING.
THIS IS WHEN THEY WERE DOING CERTAIN THINGS CALLED
REQUESTS WHICH IS WHEN YOU WORK WITH DIFFERENT CODERS,
PERHAPS YOU KNOW THEM OR DON'T, TO COLLABORATE ON A PROJECT.
WHEN THE WOMEN CODERS WERE NOT IDENTIFIED AS BEING
GENDERED, THEY GENERALLY HAD THE REQUESTS MORE AND WHEN THEY
WERE IDENTIFIED AS WOMEN, LITTLE BIT LESS.
I THINK WE HAVE A CHART FOR THIS.
THIS CAME FROM PEERJ COMPUTER SCIENCE.
IT SHOWS ACCEPTANCE RATES.
CODE WRITTEN BY THEM BEING ACCEPTED BY PEOPLE RUNNING
DIFFERENT PROGRAMS AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE ANOTHER CHART.
THIS IS ACCEPTANCE RATE BY GENDER AND PERCEIVED GENDER WITH
95% FOR INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS.
THAT INDICATES WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE KNOWS THE CODERS OR
NOT OR JUST TAKING CALL REQUESTS FROM OTHER PEOPLE
THEY DON'T KNOW.
IN THIS,
OUT OF OVER FORMALLY IN PEOPLE ON GET HUB THEY GENDER IDED 1
MILLION, THAT IS 35% OF THEM.
THAT WAS USED TO CONDUCT THIS RESEARCH.
OVERALL, WOMEN'S PULL RATES ARE VERY HIGH.
LETíS BREAK THIS DOWN.
I LOVE THIS BECAUSE THIS IS REAL.
IT IS NOT AN EXPERIMENT, IT WAS BASED ON ACTUAL PULL
REQUESTS ON GET HUB AND IT IS AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF DATA
BECAUSE THERE WERE 3 MILLION PULL REQUESTS.
THIS IS PEOPLE ACTUALLY TAKING ACTION ON SOMETHING THEY DEEPLY
CARE ABOUT, PROJECT THEY'RE WORKING ON SO THEY WANT RESULTS.
WE KNOW BASED ON THIS OVERWHELMING DATA IN THIS
PARTICULAR EXAMPLE HERE WHEN THEY LOOKED BACK AT IT, AND
REMEMBER, IT WAS AN EXPERIMENT THAT THOSE BACK AT IT TO
SEE WHAT HUMAN BEINGS ACTUALLY DID.
WHEN THEY SEE IT AS A WOMAN, THEY ACCEPT THE CODE A
LITTLE LESS.
THEY REQUESTED THAT CODE LESS THAT
THE WOMEN READ THE CODE AND IT'S A LITTLE LESS, IS A
HUGE DIFFERENCE BUT LITTLE LESS.
BUT WHEN THEY DON'T KNOW THAT IT IS A WOMAN, IT IS
GENDER-NEUTRAL, THEN YOU CAN LOOK TO SEE MEN AND WOMEN.
WOMEN DO, AS CHEMICALLY, ABOUT FOUR POINTS BETTER.
I THINK THAT HAS A NUMBER OF RAMIFICATIONS.
OBVIOUSLY, JAMES AMORE WHO WORKED AT GOOGLE RECENTLY CAME
OUT WITH A MEMO SAYING WOMEN ARE NOT NECESSARILY BIOLOGICALLY
EQUIPPED TO WORK IN THE TECH FIELD IN THE SAME WAY THAT MEN
ARE, AND ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT I HAD WITH THAT WHEN WE
DISCUSSED ON THE SHOW YESTERDAY WAS HE WOULD MAKE THESE HUGE
GENERALIZATIONS AND HE WOULD BEST HAVE ONE STUDY TO BACK IT
UP AND I WOULD SAY WAIT A MINUTE, IT'S AN INTERESTING
CONVERSATION AND WE SHOULD HAVE IT AND IN FACT, THIS LEADS TO
FURTHER CONVERSATION ON THE BUT IN A WAY THAT IS SOMEWHAT
UNCOMFORTABLE, BUT YOU CAN'T MAKE GENERALIZATIONS BASED
ON JUST ONE DATA POINT AND IF YOU ARE GOOD ATTACK, YOU
SHOULD PROBABLY KNOW THAT AND TO BE FAIR, THIS IS ONLY ONE
LOOK AS WELL.
I WOULD WANT THE STUDY DID KNOW WHEN BUT AT LEAST THERE WERE
3 MILLION PULL REQUESTS HERE SO IT'S PRETTY SIGNIFICANT THAT
EVEN THE STUDENT RESEARCHERS WHO LOOKED INTO THIS WERE
SHOCKED AT THE RESULTS BECAUSE THEY WERE ACTUALLY
EXPECTING THE OPPOSITE OUTCOME.
IT IS AN AMAZING BIT OF RESEARCH LOOKING INTO THE BIASES THAT WE
MIGHT ALL HAVE BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT THEIR PEERS LOOKED AT
THE CODING AND THOUGHT, I JUST DON'T WANT IF IT IS A WOMAN.
I DON'T THINK IT IS SOMETHING THEY EXPLICITLY SAY ALOUD.
I THINK IT IS AN INTERNAL BIAS THAT THERE MAY BE UNAWARE OF
AND I THINK THAT ALSO HAS A LOT TO DO WITH SOCIAL CONDITIONING.
THE WAY THAT MASS MEDIA PER TRAYS WOMEN IN STEM JOBS AND HOW
THIS IDEA THAT THEY ARE NOT EQUIPPED IS PERPETUATED OVER AND
OVER AGAIN AND THAT, I LIKE THE STUDY BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I
THINK THE CONVERSATION IS IMPORTANT AND MY BIGGEST ISSUE
WITH THE STORY INVOLVING THAT GOOGLE ENGINEER WAS, I
AGREE WITH YOU.
HE GENERALIZE.
THERE WERE ISSUES WITH WHAT HE HAD WRITTEN, BUT THE WAY
GOOGLE HANDLE THAT I THINK UNFORTUNATELY STOPPED THE
CONVERSATION.
IS SQUASHED IT WHEN WE SHOULD HAVE A REAL CONVERSATION
ABOUT IT.
I THINK THERE ARE SOME LEGAL REPERCUSSIONS, ON THE WAYS THEY
HANDLE THAT BECAUSE IF YOU DID ON SOCIAL MEDIA FOR INSTANCE,
THEY WOULD HAVE TO PROBABLY LET HIM HAVE HIS FREEDOM OF
SPEECH BUT THIS WAS DONE AND AN ENCLOSED EMPLOYEE FORUM.
AN INTERNAL FORUM TYPE THING.
WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT, IT IS UP TO THEM TO GOVERN
THIS AS THEY SEE FIT.
HE ISN'T REALLY PROTECTED IN ANY WAY AND I WAS READING ABOUT
DIFFERENT PEER-REVIEWED IS FOR GETTING RAISES AND
PROMOTIONS WITHIN GOOGLE AND DOING THAT IS THAT THE
BIASES KIND OF CREATING AN UNFAIR WORK ENVIRONMENT OR
AT LEAST A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT.
TO THE THAT POINT, SUSAN WOJCICKI JUST WROTE AN ARTICLE
ABOUT THIS IN FORTUNE AND SHE IS THE CEO OF YOUTUBE,
OBVIOUSLY A BIG PART OF GOOGLE AND IT IS ACTUALLY OUT OF
HER GARAGE HER HOUSE THAT THEY STARTED IT.
SHE WAS
ON THE FIRST EMPLOYEES SO OBVIOUSLY, INCREDIBLY
SUCCESSFUL IN THE TECH FIELD AND SHE SAID LOOK, I'VE HAD THESE
BIASES DIRECTED AT ME ENDLESSLY THROUGHOUT MY WHOLE CAREER.
THAT IS FINE.
I MADE IT ANYWAY BUT IT IS NOT FINE BECAUSE I HAVE TO PROTECT
ALL OF THE PEOPLE WHO NOW WILL HAVE TO FACE THE SAME
STEREOTYPES AND BIASES.
NOW ARE THEY GOING TO THINK THAT WOMEN ARE NEUROTIC AND
DON'T BELONG IN TECH?
IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT THEY FEEL IT IS A HOSTILE WORK
ENVIRONMENT WHEN THEY FACE A STEREOTYPES BASED PURELY ON
THEIR GENDER AND NOT ON THEIR INDIVIDUALITY?
EVEN IF THAT IS NOT WHAT WAS INTENDED, IT IS CERTAINLY A
LOT OF WHAT PEOPLE GOT OUT OF THIS AND SHE MADE A SIMILAR
POINT THAN I DID IN THE VIDEO YESTERDAY.
SHE SAID IF YOU PUT IT ANYWHERE ELSE AND SAID BLACKS HAVE
LOWER ABILITY TO CODE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE GAY HAVE A LOWER
ABILITY, OR HISPANIC," IT WOULD BE UNACCEPTABLE.
SO JUST BECAUSE HE WAS SAYING IT IS WOMEN DOESN'T MAKE ANY MORE
ACCEPTABLE AND LOOK ñ
WOMEN WERE WORKING AT GOOGLE RIGHT NOW OR WHO ARE
WORKING IN CODING JOBS OR IN SILICON VALLEY WHO ARE
EXPERIENCING THIS TYPE OF SEXISM FIRSTHAND, I KNOW HOW
DIFFICULT IT IS AND LOOK, THAT OTIS IS NOT ON YOU.
I UNDERSTAND THAT BUT I LOVE THE WOMEN WHO ARE FIGHTING BACK
AND THEY ARE NOT BEING INTIMIDATED BY THESE RIDICULOUS
GENERALIZATIONS AND INSULTS THAT ARE BEING THROWN THEIR WAY.
KEEP BITING.
THE REASON I SAY THAT IS BECAUSE LET'S KEEP IT REAL.
EVEN
THIS WORK ENVIRONMENT HAS CHANGED CONSIDERABLY IN THE LAST
10 YEARS THAT YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING?
I WAS DEFINITELY NOT HAPPY WHEN I WASN'T ON THE FIRST HOUR, WHEN
IT DIDN'T TO COVER THE POLITICAL NEWS AND I FOUND FOR THAT AND
THE REASON I AM BRINGING THAT UP IS BECAUSE EVERY WOMAN IN EVERY
INDUSTRY EXPERIENCES THE SAME STUFF AND MY ARGUMENT IS,
DON'T LET THESE GUYS WHO LIKE TO MAKE GENERALIZATIONS ABOUT
YOU AND JUDGE YOU DISCOURAGE YOU FROM DOING WHAT YOU WANT TO
DO THAT YOU NOTICING?
ANOTHER PART OF THIS AND I THINK I'M FRUSTRATED BY IS I
THINK PEOPLE WHO ARE COMMENTING ON IT ARE OVERLY
VICTIMIZING THE WOMEN IN THESE WORK ENVIRONMENTS, ACTING
AS IF WE ALL WEEK AND WE CAN HANDLE A LITTLE BIT OF
CRITICISM AND THAT GETS UNDER MY SKIN, TO DUCK
ITíS NOT ABOUT THEM HANDLING CRITICISMS, IT'S ABOUT
BEING PREJUDGED.
YOU BRING THAT UP.
I DON'T AGREE WITH YOU.
IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER YOU ARE CAPABLE TO DO THE FIRST HOUR.
ONLY ON THE YOUNG TURKS WHICH YOU HAVE THIS CONVERSATION
IN PUBLIC HIM OUT IN THE OPEN.
JOHN HAD BEEN PRACTICING TO DO THE FIRST HOUR AND HAD DONE
IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
THATíS WHY HE GOT A SHOT AT IT.
WE DISAGREE ON THAT AND THAT IS OKAY.
IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE AT THE END, WE HAVE PLENTY OF
WOMEN WHO ARE REPRESENTED ON AIR.
BETTER WAY, I ALWAYS ADMIT TO THIS WHICH IS WHEN WE FIRST
STARTED HIRING HERE, I HEARD A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT I KNEW AND I
KNEW MORE GUYS AND SO THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IS WRONG.
IT WAS
NOT BAD INTENT, BUT THE REASON YOU FIGHT FOR DIVERSITY IS
BECAUSE PEOPLE TO HIRE PEOPLE THEY KNOW AND IF THEY ARE ONLY
HIRING FROM A CERTAIN SUBSET WHETHER IT IS WHITE OR,
DEPENDING ON THE SITUATION, IT MIGHT BE A DIFFERENT RELIGION OR
GENDER, THAT IS WHAT YOU HAVE THESE CONVERSATIONS THAT ARE
SOMETIMES UNCOMFORTABLE SO THAT WE CAN HAVE CONVERSATIONS.
THE STUDY IS NOT THE END ALL BE ALL BECAUSE IT IS ALREADY
LOOKING AT WOMEN WHO ARE CODERS SO THERE IS AN ISSUE ABOUT
SELF-SELECTION HERE.
I UNDERSTAND THAT AND THAT IS WHY
SAID IN THE STUDIES RELATED THAT WERE QUOTED, YOU HAVE TO STUDY A
HELL OF A LOT BETTER THAN THAT BEFORE YOU START MAKING
GENERALIZATIONS ABOUT MEN OR WOMEN AND THEN FINALLY,
ACCORDING TO THIS DATA AND IF YOU JUST TOOK WHO IS THE
BETTER CODERS?
MERITOCRACY.
THE RIGHT WING ALWAYS IS MERITOCRACY.
WE BELIEVE IN THAT TO.
YOU SHOULD JUDGE PEOPLE BASED
ON THEIR INDIVIDUAL SUCCESS AND HENCE, BASED ON THESE
RESULTS, IF YOU SAID MERITOCRACY, JUST HIRE
WOMEN BECAUSE THEY ARE BETTER CODERS.
THE DATA IS THEIR BETTER CODERS.
THAT WOULD BE STUPID BECAUSE FIRST OF ALL, IT IS A FOUR POINT
DIFFERENCE AND IF YOU HAVE A RANDOM GUY IN A RANDOM WOMAN WHO
ARE APPLYING FOR THE JOB, DOESN'T APPLY TO THESE
INDIVIDUALS.
GIVE EVERYONE THE SAME SHOT.
DON'T JUDGE THEM BASED ON STEREOTYPES AND THEN JUDGE
THEM BASED ON INDIVIDUALS THAT WERE NOW LOOKING FOR WOMEN
AND MINORITIES ETC.
HAVE SOME SORT OF ADVANTAGE THAT WHAT
WE'RE SAYING IS HISTORICALLY THEY BEEN AT A DISADVANTAGE
PARTLY BECAUSE OF THE STEREOTYPES.
LET'S LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD SO THEY HAVE EQUALITY OF
OPPORTUNITY AND NOW THAT WE KNOW MEN ARE NOT AS GOOD OF
CODERS AS WOMEN, MEN SHOULD HAVE EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY TO.
DON'T DISCRIMINATE AGAINST MEN JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT
GOOD CODERS.