Live data from Hacker News

The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

gizmodo.com

101–110 of 660 posts

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#101
Prediction before reading any comments: highly uovoted comments will find some detail to nitpick to prove this wrong, thus maintaining the ideological bubble.

Downvoting comments will generally agree with the paper in the article.

Edit: yup, except not as many downvoted comments as I was expecting.

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#102
post #66

I fail to understand the outrage but attribute that to the fact that few bothered to read the document before allowing themselves to be outraged by it - such is the shallow, feeling-fueled, hysteria-laden media cycle of today. The doc presents a point-of-view, grounded in reality. Furthermore it's not "anti-diversity", but rather anti-discrimination - specifically 'positive 'discrimination which it discredits while p…

"Grounded in reality?" Could we get some sources for these claims? In particular, I'd like to see values and standard deviations for "On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways."

[deleted]

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#104
I was talking to coworker who recently transferred from China to the US. He told me that China is will dominate the US because diversity is the greatest US weakness.

Kind of shocking because our company is about 1/3 White, Indian and Chinese. But he doesn't see that as diversity. I think that is the answer that he can't see. Once groups accept each other as equals diversity becomes a non-issue. It does take work and there are lot of people who are not ready.

In addition, China is not one culture. It has many but maybe they are not as visible? I suspect secretly they are still very active behind closed doors.

In general, I feel that many immigrants have come from societies that are much more homogeneous. When they see US racial or gender problems some think that it's a weakness. I think that these problems can (and will) be solved but I can understand that given their upbringing they see it as an unsolvable problem.

Unfortunately, I don't think mandatory "busting unconscious bias" training will work for everyone. For some, their bias is just too deep. In time, I think many come around but some will never change. Unfortunately, they do hold a lot of power and when you report to one, you can find yourself setup to fail before you know it.

I've said this before: Women, please don't put up with stuff and don't give up. Please seek out a mentor who can help you become an executive in the company. The best way to fix this is to rise above it. It is not easy but please don't give up.

And for the "people against affirmative action", there are other ways to address your concerns. You can ask harvard to accept donations to increase class sizes. When some all-male colleges started accepting women, they doubled the class size. Please don't make it a race war. Harvard really only cares about money (and reputation). Find out what they want in order to get what you want. You don't have to take slots from people escaping a 300-year cycle of poverty. No it is not your fault, but it is your country (for better or for worse).

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#105
post #66

I fail to understand the outrage but attribute that to the fact that few bothered to read the document before allowing themselves to be outraged by it - such is the shallow, feeling-fueled, hysteria-laden media cycle of today. The doc presents a point-of-view, grounded in reality. Furthermore it's not "anti-diversity", but rather anti-discrimination - specifically 'positive 'discrimination which it discredits while p…

"Grounded in reality?" Could we get some sources for these claims? In particular, I'd like to see values and standard deviations for "On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways."

Do you really need scientific sources to notice the biological differences between two different sexes of a species?

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fail to understand the outrage but attribute that to the fact that few bothered to read Rather than assuming those who disagree with you are shallow and hysterical (a contentious word choice, given the subject), perhaps consider why others might be outraged, you could try some empathy (though I know the article warns us against empathy). The doc presents a point-of-view, grounded in reality. Furthermore it's not "a…

Sorry, but there's a whole host of psychological research that has long established behavioral differences between male and female. I find this new rejection on the Left of what are simply basic observations of biologically formed behaviors to be extremely bizarre. I'm really struggling to understand it because to me it seems like the same kind of science rejection we'd see on the Right if we were talking about clima…

I didn't claim there are no biological differences between men and women (of course there are), but that doesn't back the specific claims of differences in the article (which are remarkably specific and tailored to areas of male behaviour the author clearly valorises and identifies with, e.g. status driven = good, empathy = bad).

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#107
post #28

It is one thing to debated the veracity of a view, it is another to declare that that view should not be debated. For every point there is a counterpoint; every argument a counterargument. Arguing that the reasoning is flawed is not sufficient to ban it from discussion.

So, would you also agree that the existence of climate change should still be up for debate, even though there is overwhelming scientific evidence in one direction? NB: I do not know what the scientific consensus is on cognitive differences between men and women.

Yes, because I want a place to read articles about measuring its nature, shape, and effects. I want to be able to talk about countermeasures, so I have to be able to advocate theories of detailed causes---and I need to hear the best possible arguments about why those are wrong.

I'd love to have similar conversations about how nature and nurture affect outcomes, including how race and sex tendencies are or are not swamped by a lifetime of socialization, but our society has absolutely no way to do so without hurting a lot of people. We have other good work to do, so we can defer those conversations—maybe past my lifetime. Maybe try having them in smaller settings, with a framework of trust and love?

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#108
post #66

I fail to understand the outrage but attribute that to the fact that few bothered to read the document before allowing themselves to be outraged by it - such is the shallow, feeling-fueled, hysteria-laden media cycle of today. The doc presents a point-of-view, grounded in reality. Furthermore it's not "anti-diversity", but rather anti-discrimination - specifically 'positive 'discrimination which it discredits while p…

"Grounded in reality?" Could we get some sources for these claims? In particular, I'd like to see values and standard deviations for "On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways."

Seriously? If you think that men and women don't differ by more than their genitals, then you have to ignore all modern science.

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#110
post #66

I fail to understand the outrage but attribute that to the fact that few bothered to read the document before allowing themselves to be outraged by it - such is the shallow, feeling-fueled, hysteria-laden media cycle of today. The doc presents a point-of-view, grounded in reality. Furthermore it's not "anti-diversity", but rather anti-discrimination - specifically 'positive 'discrimination which it discredits while p…

"Grounded in reality?" Could we get some sources for these claims? In particular, I'd like to see values and standard deviations for "On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways."

> I'd like to see values and standard deviations for "On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways."

Here are some values that represent biological differences:

Men: "8===D"

Women: "{}"

Post reply on HN