Live data from Hacker News

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

gizmodo.com

111–120 of 660 posts

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

#111
post #19

The intellectual contortion required to get from the premise to the conclusion is actually quite impressive. > On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because: > They’re universal across human cultures Except the gender ratio in science/engineering is anything but universal across cultures. 70% of science/engineering students in Iran are women: ht…

>> Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing). If this were true, shouldn't women's interest in CS be going up now that the web is all about feelings/aesthetics/social?

Because they prefer to become nurses than CS working in front end.

I think you should think beyond CS and think about careers. There are things more cooperative and empathic than CS.

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

#112
post #19

The intellectual contortion required to get from the premise to the conclusion is actually quite impressive. > On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because: > They’re universal across human cultures Except the gender ratio in science/engineering is anything but universal across cultures. 70% of science/engineering students in Iran are women: ht…

> 70% of science/engineering students in Iran are women

I know very little about gender issues in Iran, admittedly, but I would be very very careful making any social/cultural conclusions driven on a material from totalitarian and semi-totalitarian regimes where decisions of members of society are not free. I mean, how do we now that 70% figure is a result of a cultural choice and not some governmental program driven by whatever ideas the ruling caste has? You can not say it is about culture if it could be just a direct or indirect result of some or other edict from Powers That Be.

Update: also looks like 70% figure is a complete baloney, not based on anything but anonymous Quora postings. Wikipedia has different data (see my comment above) on par with data in other countries. If somebody has any respectable source for the 70% figure please quote it.

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

#113
post #75

"Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently." As an experiment, I'd like to see if HN upvotes or downvotes this statement from the memo. I'm willing to put my karma score on the line to find out what HNers believe (this will help me decide if HN is a community worth investing…

The HN community lives in a very large ideological bubble.

The technical articles are good, though.

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

#114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are actually a few studies showing gender differences in infants and monkeys. (males preferentially looking at/interacting with mechanical things, females faces/dolls) From that, you can assume that there are at least some biological differences in behavior between the sexes - and thus differing workplace representation is not necessarily 100% derived from social pressures. And if that's the case, achieving a 5…

Jumping from a few studies about infants and monkeys to "...you can assume that there are at least some biological differences in behavior between the sexes - and thus differing workplace representation is not necessarily 100% derived from social pressures." is far, far from enough evidence and extremely hand-wavy to make a scientific argument here.

There isn't really a leap. All I'm saying is that we have evidence for some gender differences that are rooted in biology, and thus we cannot assume that other differences have no biological component. Which is what asserting that 100% of a gender gap is caused by social pressures does.

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

#115
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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."

Are the biological differences between men and women not rather straightforward?

Not really. There are claims that for example men are better at spacial reasoning (imagining/navigating a 2d/3d space, constructing physical things in their head before acting on it). Women are supposedly better at putting themselves into the perspective of other people, both emotionally as well as logically. Or so I've heard.

I'm sure there have been studies on these topics though, and I think that's what your parent comment is asking for?!

Although, making these out to be biological differences could be a stretch.

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

#116

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…

One issue is that acknowledging potential differences between the sexes can setup prejudice that acts to fulfill those prejudices. This can lead to widening gender gaps possibly more that any real gap in performance.

So many do not blindly advocate equality because they believe it completely but do so to avoid the overly negative and reinforcing effects of prejudice.

Think of this as a form of "Noble lie"

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

#117
post #75

"Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently." As an experiment, I'd like to see if HN upvotes or downvotes this statement from the memo. I'm willing to put my karma score on the line to find out what HNers believe (this will help me decide if HN is a community worth investing…

The HN community lives in a very large ideological bubble. The technical articles are good, though.

It's a pity isn't it? I hoped the HN community would still see the value in "diversity of opinion" - even if said notion was uttered by a "haram" individual.

The leftist, tribal mindset is clearly a powerful and poisonous thing for all sorts of communities. Let me know if you find a better one for discussing new tech.

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

#118
post #7

It’s interesting that the author considers the conceptual framework of microaggressions spurious, while describing his negative experiences as a conservative Googler in terms of what a feminist might describe as microaggressions. To further undermine his own point, he asserts that several harms against conservatives have been caused by these microaggressions. The difference between effective negative feedback and har…

I noticed that as well. I find it interesting that the alt-right has started to embrace so much of modern feminist/liberal terminology and tacitly accepted so many of the premises. The modern alt-right conservative: "I don't believe in safe spaces, but please stop bullying me!"

What surprises you about this? Historically speaking, it seems high time for a synthesis to arise.

I'm not sure what you find incompatible in "I don't believe in safe spaces" and "please stop bullying me". Hiding from bullies is a tacit concession. Confronting them is not. You might confront a bully and lose, but you might confront a bully and win, too.

Many at least - I think most if not all - who embraced the "alt-right" label, before its cynical and unjust equation by their enemies with Nazism, perceive themselves to be and have been bullied by those with whom they have the intolerable temerity to disagree. But those safe spaces which they have attempted to establish have not been permitted the conventional inviolability, but rather been gleefully invaded and their inhabitants shamed and castigated without scruple. Why "believe in safe spaces" when you are not permitted to have them, but rather encouraged with great firmness to accept that only once you have surrendered your dissent, and publicly abased yourself in hope of expiation for the sins you now forswear, will there be even a chance you may be allowed to feel safe?

As in every case where bullies run rampant and are unchecked by any impartial force majeure, the only passive defense has been invisibility, and it is very hard to remain unseen indefinitely. Your enemies only have to be good, or lucky, for a moment. You have to be good, and lucky, all the time. When you inevitably slip, or when your good fortune inevitably runs out, you are at their mercy. The social, educational, vocational, and even legal consequences can be severe - and, worse, it is not in your power whether they will be or won't be. But, like any bully, they're probably going to work you over that much harder for making them go to the effort of catching you, instead of politely submitting yourself for violation like a good little victim.

And as with any bully, there's no merit in what they do to you. No doubt every bully imagines himself enforcing some sort of right ordering upon society, in whatever sphere his power enables him to encompass. But this is a lie. The bully does what he does to his victim because his victim cannot or will not be what the bully demands he be. But even this is a lie. In truth the bully does what he does because he can, and because it's easy, and because it brings him pleasure.

Some grow out of this over time. Not all do. And power is seductive. It can easily betray you into doing things to others which you would never suffer upon yourself. It can give you any number of reasons for the former to seem virtuous even though the latter is iniquitous. The danger comes in the difficulty of differentiating this betrayal from reality. There are times when it truly is virtuous to, for example, break someone's nose, and times when it truly is iniquitous. Standing up to a bully, for example, bears virtue. Imagining one stands up to a bully, while in fact behaving as a bully oneself, does not. It is vitally important for everyone, but especially everyone with the power to crowdsource the sort of vengeful mob that can so easily destroy someone's social and professional and educational life, to bear this distinction sharply in mind. To fail in so doing risks erring into shameful, unjust, indeed frankly abusive behavior. And I suspect there are few on any side of any political divide who would be willing to argue that abusive behavior merits tolerance from those whom it would make its victims.

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

#119
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."

Here's a wikipedia article titled "Sex differences in psychology" [1] that might have some of what you're looking for.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology

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

#120
post #105
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

I think the Left now does. I'm not trying to troll, but this new trend of pretending there isn't a difference has started to really bother me. Jordan Peterson attributes it to the influx of Postmodernism to Leftist ideologies. I don't know if I totally agree with him there but it's at least a starting point.
Post reply on HN