The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google • Hacker News Board

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

#221

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:36 PM UTC

aeriklawson wrote: post #90

DuskStar wrote: post #63

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.

[deleted]

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

#222

Post by chroma » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:36 PM UTC

taysic wrote: post #171

chroma wrote: post #138

I notice a lot of misrepresentation of views on both sides, almost to the point of strawmanning. I think a charitable interpretation of the author's best points can be summarized as follows: - Racism & sexism still exist, even at Google. This is bad. (On the bright side, the problem seems to be getting better over time.) - It's good (and good for business) to eliminate discrimination based on gender, race, sexual pre…

As a female engineer I don't resonate with the proposed changes for woman working with other people etc. I'm a very independent worker and that's partly why I've thrived in this field. In short, I don't think companies should make any adjustments based on gender. Just ignore it - that part I agree with - let people self select what and where they want to work themselves. And I also don't agree with quotas though I se…

I also thought the pair programming example was odd, as I've never noticed different propensities for pairing based on gender. As far as I can tell, it is equally disliked. :)

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

#223

Post by jerrylives » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:37 PM UTC

jboggan wrote: post #192

jerrylives wrote: post #23

> internal meme network i really want to believe that at Google there is a massive distributed cluster dedicated solely to facilitating meme throughput

Recently left Google and I can confirm, Memegen is real and draws significant resources to operate.

So reading the article above it didn't make clear - are these memes generated by AI or is it just an internal meme creation / sharing site?

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

#224

Post by tmh79 » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:37 PM UTC

didibus wrote: post #181

I hear a lot of complaints about conservative ideas being shunned and bullied, but I disagree completely. Why haven't I read a 10 page pro-diversity creed circulating at google? I haven't heard or read about progressive ideas in a long time, a long long time. I'd be willing to bet a pro diversity creed would get much stronger bullying against it too. Anyways, I'm tired of this issue, and people trying to pretend ther…

First of all, let me lead with: I'm a neoliberal democrat type person, I support diversity initiatives, reaching out to and supporting under represented communities, making changing to work culture to help people who haven't succeeded historically (IE mothers who leave to take care of their kids) etc. I disagree with most of the points in the guys doc.

> Why haven't I read a 10 page pro-diversity creed circulating at google?

The corporate culture in SV is pretty far to the left (all things being considered), you don't see things like a 10 page pro-diversity creed circulating internally because for the most part, those type of documents are official company policy. IMO, this is a good thing.

I think open discussion of ideas like the one in this document would be beneficial because they are easy to refute and all people involved can take it as a learning or educating experience. The guys conclusions aren't "morally bad", but they are "demonstrably wrong" and its easy to see why if honest discussion was permitted. The problem is, open discussion is not permitted because the culture of the left seems to confuse "demonstrably wrong" with "morally bad" and thus makes having bad ideas a sin, instead of say, an opportunity that one can be educated on an enlightened.

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

#225

Post by rifung » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:37 PM UTC

amiga-workbench wrote: post #31

asploder wrote: 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 don't see what's micro about losing your job for wrongthink.

> I don't see what's micro about losing your job for wrongthink.

I admit this is my first time hearing the term "wrongthink" but I assume this means something along the lines of "thinking the wrong thing".

If that's true, then nobody loses their job for wrongthink. What they lose it for is actually acting on it, which i guess you could call wrongdoing.

Take for example, sexual harassment. It's okay to find your coworker sexually attractive, and also okay to think about them in a sexual manner, but to openly say something without regard for whether it would make them uncomfortable is not okay.

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

#226

Post by Quarrelsome » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:37 PM UTC

remarkEon wrote: post #58

ubernostrum wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's perfectly all right to say that there are statistical differences between the average biological man and the average biological woman. The problem is to then assume a gigantic pile of facts not in evidence (that the differences observed are 100% biological with no cultural influence whatsoever, that they conclusively explain gender disparities in many fields, etc. etc.) and accuse anyone who disagrees with you o…

Except he didn't say that the differences we observe are 100% due to biology. I'm actually pretty shocked at how much of this thread seems to deliberately mischaracterize what he wrote.

> Except he didn't say that the differences we observe are 100% due to biology.

He did, if he didn't intend to he used the wrong language. He had a section called:

> Personality Differences

Where to his credit he did say: "on average" but then he failed to distinguish these differences as cultural or social. Rather he prefixed that part of the article with a section that stated:

> On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed....

I don't know how to read that otherwise. My understanding is that he IS saying that biologically women (on average) are less able to negotiate pay, prefer social work to STEM, etc. Now while those are perfectly fine things to consider stating them as fact is a bit of a leap. You have to prefix your work to make it less assertion and more speculation for people not to assume what I assumed.

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

#227

Post by humanrebar » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:37 PM UTC

AlexandrB wrote: post #179

DuskStar wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's very convenient to hand-wave away the problem as "biological differences". Until we have some direct link between biology and preference for software development I think the wiser course of action is to try to get more women interested in the field. I mean why not? That's not to mention that open discrimination against women in numerous fields is a thing that happened within the lifetimes of people that are stil…

> I mean why not?

Why not have a broad-based program to appeal to all demographics? Black Americans are also underrepresented. Rural children have less access to certain kinds of resources like magnet STEM schools.

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

#228

Post by bhouston » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:38 PM UTC

throwanem wrote: post #204

bhouston wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world I live in is filled with various Noble lies and self deceptions and mass deceptions. It does seem necessary to me for the modern world that isn't constantly at war with itself to exist. There is so many that I do not know where to begin and I am not going to begin. This one seems on balance like one of the less harmful ones.

Are you sure the modern world isn't constantly at war with itself? I am not. Nor am I sure that a culture of constant deception - inward and outward, individual and en masse - is less, rather than more, likely than the converse to produce such a regrettable state of affairs. Certainly I envy you this confidence! I have not seen it borne out in practice. But I doubt we inhabit very similar-seeming worlds.

> Are you sure the modern world isn't constantly at war with itself? I am not

In the Western world in North America and Europe we are doing pretty well. The many big issues are here such as climate change and low reproduction and lack of economic growth and the widening gap between rich and poor is problematic but it isn't leading to any major violence locally. There are problems but society is generally safe.

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

#229

Post by devrandomguy » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:38 PM UTC

door wrote: post #215

devrandomguy wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Commenting on someone's bathing suit is not inherently sexual, because we do it in non-sexual contexts; for example, I complemented my nephiew's new swim trunks earlier this summer. A particular complement might be sexual, but we shouldn't assume that. For all we know, the guy is gay, and we are now discriminating against that. Furthermore, commenting directly on the awesomeness of someone else's body is also not inh…

>Furthermore, commenting directly on the awesomeness of someone else's body is also not sexual. Have you never admired a femal athlete, the way you admire a male athelete? I am bisexual so the analogy doesn't quite work lol. and yes sometimes that can be non-sexual, but a workplace is not a place to make those kinds of comments because it is a VERY thin line and can easily make someone uncomfortable. and 99% of the t…

I used to have conversations like that with a female roommate, and since then, have developed some interesting ideas about human-born artwork.

It sounds to me like the phenomenon you are describing is a form of dysfunctionality that is not universal to all men. It is incorrect, specifically sexist, to insist that all men can only see woman for their sexual potential. Please stop, you are doing us all (including women!) a great disservice.

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

#230

Post by noddy1 » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:38 PM UTC

door wrote: post #130

curyous wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

read "myths of gender" or "delusions of gender" on this subject, which thoroughly debunk this essentialist nonsense about "biological" gender difference. anyone in any sociology or anthropology department will tell you how incredibly obviously false the biological essentialist position of gender is. it's literally only white men in tech or right-wing white male biologists writing outside their field of expertise who…

Anyone who knows anything about biology or genetics knows that it is absurd that there would be zero phenotypic difference between males and females. There are simply different factors driving each gender's reproductive success, and therefore the XX and XY chromosomal difference will push different traits.

Sociology and anthropology depts can't handle this because they aren't interested in science.