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

#241

Post by renaudg » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:44 PM UTC

Quarrelsome wrote: post #226

remarkEon wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 biological…

You have to consider that Gizmodo has acknowledged having stripped the essay of several hyperlinks, probably lending support to his claims.

This comprehensive recap could be one of them : https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/wh...

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

#242

Post by rifung » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:44 PM UTC

0xbear wrote: post #121

As a former Googler: dude is _so_ getting fired and blacklisted. I've seen people driven out just for saying someone else looks good in a bathing suit. Not a direct or indirect report, mind you, a person completely outside the chain of command, at a team event in (IIRC) Hawaii. A small minority of people takes victim mentality and makes it near religious internal dogma. The rest just go along with it due to fat paych…

> A small minority of people takes victim mentality and makes it near religious internal dogma. The rest just go along with it due to fat paychecks and the lack of desire to get fired for not being PC enough.

As a current Googler I am surprised to hear this. I think most of the people I work with would agree that while it might be normal to think something like that, you should keep it to yourself.

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

#243

Post by CalChris » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:44 PM UTC

0xbear wrote: post #121

As a former Googler: dude is _so_ getting fired and blacklisted. I've seen people driven out just for saying someone else looks good in a bathing suit. Not a direct or indirect report, mind you, a person completely outside the chain of command, at a team event in (IIRC) Hawaii. A small minority of people takes victim mentality and makes it near religious internal dogma. The rest just go along with it due to fat paych…

Fat paychecks are rather nice and I've been fired. If you believe in something, you shouldn't be unwilling to risk that. Also, I'm unaware of any blacklist. Google looks good on the res and there's plenty of jobs out there.

Colin Kaepernick believed in something and he's paying the price. If you're expecting me to feel sorry for this cupcake, that ain't gonna happen. I have a sliver of respect for him for writing it and zero respect for what he wrote. I sure don't think I'd want to work with him.

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

#244

Post by door » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:44 PM UTC

stagbeetle wrote: post #217

door wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've seen people driven out just for saying someone else looks good in a bathing suit. understandably, as that is extremely unprofessional and sexual harassment

Your comment was one of the points argued in the memo. It's important to understand and prioritize intention or else: > increases [in our] our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offense and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. This means distinguishing between a well-meaning comment and a maleficent or predatory remark.

your intentions don't excuse inappropriate behavior.

if you really didn't intend to say something that made someone feel disrespected, your response should be "Oh, I am so sorry, I won't make that kind of comment in the future", not "Well you're wrong for being offended." that kind of response is basically saying "your feelings don't matter, all that matters is what is going on in my head and not what I actually did and how it actually made you feel"

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

#245

Post by smsm42 » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:45 PM UTC

smhost wrote: post #97

twh270 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is incredibly disingenuous. Much of the left considers simple disagreement to be micro-aggression, while at the same time finding it perfectly acceptable to launch hate-filled screeds of animosity and hatred at anyone who doesn't toe the line, e.g. "You're a fucking animal that deserves to be put down!!" Your comment implicitly supports this sort of misbehavior, implying that any complaint by an "alt-righter" is…

> This is incredibly disingenuous. > Much of the left considers simple disagreement to be micro-aggression... Tone down on the hypocrisy. If you want your side's arguments to be evaluated fairly, don't make ridiculous oversimplifications of the other side's positions.

Reading the lists of micro-aggressions, like this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... one can not fail to notice that some of them are clearly political disagreements and that disagreeing with the left tribe dogmas is declared to be micro-aggression there. I can agree that this is ridiculous, but apparently whoever wrote those lists does not think so.

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

#246

Post by j2kun » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:45 PM UTC

acdha wrote: post #213

renaudg wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here you go : https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/wh...

That blog post doesn't go into biological reasons — read through it and for each bit of evidence, ask whether the relationship described could be explained by social expectations in early childhood. Talking about career preferences in high school students is much later than what people are talking about – socialization starts before they can talk! I'm married to a neuroscientist and have spent a lot of time talking w…

This is one of the best comments in this messy thread. Thanks for taking the time to write it.

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

#247

Post by spaceseaman » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:45 PM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #190

golf1052 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do agree with your initial comment but I would rather suggest that the author tries to look at the disadvantages that others have while reaching the same point that the author has. Yes, the author has done a lot to get to the position they're in but others in the face of racism or sexism have to work a hell of a lot more.

> ...others in the face of racism or sexism have to work a hell of a lot more. That's not necessarily true. Everyone has a different story. For all you know, the author was an orphan, was wrongfully convicted of a felony, has a disability, and survived three kinds of cancer.

Yes but this is looking from the micro-POV. The point is to look beyond your own achievements, since in the grand-scale they are really only yours. You should be proud of overcoming your challenges because YOU overcame THEM rather than evaluating them on the merit of their relative differences between other people. This allows you to maintain a sense of self-worth while recognizing that IN GENERAL people like "you" had it "easier" than people like "them".

The micro-scale achievement is not invalidated by the macro-scale injustice.

If I am an excellent businessman, who makes several cruicial business decisions that save my business from disaster - it doesn't really matter whether my industry is in a good position right now. I still survived my own disasters. And it still allows me to empathize with business leaders in failing industries who were able to turn themselves around as well. They may have had it a little harder, but we both still kicked ass and that's what matters. It just means I might be more empathetic to that business leader when something comes up down the road. I think this is analogous.

Your issues and tribulations are still meaningful and important. We're just trying to make macro-scale decisions for macro-scale groups. It doesn't invalidate your accomplishments, seriously. There doesn't have to be a hierarchy. Since there is no way to evenly evaluate every single injustice someone has overcome in their lives, we can only make vague estimations and attempt to correct for them as best as we can. An insistence on maintaining the status quo, would only maintain what is already a flawed situation for many people.

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

#248

Post by PerfFriedBread » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:45 PM UTC

rifung wrote: post #225

amiga-workbench wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cowor…

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

#249

Post by devrandomguy » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:47 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…

You know why I don't complement women's outfits in public? Because I am terrified to do so!

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

#250

Post by tptacek » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:47 PM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #240

tptacek wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read what Rayiner wrote more carefully. Computer science is unique among STEM fields --- even mathematics --- in its gender imbalance. The "???" here has a name: it's called "special pleading". It's not hard to see why people would get angry at a special pleading intended to excuse gender disparities.

The article is objecting to special pleading in a different direction. In other words, there's another train of thought: 1) Sexism exists 2) ??? 3) Differences in representation are explainable by sexism I think the original article was making a more nuanced argument allowing for an interconnected set of factors explaining the gender imbalance.

For differences in representation to be explainable by something other than sexism --- which has been rampant in other fields, in particular medicine and law, in the past and then enduringly corrected --- you'd need to establish either that CS is somehow fundamentally different from every other hard science, virtually all of which see better (usually: much better) gender parity than CS does.

In other words: you'll need to demonstrate either that it's somehow harder to write the 900th instance of the same SQL query than it is to understand supersingular curve isogenies, or that somehow we've acculturated people to believe it's OK for women to nerd out about supersingular curve isogenies but not about SQL queries.

Neither argument makes any sense. Virtually all of what software developers do, even the hyperqualified developers working at Google, is less intellectually challenging than real hard science work, and if anything it's become far more socially acceptable to work in computer fields than to be a hard scientist.

We're in Occam's Razor country here, so the charge that concern over sexism is itself "special pleading" isn't going to stick.