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

#271

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:57 PM UTC

renaudg wrote: post #241

Quarrelsome wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

[deleted]

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

#272

Post by smsm42 » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:58 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #162

smsm42 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem with the "???" step is that it's unrigorous handwaving. Probably because nobody actually knows right now what actually causes the differences and how. The case that is caused exclusively by entrenched sexism - somehow driven by people graduating from the same institutions who have been fighting sexism for decades now, and by the same people who repudiate and denounce sexism on every corner - also does n…

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.

If you're saying claiming "CS is special and current gender balance is 100% explained by that" is unsatisfactory, I agree with you. But retorting along the lines "CS is especially uniquely sexist and current gender balance is 100% explained by that" is equally unsatisfactory, and double so when it's served with the side of "and if you disagree you're a bigot and you're fired".

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

#273

Post by throwanem » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:58 PM UTC

remarkEon wrote: post #236

door wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

uh yeah i'd rather trust people who study society for a living for their opinions on social theory than some computer science major who has never taken a soft science class in his life

So your comment is (rightly) getting downvoted. I think readers here tend to reject anecdotal arguments and rely on data. The critiques of sociology and anthropology are legitimate: those fields are not like technical fields and they lend themselves to weird conclusions that don't get peer reviewed in a way that's different from, say, math or physics.

Don't look at me when you say that. I have no problem with anecdotes; the problem I have is that some anecdotes are so readily considered more equal than others. We need not sidetrack ourselves into discussion of any direction we may observe this tropism to take, in order to recognize that no field may be reasonably regarded as rigorous which is so happy to discard those anecdotes which fail to conform with some apparently predetermined preference of narrative, and place value only on those anecdotes which support it.

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

#274

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:58 PM UTC

Hnrobert42 wrote: post #16

Quarrelsome wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is bad with the good. The suggestion that men and women ARE different is taboo. The premise that the differences between them are social as opposed to literal is a much easier way to force the same point (and IMO more correct but I respect I lack the science to be certain). This person lacks tact and the way they view the entire political sphere as just left/right is ultimately of concern. Way too simplistic ou…

Yeah. I was willing to give him a fair hearing until he listed a handful of differences between men and women that he ascribes to biology without any factual support. And therein lies the unconscious bias against which he is railing. To him, there is no question that men and women, on average, are fundamentally different in ways that affects their ability to and interest in work in tech. I agree with him that folks s…

[deleted]

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

#275

Post by mcguire » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:59 PM UTC

renaudg wrote: post #233

Quarrelsome wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difficulty is whether those differences are biological, social or cultural. Its hard to tease those differences apart with our current tools. I'll stick with the assumption that its the latter two just because its more convenient and diplomatic. Maybe the genetic data we mine in future generations will give us the real answers but I don't see any advantage in pressing the biological argument until then (as I'm no…

We don't need to wait for genetic data mining, this has been widely studied already. Differences are visible within the first two days of birth : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222673203_Sex_Diffe... and are present in monkeys too : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/ I'll let you draw the conclusion.

Table 2: Mean percent looking times (and standard deviation) for each stimulus.

                          Face                    Mobile
    Males (n = 44)      45.6 (23.5)             51.9 (23.3)
    Females (n = 58)    49.4 (20.8)             40.6 (25.0)

That's quite a difference to be hanging the nature of society on.

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

#276

Post by humanrebar » Sun, Aug 06, 2017, 12:00 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #250

humanrebar wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ne…

> ...other fields, in particular medicine and law

Women were literally not allowed to be doctors or lawyers, either by law or by certification boards. Programming has never been a field requiring certification.

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

#277

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Aug 06, 2017, 12:01 AM 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.

[deleted]

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

#278

Post by throwanem » Sun, Aug 06, 2017, 12:01 AM UTC

door wrote: post #254

remarkEon wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So your comment is (rightly) getting downvoted. I think readers here tend to reject anecdotal arguments and rely on data. The critiques of sociology and anthropology are legitimate: those fields are not like technical fields and they lend themselves to weird conclusions that don't get peer reviewed in a way that's different from, say, math or physics.

that's because data isn't 100% appropriate for social sciences. you can't measure everything. shocking as it may be for STEM majors (full disclosure: i have a physics degree), people's feelings and subjective experiences matter, and forms of reason that are not-numerical (ie, philosophy, politics, law, etc) are rigorous and have value. it's weird that this is a radical perspective in this culture.

I'm not sure what the whole deal is about "STEM majors" and "computer science majors", but can it maybe not be such a thing? I don't see why it matters one way or another, and having never gone to school, I can't imagine how whatever intellectual canalization you seem to be hinting at would be applicable here in any case. It just seems to be adding a lot more heat than light, and I'm really not seeing what it brings to the conversation that makes that in any way worthwhile.

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

#279

Post by renaudg » Sun, Aug 06, 2017, 12:01 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #250

humanrebar wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ne…

Ok, we're in presence of solid research finding a) similar sex differences in toy preferences in monkeys as in human children, and b) sex differences visible within 2 days after birth (references here : https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/wh...)

As you justly said, we're in Occam's razor country. So, do you think the 2 observations above are more easily explained by socialization, or biology ?

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

#280

Post by taysic » Sun, Aug 06, 2017, 12:02 AM UTC

jondubois wrote: post #52

I agree that giving someone an unfair advantage because of their gender or race is a form of discrimination. Gender and race are just two of many factors that individuals might struggle with when it comes to their career and life. If you're an introvert, short, fat, nerdy-looking or you have a weak posture; there's no support group to offset your shortcomings and all the insidious ways in which they will sabotage you…

While I agree with you, the article did not mention that any unfair advantage was being given to women yet I've seen so many claim this.

Instead it says "the author argues that women are underrepresented in tech not because they face bias and discrimination in the workplace, but because of inherent psychological differences between men and women. "

So instead it just seems to be arguing that there is no disadvantage in what may appear to be unfair.

It also says "Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety."

That seems super subjective unless the author has some concrete examples. While they may be right, if we policied everything other people said so that any one person would feel comfortable expressing an unpopular opinion... I don't think the author wants to open that can of worms?