Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

gizmodo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 660 posts

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

#311

Post by bhouston »

throwanem wrote: post #286
bhouston wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

At the moment, with relatively rare and relatively small-scale exception, yes. Does that mean a world filled with lies need not end in fire, and those excrescences of violence we do observe are aberrational? Or does it mean only that the war has yet to go from cold to hot?

> Does that mean a world filled with lies need not end in fire, and those excrescences of violence we do observe are aberrational?

Living in a world of lies does not by itself beget violence or unhappiness. Nobles lies in and of themselves do not beget violence.

I read once the book "world on fire", which seems somewhat relevant. I'd recommend it. Her other book called "triple package" is also very relevant.

> Or does it mean only that the war has yet to go from cold to hot?

I am not sure it is building up right now in any big way. I am unfamiliar with the war you keep mentioning.

Netflix and other mass distractions help us live peacefully as it allows us to accept our lot or be mostly in denial of it.

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

#312

Post by freshhawk »

sjg007 wrote: post #296
freshhawk wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not surprised by it at all, because I think it's not that they have started to embrace the premises but always did and used them as the foundation for their ideology. It is, to generalize, a group of white, middle class people who were raised in this modern feminist/neo-liberal framework that struggled to translate very academic ideas into a pop culture suitable form. Those poor approximations got mutated by inte…

Could you explicate the last part a little more? I'm interested in understanding the argument but I don't quite follow.

Fair point, I was trying to keep it short as no one wants to read essay length comments. Which aspect of that last part? The messy pop-culture version of academic discussions of race/gender, the alt-right use of them, both?

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

#313

Post by door »

throwanem wrote: post #278
door wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I was a STEM major (physics) and I work in tech. I'm attacking from inside, not outside. I think that there is a specific culture in STEM whereby white men who are incredibly gifted and successful in math/science/whatever think that their natural brilliance gives them the ability to speak on all social issues with authority, and that they can speak from a purely rational perspective. My point is that things like your upbringing, your social group, your race, gender, class, etc all have an important impact on how you think, and STEM people should keep that in mind. They should have more humility, and be more open to listening to the stories of people instead of just trying to think of things in terms of Numbers.

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

#314

Post by john_moscow »

rifung wrote: post #180
swframe2 wrote: post #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…

> 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. Has said coworker seen the research which suggests diversity increases company performance? http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-...

Or perhaps bigger companies that have better financial results simply get extra cash to spend on hiring people that they don't need in terms of directly solving business problems, but that improve the company's public image.

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

#315

Post by ithkuil »

mcguire wrote: post #252
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…

" ...The mental test applied was the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB),... " Well, ok, then. " Males have only a marginal advantage in mean levels of g (less than 7% of a standard deviation) from the ASVAB and AFQT, but substantially greater variance. Among the top 2% AFQT scores, there were almost twice as many males as females. These differences could provide a partial basis for sex differences in…

Genuine question: is is possible some selection bias is at play if only people interested in that given career will undergo this testing?

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

#316

Post by mcguire »

onli wrote: post #105
mcguire wrote: 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?

Are you asserting that height and muscle mass are significant determiners of success in technological careers?

We are discussing mental and psychological variables about which essentially all of the opinions presented in the history of humanity have been unadulterated crap. So, yes, I want scientific sources.

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

#318

Post by mos_basik »

darepublic wrote: post #39
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…

Blind interviews is a good idea that I think could/should satisfy parties on both sides. I mean it's really putting your ideas to the test. And either way you can take some comfort knowing that, if properly set up, the process will be fair. Now the correlation between a good interview and doing well on the job is another issue altogether.

May or may not be completely relevant, but seems like it's in the ballpark: a couple of months ago, a conference sponsored by GitHub was postponed because the authors of all the (blind) selected papers were male.

HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14480868

Reddit discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/javascript/comments/6f8u2s/githubs_...

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

#319

Post by nthcolumn »

He, and it is a 'he' has missed the point entirely. It is not that we do not recognize that people are different, it is that we value that diversity and therefore endeavor to remove from our community such impediments to achieving a balanced social group. It is a classic dominant social group position that the incomers fit in rather than the group dynamic have to change to accommodate. It is surprising to have a Google thought-leader with such low-brow views. If you think you are in an echo-chamber or bubble perhaps it is simply because nobody agrees with you.

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

#320

Post by door »

SamReidHughes wrote: post #300
door wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

both "myths of gender" and "delusions of gender" were written by scientists. the fact that you still think of sex as a binary difference between xx and xy shows how far outdated your ideas about the science of sex differences are. even "biological sex" (not even gender) is a spectrum influenced by a variety of different factors

Sex is in fact a binary difference, transgender folk are a tiny proportion of the population.

This is an increasingly outdated view.

http://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2015/02/24/sex-biology-redefin...

Post reply on HN