Live data from Hacker News

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

gizmodo.com

361–370 of 660 posts

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

#361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that the differences observed are 100% biological with no cultural influence whatsoever From what I've seen it's exactly the opposite; any suggestion that differences might be less than 100% cultural marks you as a hateful racist misogynist. See Charles Murray for example. Generally, this type of person lasts up until the moment blind interviews become widespread. It actually is possible that someone might have the i…

All available evidence strongly suggests that Charles Murray is in fact a racist†, so this isn't a good example. What you instead want to say is that there's limited tolerance for the "diversity viewpoint" that "whites" and Asians are intellectually superior to "blacks". There's an intellectually coherent argument to be made that our society is intolerant towards inquiries supporting racism. (It's not a good argument…

I realize this is getting off topic, but can you explain why you think that, "All available evidence strongly suggests that Charles Murray is in fact a racist"? I've read The Bell Curve and listened to a debate where Murray argued in favor of universal basic income. I came away from both thinking that he's been totally misrepresented.

I just reviewed my notes for The Bell Curve to make sure I hadn't mis-remembered the content. Out of 22 chapters, two are on race. One begins with, "The first thing to remember is that the differences among individuals are far greater than the differences between groups." In other words: knowing someone's race tells you nothing about their intelligence.

The chapters on race contain no expression of racial superiority or inferiority, nor any policies favoring discrimination. The only definition of racism that could apply is the view that there are some statistical differences between races, though the book doesn't weigh-in on how much is caused by genes vs environment. It also reiterates that these statistical differences cannot be used to infer anything about individuals.

Supporting racism (in the sense of advocating for racial superiority or discrimination) is deeply unethical, so I'd very much like to know if Murray holds such views.

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

#362
post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Usually if it takes work to distinguish it's not worth it within a work environment. That's why professional environments are effective and make a pleasant place to work for all.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

Could you elaborate on

>Usually if it takes work to distinguish it's not worth it within a work environment.

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

#363
post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

When you actually read the blog post, you'll see that it does quote research finding sex differences 1) as early as within 2 days after birth and 2) similar in baby monkeys' toy preferences as in human children. I'll let you decide (Occam's razor is helpful) whether that is more likely the product of biology or "social expectations in early childhood" (within 2 days? in monkeys?).

Thanks for incorrectly assuming I didn't - it really shows your commitment to honest discussion, as does ignoring the fact that those were asides while the core of the post demonstrates the conflation I mentioned in every major section.

As to that one link, one study is not conclusive – animal studies are notoriously prone to unintended experimenter influences – and that's especially suspect when e.g. it claims innate color preferences for the pink/blue divide which has been biologically predetermined for about a century.

Again, I'm not saying there aren't differences or that they can't be significant, only that the research thus far doesn't support the sweeping claims being made.

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

#364
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…

> ...who lacks tact...

It's worth pointing out that "tact" is a cultural construct and highly subjective.

It's also worth pointing out that emotional arguments are generally better received than dispassionate ones. People tend to think emotionally at least as much as they reason, so sanitizing thoughts in the wrong way would neuter the position.

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

#365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

49% is still millions of people, i.e. a lot of support. Surely you wouldn't just discount a (large) minority.

Actually, 46.1% of a 55.4% turnout. And yes, I'll dismiss anyone who voted for Trump for whatever reason that they voted for Trump.

I hope you're not just multiplying those percentages, because that would imply that 0% of the non-voters would have voted for trump if that had voted.

Point is, he got millions of people. One has to consider why. I think that the whole spectacle around political correctness and telling white people in lower social strata that they're inherently privileged resonated negatively with them and is one of the things that drove them into trump's arms. It's not a great sales pitch for diversity.

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

#366
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…

> If men & women tend to be psychologically different, Google should be aware of that and change work practices to better accommodate women

I'd rephrase that more like:

"If we want diversity of thought and disposition, we should make room for diversity of work styles (pair programming, remote work, etc.). If the women-work-differently hypothesis has merit, it will help address the gender imbalance while making room for other kinds of excluded people."

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

#367
post #280

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…

> the article did not mention that any unfair advantage was being given to women yet I've seen so many claim this

It does mention promotion preferences and special groups.

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

#368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 doe…

Chua tries simultaneously to document the destructive effects of neoliberal globalism, and argue that these effects are not inevitable. She succeeds in the former, at least. I see no reason to imagine that we in the West are immune from similar pathologies of our own - more resilient, perhaps, but I think not perfectly so.

Your unfamiliarity is clear in your prior comments - which is not the judgment it may initially sound like. You would claim Netflix as the opiate of the masses. It is not. Opiates are. You want to see a world at war with itself? Every headline about the opioid epidemic is showing it to you, if you will only choose to see. Those who die of overdose are among the battlefield casualties of the war I describe. Those who have not yet done so are among its walking wounded. There are many other sorts of casualties in this war, of course. But rather than complicate the issue, let's concentrate on these.

I doubt you are at all personally familiar with the effects of strong illicit opiates. I am only passingly so familiar myself, a happenstance for which I regularly make time to thank an evidently benevolent God. But even my little experience is enough to know very clearly that these are not drugs to which one turns because one is weak or stupid or deceived, or because one's life gives one scope for ambition or hope for self-improvement.

These are not drugs you take when you're happy - because their effect is to make you feel nothing at all. If you were happy, you no longer are. If you were sad, you no longer are. If you were pained, or angry, or bereaved, or guilty, or ashamed, or hopeless, or frustrated, or stifled, or desperate, or anything else in the world - you no longer are. You only are. You exist, and nothing in the world can touch you. Nothing in the world can make you suffer. For a while. Then the world comes back, twice as hard as before.

These are drugs to which you turn in a final bid for solace, against a world in which you can find no way to make a place for yourself - a world so full of lies, so polluted and corrupted and stuffed chock-full with them, that it has no space left for you. These are drugs you use to approach the solace of the grave as closely as it is possible to do while your heart still beats and your blood still flows. Sometimes, people overshoot, and we read "opioid epidemic" news articles about them. Mostly, people don't, and the world continues not to care about them. Only when they turn up dead do they become of interest.

I'm sure such experience is as alien to you as it is to me. We've both been assiduous in taking advantage of the opportunities that we've been able to find or make in life, and have consequently been about as successful as our talents and diligence make it possible for us to be. That makes it easy for us to ignore those aspects of life with which we have little or no direct experience - and I'm not talking about yacht ownership here. That makes it easy for us to tell ourselves, for example, the lie that the same opportunities open to us are open to all, or the lie that "society is generally safe". Yes - for us. Not for all. What is there noble in this lie? Do you imagine it's believed by those who live whole lives among the evidence of its falsehood? Do you imagine they are so much less than human that they fail to recognize this lie? Do you imagine they are not angry about it? Do you imagine they should not be? Even if you don't care for such people in their own right, which is your choice entire however you choose to make it - do you imagine there is enough heroin or fentanyl in the world for this anger forever to be without consequence?

The other day an NPR article linked here on Hacker News made mention of a Baltimore community organization distributing naloxone kits and training in how and when to use them. In the week I have free between leaving my prior professional role yesterday, and commencing my next on the 14th, I mean to attend one of this organization's meetings and ask if I may participate in this program, for the same reason I now carry glucose tablets in my personal first aid kit despite not being diabetic - that is, because it is not unprecedented in my experience to come upon someone in desperate need, about whom a world absorbed with constant lies has chosen not to care. There is that about choosing to walk and take buses and trains, rather than to drive: one may not so easily maintain a comfortable isolation from the world in which one moves.

You will therefore forgive me if I decline to agree that, on top of all the lies that have brought us here, adding one more to the mix is likely to help solve anything, or that there is anything noble in one more lie. I do not doubt your intentions are good. But in this world we are judged not by intentions but by results, and the result of all the lies that have made the world around us is not the steady, if deeply and pervasively delusive, state that you and Plato would have it be, but rather a positive feedback machine whose every gyration brings it closer to toppling than the last. We have seen this pattern before in history. It has proven extremely unlovely in its outcomes.

Are you sure this time will be different from all the others? Or is that just another "noble" lie?

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

#369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, 46.1% of a 55.4% turnout. And yes, I'll dismiss anyone who voted for Trump for whatever reason that they voted for Trump.

I hope you're not just multiplying those percentages, because that would imply that 0% of the non-voters would have voted for trump if that had voted. Point is, he got millions of people. One has to consider why. I think that the whole spectacle around political correctness and telling white people in lower social strata that they're inherently privileged resonated negatively with them and is one of the things that d…

I'm accurately citing the popular vote win count, the percentages and the turnout, none of which you did.

Now if you think you somehow won a great victory, you didn't. And since from your writing it appears that you voted for Trump, yes, I and people like me think much less of you and people like you. If from the FA, this classifies as alienating conservatives then so be it.

I should add that as each day goes by it looks more and more like you and people like you won your great victory with the help of Putin. Y'all have a nice day.

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

#370
post #131
post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 paren…

Boys are encouraged to build and to play ball. Girls are encouraged to perform and to play tea. Why would we expect the stereotypical difference to be biological at all? I'm sure there are some differences in tendencies, but I'm not at all sure they'll avoid being swamped by environmental effects, socialization, and individual variation.

Toy preferences are innate. I'm seriously struggling to understand how people can obviously realize that different breeds of dogs have different innate behavioral characteristics but somehow deny that humans (we're just another mammal!) can have the same kind of inherited characteristic patterns.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/icd.1986/abstract...

Post reply on HN