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

About This Googler's Manifesto

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 404 posts

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#91

Post by MichaelGG »

interpol_p wrote: post #77
searealist wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a strawman. Neither I nor the manifesto author has argued in favor of sexism. Why did you call out "white men" in an article about representation at Google? It doesn't make any sense when white people are underrepresented at Google. edit: Now the parent has edited their comment to remove "in favor of sexism".

Here is where the author argues for sexism (from his TL;DR) > Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don't have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business. The implication here is that equal representation of women at Google is bad for business. That women aren't in tech and…

Choosing employees based on their gender to meet quotas is sexism. Choosing them on their skin colours to be diverse is racism.

Implying there are differences between genders (or races) -- something unquestionably accepted in physical contests -- is simply a basic truth, something that should be investigated so we have a real answer to know how much incorrect bias there is.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#92

Post by smsm42 »

CalChris wrote: post #75
smsm42 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wasn't aware that libertarians would be against alienating conservatives Because it's only not OK to alienate people who we agree with, but the idea of having civil discussion with people we disagree with... who needs that? Just call them names, chase them out and be done with it! Do you think this is the libertarian way? Where did you meet libertarians like these? > then totally ok with alienating women because…

I do not hold libertarians in any high regard. I generally find that ism to be a flag of convenience and that would definitely be the case with the OP. Again, the OP is concerned with Google alienating conservatives but then is completely oblivious to his alienating half of the population. Because what? Would you prefer Edmund Burke?

> I do not hold libertarians in any high regard.

That's your problem but hardly an argument to anything.

> I generally find that ism to be a flag of convenience and that would definitely be the case with the OP.

You are definitely wrong on the first part, to the point of being insulting and disrespectful to literally millions of people holding genuine libertarian beliefs (what is especially ironic here that I assume with high probability that you think it somehow serves the case for inclusiveness and tolerance). As for the second part, I see no way you could have any useful information about it, unless you personally know the author and he told you so. Do you?

> Because what? Would you prefer Edmund Burke?

I am sorry, I do not understand this comment. Could you make your point a bit clearer, if there's any? What exactly you are trying to say here?

> completely oblivious to his alienating half of the population.

The goal of the author was certainly not alienating all women, and I think the result is also not so. I find it sad that I need to even mention it, but not all women think the same, and not all women agree on all questions, including this one. Of course, it may be that by "half of the population" you didn't mean women, then who?

I must also note that you yourself don't feel particularly bad about alienating literally tens of millions of people. Which is completely your right of course, just adds a bit of strange flavor when you say how bad it is when others do it.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#93

Post by interpol_p »

searealist wrote: post #81
interpol_p wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is where the author argues for sexism (from his TL;DR) > Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don't have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business. The implication here is that equal representation of women at Google is bad for business. That women aren't in tech and…

> The implication here is that equal representation of women at Google is bad for business. That women aren't in tech and leadership positions because of biological traits. This is an incomplete picture of what that statement says. It does not say that 50% representation would necessarily be bad for business, but that discriminating against men to achieve this goal would be bad for business.

Helping others succeed and building a diverse environment is not discriminating against men.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#94

Post by interpol_p »

ukj wrote: post #78
interpol_p wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure the women who work with him love that his "viewpoint diversity" considers them to be more neurotic, less able to deal with stress, and less suited to the high demands of a senior Google engineering role than himself!

Not than himself. Than men. You understand how Gaussian distributions work, yes?

You and I are not reading the same manifesto. This guy clearly thinks less of the women he works with. There is no way he sees his female co-workers as equal while publishing rubbish like this. And I doubt women engineers at Google would read that and feel very pleased about it.

Yeah I understand Gaussian distributions. I also understand the emotional tone of the original manifesto and the discriminatory thinking behind it disguised in its academic, reasonable, and rational voice.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#95

Post by int_19h »

hindsightbias wrote: post #52
interpol_p wrote: post #2

It's just embarrassing at this point that an engineer at a well known company like Google even thinks like this. (The original author, not Yonatan.) Reading the original manifesto felt like something my 17-year-old self would write. Too clever and completely oblivious at the same time.

I have this thing about reading footnotes first: "I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason." I miss the days when libertarians weren't ashamed to admit so. But back then, they could debate the difference between von Mises and Hayek. Today... not so much. Ideology isn't Book Deep, it's Google Search Deep.

In general, I see people self-identifying as "classic liberal" when they want to underscore that they're not ancap, and value strong (but limited in scope) governments to protect property rights.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#96

Post by Scaevolus »

"(2) Perhaps more interestingly, the author does not appear to understand engineering."

The manifesto's author has a degree in Biology, not Computer Science. He probably learned enough programming on his own time to pass a technical interview, but never learned the "softer" parts of a CS degree that address working effectively as a team.

Programmers without degrees miss bits of the standard curriculum, often rigorous algorithmic analysis, but deciding that empathy is irrelevant to such a communal enterprise is a unique deduction!

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#97

Post by api »

hindsightbias wrote: post #52
interpol_p wrote: post #2

It's just embarrassing at this point that an engineer at a well known company like Google even thinks like this. (The original author, not Yonatan.) Reading the original manifesto felt like something my 17-year-old self would write. Too clever and completely oblivious at the same time.

I have this thing about reading footnotes first: "I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason." I miss the days when libertarians weren't ashamed to admit so. But back then, they could debate the difference between von Mises and Hayek. Today... not so much. Ideology isn't Book Deep, it's Google Search Deep.

I no longer use libertarian for the same reason I hesitate to use atheist. Head over to the relevant subreddits. Last time I visited /r/libertarian I saw people advocating the flat Earth, and /r/atheism is a hate sub. Like it or not those who use a term color it. I try not to self identify with terms used by idiots and haters.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#98

Post by nopatternhere »

interpol_p wrote: post #90
nopatternhere wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you have a study which refutes this? He's made a claim, you are just making an appeal to emotion! Show that there are no differences between men and women on these scales, or that the whole science behind the idea is sketchy (which I've seen arguments of) but please, pretty please, some evidence.

Oh because he linked to so many studies in his manifesto? He didn't. Read his footnotes. They basically say "this is true because I know it to be true," and "this is universally accepted" (it isn't). But he gets a pass on that, sure.

You are here trying to persuade me, at least I assume that is the goal, you could just be here trolling I guess. To try to persuade by claiming you are as bad as everyone else seems, unpersuasive?

You seem to think there are two sides: for or against. I have the ability to be against EVERYONE, don't I? Neither side can be convincing, or one side can. As it stands, you are just as unconvincing as the other side, which is hardly a great position!

So, seeing as you have a strong opinion, as evidenced by about 400,000,000,000 posts in this thread, do you have any evidence to support your ideas and refute what you seem to think is a bad piece? Or should I continue to be unpersuaded by both sides?

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#99

Post by searealist »

interpol_p wrote: post #93
searealist wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The implication here is that equal representation of women at Google is bad for business. That women aren't in tech and leadership positions because of biological traits. This is an incomplete picture of what that statement says. It does not say that 50% representation would necessarily be bad for business, but that discriminating against men to achieve this goal would be bad for business.

Helping others succeed and building a diverse environment is not discriminating against men.

Having an agenda of hiring and promoting women over men is discriminating against men. Very few people dispute this happens.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#100

Post by smsm42 »

interpol_p wrote: post #72
smsm42 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the original author argued against fixing it, I think he advocated different approach to fixing it, based on different understanding of what "it" is.

By eliminating programs intended to help increase diversity, by "de-emphasising empathy" and by making Google more of a safe space for people with viewpoints similar to his own. Got it!

> By eliminating programs intended to help increase diversity

The key words here are "intended to". There's a difference between doing something and intending to do something. Unfortunately, intending to do something is sometimes not enough to actually do something - you also have to do it in the right way, otherwise you might intend to do one thing and instead do another thing.

> de-emphasising empathy

Not the best sound-bite, which of course means it will get quoted a lot. Happens to techies, not all of them are good writers, yet less of them can write a text that would be robust under hostile interpretation. The point, however, was to use data instead of feel-good anecdotes.

> making Google more of a safe space for people with viewpoints similar to his own

What's wrong with making Google more safe for people working there?

Post reply on HN