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

151–160 of 404 posts

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#151

Post by Udik »

notjack wrote: post #116
TheCoreh wrote: post #82

I'd seriously like to know if the author meant this literally: > a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face If that's indeed the case, isn't that on itself a huge problem we should deal with? If someone is risking being a victim of physical violence on the workplace over disagreements on political positions we should be seriously concerned.

This is not a disagreement on political positions, this is a belief that women are inherently less capable than men at software engineering. It's a direct attack on the legitimacy and humanity of his coworkers. A disagreement over political positions would be if the author wrote a manifesto about the efficacy of sin taxes or nuclear treaties, not that his teammate Sandra is biologically inferior at her job and undese…

> this is a belief that women are inherently less capable than men at software engineering

Should we therefore assume that women are equally capable as men at running the 100 meters, or at playing football? Don't get me wrong, I'm a male and probably half the women my age run faster than me or play football better than I do. But you know that this doesn't generalise: on average, men are faster runners and better football players. And you're ready to admit that because the thing is unequivocally measurable. Nonetheless, you consider any statement about gender differences that are not as easily measured as unthinkable and unacceptable. How is that?

edit: downvoters, please care to answer my question. I'm interested in your opinion.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#152

Post by anjc »

api wrote: post #111
MichaelGG wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's zero evidence that people are equal. Physically, everyone knows and admits this. Women are given separate physical contests as they are smaller, slower, and weaker than men. Certain races do better in some sports - no one can make a fuss, as it's obvious, plus whites aren't the ones usually dominating. Yet all of a sudden when it comes to mental pursuits (which are physically based in the brain and supporting…

One of the demons hiding in this issue is the is/ought fallacy. People go from is to ought quite readily in these areas. Let's say blacks really are on average better at basketball. Does it then follow that whites and asians ought not play basketball ? Nobody argues that because it's silly. (Or do they? I'm not in pro ball.) People do argue that women should not be in tech. Women in tech regardless of ability get cre…

> People do argue that women should not be in tech

At least pretend that you don't have a completely blinkered view of the world.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#153

Post by Aunche »

CalChris wrote: post #23
lol2143651 wrote: post #8

The easiest way to see the article is just fighting a strawman of the original manifesto is to notice the article never directly quotes the manifesto.

The article quotes “ideological echo chamber.” It also further quotes: > The manifesto talks about making “software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration” but that this is fundamentally limited by “how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be;” and even more surprisingly, it has an entire section titled “de-emphasize empathy,” as one of the proposed solutions. So basical…

While those are technically quotes, it looks like they're there just for the Medium author to mock them.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#154

Post by nl »

MichaelGG wrote: post #147
nl wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, to make it clear: you are arguing that discrimination would be ok if you can prove it is effective? (I'm sure I don't need to point out on this forum how difficult it is to measure productivity or coding performance . AFAIK there are no measures of this which are effective outside controlled conditions, and controlled conditions are close to irrelevant for actually being effective at a job)

Uh, yes? I'm saying if we somehow magically determined that group A had 10% benefit than group B at a task, then we should expect to see more of group A represented, even if their populations are equal. Exactly like we expect to see certain phenotypes over-represented in basketball. Despite the difficulty, saying it's hard but it just must be true that everyone's equal doesn't seem like a robust approach. Or is Googl…

Uh, yes?

I think you mean "no" here, right? Because discrimination means making decisions based on gender, not on individual characteristics.

Also your other comments seem to means you support Google's pro-diversity approach then, right?

They aim to give equal opportunities to a more diverse set of people. They don't force hiring from under-represented classes.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#155

Post by MichaelGG »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #143
MichaelGG wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Asians are generally shorter than me. But if a 6'2 Asian is standing next to me, I don't think that particular person is shorter than me. It's perfectly reasonable for him to say the 50/50 ratio might not be ideal, and maybe biology plays a role, while still believing his colleagues are competent.

The trouble is that, whilst it's easy to determine whether or not the person stood next to you is shorter than you, competence is something far harder to assess. If your opinion is 'women are, on average, less competant', it would seem more likely than not that your default position would assume the woman stood next to you is less competent.

Not quite - if it's not a random person standing next to me, but someone also working in the area, I'd assume that the filtering has eliminated people less competent (if not, then we'd already be at 50/50 equality). To be concrete, I'd assume that any engineer at Google to be about the same competence as their peers. Though it sounds like if you're "diverse" you might have an easier time of getting in, similar to medical school? (Honest question.)

At any rate, how do we get to the facts? Saying it must be 50% by fiat doesn't seem like a way to truth. So far I see one side proposing there might be biological reasons and the other side being offended anyone could even suggest the possibility.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#156

Post by [deleted] »

jogjayr wrote: post #136
smsm42 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet, if we look at Google's track record, they have much better luck with technical problems than with people-interaction problems. Search driven by algorithms - excellent. Social networks - epic fail. Advertising backend - money juggernaut, mostly driven by clever algorithms, as I understand? Mobile OS backend - great (well, ok, not too bad). Mobile OS frontend - meh. Chrome is kinda borderline, but I think technolo…

You're forgetting important Google products where design or user experience played a crucial role in winning. Gmail - the dominant webmail platform that made pioneering use of AJAX; before it you had to refresh the page to check if you had new email. And whose inbuilt chat client crushed Yahoo Messenger/MSN/AOL. People came for the 1GB of free storage, stayed for the friends they made on chat. YouTube - Video juggern…

[deleted]

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#157

Post by interpol_p »

Aunche wrote: post #149
notjack wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a disagreement on political positions, this is a belief that women are inherently less capable than men at software engineering. It's a direct attack on the legitimacy and humanity of his coworkers. A disagreement over political positions would be if the author wrote a manifesto about the efficacy of sin taxes or nuclear treaties, not that his teammate Sandra is biologically inferior at her job and undese…

It's completely unreasonable to take a critique on hiring practices or a broad statement about demographics personally. I'm not going to take offense to the statement that men tend to be more aggressive than women. Likewise, if someone claims that Google's policy of favoring elite schools leads to hiring underqualified candidates, would Googlers from MIT suddenly be offended? Of course not. However, that's precisely…

Would you take it personally if those statements were commonly used to explain why you don't make as much money as your co-workers? Why you're more likely to be neurotic?

Those sorts of demographic statements might be fine to you, because they're not being used to explain why any current discrimination practiced against you is actually fine.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#158

Post by MichaelGG »

nl wrote: post #154
MichaelGG wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, yes? I'm saying if we somehow magically determined that group A had 10% benefit than group B at a task, then we should expect to see more of group A represented, even if their populations are equal. Exactly like we expect to see certain phenotypes over-represented in basketball. Despite the difficulty, saying it's hard but it just must be true that everyone's equal doesn't seem like a robust approach. Or is Googl…

Uh, yes? I think you mean "no" here, right? Because discrimination means making decisions based on gender, not on individual characteristics. Also your other comments seem to means you support Google's pro-diversity approach then, right? They aim to give equal opportunities to a more diverse set of people. They don't force hiring from under-represented classes.

I'm saying discrimination, meaning non-equal results, is fine. I don't think there should be any active discrimination, and incorrect unintentional discrimination should also be removed.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#159

Post by Uhhrrr »

This essay is just bad.

In section 1 the author presupposes that the facts presented in the original post are false (but then fluffs on presenting any evidence for this). Maybe he's right! If someone else writes that piece, it would be a valuable contribution.

In section 2 he writes about the social aspect of engineering, which certainly exists, but pretends that being engaged and interested in the technical side of things doesn't matter at all. Ignoring technical details while creating your planet-scale system is like trying to fly a C-130 in a vacuum.

Section 3 is straight bullying.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#160

Post by ggggtez »

seibelj wrote: post #33

I won't say anything positive or negative about either the original post or the rebuttal because publicly touching any of this is career suicide. But I will comment that as assertive the original author was about things, citing various facts and studies, was not the rebuttal similar in repeatedly saying the original author was wrong and citing his own studies? Can anyone in social science really say anything is fact?…

Read the authors other posts on the same medium blog for his rebuttal of your arguments. I'd rather not paraphrase.
Post reply on HN