About This Googler's Manifesto • Hacker News Board

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#191

Post by interpol_p » Sun, Aug 06, 2017, 1:32 PM UTC

josephg wrote: post #174

interpol_p wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough. I'll do some homework. Here [1] is an article on how cultural gender inequality leads to poorer maths results for women, and fixing that cultural inequality fixes the maths results. This was commonly attributed to differences in biological traits in the past, that was wrong. Here [2] is another article where spatial abilities relate to societal roles. Another area commonly attributed to biological differ…

Alright, I'll bite. But, I've never heard of any research suggesting women have a different cognitive capacity than men. I read some research a number of years ago suggesting cross-culturally women had better language skills than men, but I don't know if this is still considered to be true. I can't remember reading anything in the manifesto which suggested women are less capable as software engineers. The essay did s…

> I can't remember reading anything in the manifesto which suggested women are less capable as software engineers.

It does suggest this:

> “I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes,”

Preferences and abilities. If men are in the majority of leadership, senior, and CEO roles, what is the author suggesting about the abilities of women?

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#192

Post by tvaughan » Sun, Aug 06, 2017, 1:48 PM UTC

And this is what happens when all we care about is if a person can balance a b-tree from memory in a job interview.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#193

Post by Goladus » Sun, Aug 06, 2017, 1:52 PM UTC

tibiapejagala wrote: post #144

I might partially or totally disagree with the original manifest, but this reply is repulsive. I would never want to have a "senior" like this. So much emphasis on how senior he is, how junior you have to write something so wrong. How OP's career is over. The 3rd point reads like navy seals copypasta but with HR instead. If you don't see any other way to deal with OP's views than described in this belittling rant, th…

So much emphasis on how senior he is

I have trouble getting past the blatant lie in the first paragraph. And then the case he presents to support his first objection is to... not present a case at all.

By the time he gets to the digression where he advances a new and peculiar hypothesis about what engineering is all about (and where he seems to redefine empathy to mean something different from what the google memo meant), the negative impression was rather solidified.

Edit: Here is the lie:

... the manifesto a Googler ... published internally about .. how women and men are intrinsically different and we should stop trying to make it possible for women to be engineers, it’s just not worth it.

(1) to imply that it is not possible for women to become engineers is an absurd claim on the face of it.

(2) Even with a less preposterous reading of what Zunger meant by "make it possible for..." the Googler did not assert anything like that in the manifesto.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#194

Post by chippy » Sun, Aug 06, 2017, 1:56 PM UTC

api wrote: post #127

MichaelGG wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original doc doesn't argue women shouldn't be in tech, so it is irrelevant what some people suggest. It argues a 50/50 parity might not exist in part due to biology. What if it turns out that one gender is on avg smarter but with less range of intelligence (with some magically perfect measurement of intelligence, to avoid claims of test bias). So if that was true, would we THEN be OK with other than 50/50 split i…

You are correct that the doc does not argue this. I'm arguing that the doc's author fails to understand the purpose of diversity measures. They are not to make people equal but to challenge culture. Only CRISPR/CAS9 or similar could actually alter biologically based inequality. That being said I'm very skeptical of an innate gender disadvantage in coding. Some of the earliest coders were women back when it was consid…

I think out of all the comments in this thread, this, so far, is the one that speaks differently.

Diversity in Tech is indeed about changing the culture. That should be the central reply to this manifesto. Both the manifesto and the negative responses to it are missing this central point - they are focusing it as being about employment hiring about aptitude and worthiness of the job. It's why a call for meritocracy is not an adequate response to a call for diversity. Perhaps this element of culture needs to be explained more by people talking about it, on both sides.

When you look at it from that angle it's more understandable that the common response is that "you're part of the problem" when someone attempts to discuss these issues because it's erroneously seen as being part of the culture that they are seeking to remove. It's been seen as an attempt to negate the errors in the culture.

To reply to a response about being sexist when you wish to discuss diversity would be to focus on the ability that it is possible to talk about gender etc whilst also being a good respectful employee. That it's possible not be a "douche" and work with women and also be an out of the closet Republican or a devout Christian at the same time. That it's acknowledged that many women have a hard time in tech and that the culture can be changed for the better of everyone, and that discussion how it can be changed is a discussion open to everyone.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#195

Post by Goladus » Sun, Aug 06, 2017, 1:57 PM UTC

searealist wrote: post #30

> You have probably heard about the manifesto a Googler (not someone senior) published internally about, essentially, how women and men are intrinsically different and we should stop trying to make it possible for women to be engineers, it’s just not worth it. This sets the tone for the entire article: An emotionally driven rant that refutes nothing and argues against a strawman.

And yet, it has 178 upvotes at the time of posting.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#196

Post by Goladus » Sun, Aug 06, 2017, 2:03 PM UTC

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.

No, Yonatan Zunger is the one who should be embarassed. He lies in his very first paragraph, setting up a straw man which is consistently relied upon throughout the piece.

The original manifesto is thoughtful, articulate, thorough, and sincere. It provides a basis for dialog, discussion, and disagreement. Zunger's article is mostly a pile of fallacious rhetoric that by chance raises a few interesting ideas that could be twisted into a legitimate counter-argument to a couple of the manifesto's points if you tried really hard.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#197

Post by ukj » Sun, Aug 06, 2017, 2:09 PM UTC

interpol_p wrote: post #191

josephg wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alright, I'll bite. But, I've never heard of any research suggesting women have a different cognitive capacity than men. I read some research a number of years ago suggesting cross-culturally women had better language skills than men, but I don't know if this is still considered to be true. I can't remember reading anything in the manifesto which suggested women are less capable as software engineers. The essay did s…

> I can't remember reading anything in the manifesto which suggested women are less capable as software engineers. It does suggest this: > “I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes,” Preferences and abilities. If men are in the majority of leadership, senior, and CEO roles, what is the author suggesting about the abilities of women?

He is suggesting that it's a difficult problem in a complex system and that it's likely that we don't understand all the factors at play? And that we need different perspectives in order to engage in the kind of constructive skepticism which ultimately leads to better understanding?

Making assertions, on the other hand... that suggests that we already know the answers; and that further scrutiny is not required.

The arrogance!

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#198

Post by Goladus » Sun, Aug 06, 2017, 2:10 PM UTC

interpol_p wrote: post #36

TimTheTinker wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understood the original manifesto's main argument to be against intentional, institutional discrimination (e.g. affirmative action) -- with many supporting points. I don't know what's shameful about that (unless you're referring to something else). He did seem to value gender equality in the sense that men and women should be valued and respected equally (unless I'm reading into it).

Except for the fact that it implies that men are in higher, more well paid positions because of inherent biological traits. If you truly believe people are equal and deserving of equal treatment then you must see a society where white men are the most powerful, most privileged class, as a failure of society. The author cannot claim to believe in equality and then go on to justify inequality with biological traits.

Except for the fact that it implies that men are in higher, more well paid positions because of inherent biological traits.

His point is quite clearly based on statistical reasoning, not absolutes. He makes this point blatantly clear when he makes the point about salary negotiations.

He says that people with high agreeableness have more trouble negotiating than people with low agreeableness. Because high agreeableness is statistically more common among women, this is treated as a gender issue when it is quite clearly a personality issue. If you're going to consider this a problem, why not address agreeableness directly? Why frame it as a gender issue that ignores both agreeable men and disagreeable women?

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#199

Post by pacala » Sun, Aug 06, 2017, 2:19 PM UTC

> And as for its impact on you: Do you understand that at this point, I could not in good conscience assign anyone to work with you? I certainly couldn’t assign any women to deal with this, a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face, and even if there were a group of like-minded individuals I could put you with, nobody would be able to collaborate with them. You have just created a textbook hostile workplace environment.

Textbook thoughtcrime punishment. The heretic must be isolated and extirpated, with physical violence for good measure. Don't you dare interact with him, or else you'll be ostracized as well.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#200

Post by irl_zebra » Sun, Aug 06, 2017, 2:24 PM UTC

pacala wrote: post #199

> And as for its impact on you: Do you understand that at this point, I could not in good conscience assign anyone to work with you? I certainly couldn’t assign any women to deal with this, a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face, and even if there were a group of like-minded individuals I could put you with, nobody would be able to collaborate with them. You have just…

I believe he's talking about punishing the overt act of publishing this large manifesto and the negative consequences that flow from it. Not the thinking or discussing his views.