Live data from Hacker News

Google Employee's Anti-Diversity Manifesto Goes 'Internally Viral'

motherboard.vice.com

141–150 of 172 posts

Re: Google Employee's Anti-Diversity Manifesto Goes 'Internally Viral'

#141

I've read the doc. At first skim, I thought it was going to be a reasonable "stop the echochamber" style doc, that points out issues with over-loving diversity without thinking about the impact of it, and that decries the strong-left culture at Google that can be alienating to right-leaning employees. But in reality, dude went full /r/TheRedPill and The_Donald on this. I think the best description I heard of the doc…

> I can see how someone can see the surface and identify potential problems with it, but ultimately bias training is created by people with real credentials to be doing so

Not all experts agree that they work though:

https://hbr.org/2016/07/why-diversity-programs-fail

Re: Google Employee's Anti-Diversity Manifesto Goes 'Internally Viral'

#142

I've read the doc. At first skim, I thought it was going to be a reasonable "stop the echochamber" style doc, that points out issues with over-loving diversity without thinking about the impact of it, and that decries the strong-left culture at Google that can be alienating to right-leaning employees. But in reality, dude went full /r/TheRedPill and The_Donald on this. I think the best description I heard of the doc…

Welp, before the entire document was released I made a long statement below based on what I read, trying to give a reasonable consideration for somebody elses viewpoint, but then I read the document where the reader noncholantly listed the following things as inherent underlying biological differences unique to women, not to be up for debate, as the nondisputable premise for how to address the ideological echo chamber,here were the top most infuriating things I read. I must be infuriated because I'm a women and I'm neurotic, which brings me to #1.

"Neuroticism: higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance".

Of course, women are neurotic, so that explains alot of why women in comparable roles just arent doing as well.

"Harder time negociating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. These are just average differences, but this is seen as soley a womens issue"

Well thank you for clearing that up. There is aboslutely nothing that causes these differences in women and it is entirely based on their faulty self perception that is there for a reason which must exist because....well you know the answer, which brings me to my next point...

"Women are more agreeable." The only mental response I had to this statement was "are you sure women are more agreeable, or do you just perceive that they agree with you and have no real comprehension of how much they disagree with you?"

"Men's higher drive for status."

Someone please correct me if there is another response I'm supposed to have other than only being able to utilize blatant sarcasm to try to enter into the mindset of the author of this article, and me trying to be agreeable to it:

Well, thank you for pointing out these fundamental permanent underlying unique biological traits holding women back from progress that Google has taken an unhealthy and self destructive burden on by trying to correct.

If women could just...stop living in denial about how neurotic they are, how they are more agreeable, and overall just, not as motivated to reach high status positions, along with the obvious fact that they are more into social things than code, and that women like people and men like things, then maybe women could start coming to terms with why they are less successful, and we could have more pyschological safety in the work place if more men in the office could be open about these things and not feel scared to propogate them as undisputable truth.

Perhaps some cooperation and pair programming would help, but I'm not necessarily Google should arbitrarily engage in doing that "just" to make it more appealing to women, instead Google should "be more open about the science of human nature". The sooner we can all just acknowledge women are neurotic agreeable socialites that eventually want to work part time and aren't driven by status, the sooner we can close the gender gap here at Google.

Thank you, thank you so much for all the other people just like me at Google who agree with me but are too scared to say it because...well once you say it, it sounds so pathetically incorrect I'm the only one who is so drenched in my own understanding of reality that everyone else is clearly in denial about, who had the courage to say it.

Thank you, thank you again for your time.

Re: Google Employee's Anti-Diversity Manifesto Goes 'Internally Viral'

#143
post #76

I've read the doc. At first skim, I thought it was going to be a reasonable "stop the echochamber" style doc, that points out issues with over-loving diversity without thinking about the impact of it, and that decries the strong-left culture at Google that can be alienating to right-leaning employees. But in reality, dude went full /r/TheRedPill and The_Donald on this. I think the best description I heard of the doc…

I'd like to read the thing to form an opinion. Unfortunately I have not found any links yet. Could you share, please? Also, about "but ultimately bias training is created by people with real credentials to be doing so": That seems to be questionable. I know from a professional psychologist that diagnosis of unconscious bias and especially bias training are standing on extremely thin ice scientifically. The hypothesis…

https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-di...

I'd like to know your opinion about the neuroticism comment.

Re: Google Employee's Anti-Diversity Manifesto Goes 'Internally Viral'

#144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is interesting. I'm a female Electrical Engineer in the United States. Females are obviously a minority in the Engineering teams, but interestingly enough, there are a few older female Engineers I know who came from Eastern Europe after spending 10-15 years doing Engineering there, and said they never had an issue with sexism until they came to the U.S. I'm not sure whether an elaboration by them would indicate…

> I have to say, as an INTJ female, this biology crap is ridiculous. That's an interesting way to put it. The estimates I've seen (e.g. [1], [2]) have the frequency of INTJs among men significantly higher than the frequency of INTJs among women. If INTJs are more likely to become engineers, then those frequencies predict that there will be more male engineers than female engineers. [1] https://www.capt.org/mbti-asses…

Yes this is true.

However, if you read the document, the author basis the premise of his perception of faulty and "good intentions gone wrong" programs to correct for gender pay gap disparity as due to the "underlying biologicial differences" between men and women.

Women are far less likely to be INTJs, but most female Engineers I know are not INTJs, and furthermore, if you are using the idea that INTJ is an indicator of someone being more likely to be an engineer or STEM I guess we can say in this case, and that somehow there is a biologicial difference (plausible, were not advanced enough in biology and sciences, psychology and neurobiology to be able to atribute personality genres to unique biologicial differences that can correctly an consistently identify a Meyers Brigg personality type, maybe its possible in the future, maybe not, maybe thats not the underlying relationship, who knows yet), then the entire premise of the author is debunked.

If my personality type whether as a male or female, is going to kick me in a direction more likely to end up in STEM (interest in math and sciences) then youre statement reconcludes there is no "underlying biological differences" that exist for all women that never occur with men.

The idea that personality traits contribute to biological nuances that can occur in men and women, then the author loses his point.

I'm also not aware of any Meyers Briggs personality type that comes with the term "neurotic" but according to the author, all women are, and this is not even up for debate.

I'm also leaving out the entire obvious consideration that I would assume is a given in all these conversations, but seem not to be addressed in any way whatsoever by the authors 10 page document, that even if we could attribute say INTJ or similiar MBriggs personality types to highly correlating with females in STEM, and then showing less women are likely to have those personality types, we still don't know what causes personality types, or have biologicial blueprints for them, so we can not assume "underlying biological differences between sexes" especially considering MBs are not sexually based.

Furthermore, we are leaving out the fact that humans are an evolving species and we experience a microcosm of our own societal influences that influence how people think, act, perceive, spend, procreate, educate, eat etc based on our socioeconomic construct. To throw aside the mere idea that being surrounded by men who actually write off most of your actions as neurotic and believe this as truth, could not have some lng term damaging effect on your ability to be taken seriously or perceived as successful or result in an imposed biased with a positive feedback loop on how the gender who is not in an economic majority of empowerment may be held back, is just about as childish and ignorant as missing the point of a first science experiment where you failed miserably because you didn't have controls for your experiment, or consider that different contributing factors could result in different outcomes and calibrate for them.

No, from this authors perspective, women are neurotic. This is a fact:

"Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs."

https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-di...

Re: Google Employee's Anti-Diversity Manifesto Goes 'Internally Viral'

#145
post #22

Sigh. Again an artificially created problem. I dunno maybe we all should work from home and interact with other entities using just handles.

Is it legal to employ anonymous people (or entities I guess) in any country? I guess both parties can pay taxes separately and I assume it has happened for some security research, insider info, special consulting, but I don't know if that's actually legal. (It seems to me to go against the common way for governments to regulate workforce.)

HR is usually not involved in your actual job and they are the only ones at the company who need to know who you are.

Re: Google Employee's Anti-Diversity Manifesto Goes 'Internally Viral'

#146
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to read the thing to form an opinion. Unfortunately I have not found any links yet. Could you share, please? Also, about "but ultimately bias training is created by people with real credentials to be doing so": That seems to be questionable. I know from a professional psychologist that diagnosis of unconscious bias and especially bias training are standing on extremely thin ice scientifically. The hypothesis…

https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-di... I'd like to know your opinion about the neuroticism comment.

There is overwhelming evidence that women on average are more neurotic, anyone who argues about gender diversity should be aware of this:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2031866/

Re: Google Employee's Anti-Diversity Manifesto Goes 'Internally Viral'

#147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have to say, as an INTJ female, this biology crap is ridiculous. That's an interesting way to put it. The estimates I've seen (e.g. [1], [2]) have the frequency of INTJs among men significantly higher than the frequency of INTJs among women. If INTJs are more likely to become engineers, then those frequencies predict that there will be more male engineers than female engineers. [1] https://www.capt.org/mbti-asses…

Yes this is true. However, if you read the document, the author basis the premise of his perception of faulty and "good intentions gone wrong" programs to correct for gender pay gap disparity as due to the "underlying biologicial differences" between men and women. Women are far less likely to be INTJs, but most female Engineers I know are not INTJs, and furthermore, if you are using the idea that INTJ is an indicato…

Right: it's clear that there's no sharp divide between men's and women's aptitude for STEM jobs. There are many excellent women engineers, and many men who have no aptitude for engineering.

It's also true that there seem to be population-level differences that are connected to aptitude for engineering. If we're trying to answer the question "to what extent is sexism excluding women from engineering?" then these differences become important. If there are no population-level differences then any deviation from a 50/50 sex ratio among engineers is probably due to some kind of sex discrimination. But if there are real population-level differences then it would be a mistake to insist on a 50/50 sex ratio, and a mistake to assume that sexism is the problem if the ratio is not 50/50. (Of course, there might still be sexism, even if there are also population-level differences.)

The problem comes when people try to apply population-level sex differences at an individual level. Even if fewer women have an aptitude for engineering, that says nothing at all about any individual female engineer. The right way to assess an the ability of an engineer, whether male or female, is by looking at the information about what they've done -- they've achieved X qualification, won Y award, built Z product etc. -- not by assuming gender differences that can only be observed at the population level. Unfortunately, both negative and positive discrimination muddy the waters here, making these signals less useful.

Re: Google Employee's Anti-Diversity Manifesto Goes 'Internally Viral'

#148
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "wow, 60% of North Carolina is literally horrible, terrible people." The worst thing here is the suggestion that there was 100% turnout, instead it was closer to 30%, so only about 20% voted for it. The amendment was found unconstitutional a short time afterwards anyway, finding that marriage is a fundamental right for everyone.

30% is a statistically significant portion. It seems to me very likely that just as many hold the same views in the population.

It's not a statistically random selection though. See the 1936 Literary Digest presidential election poll. (They polled 1/4th of the total number of eligible voters, and of that number almost 1/4th responded. They were off by a 19% absolute polling error.)

https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/wk4/lecture/case1.h...

Re: Google Employee's Anti-Diversity Manifesto Goes 'Internally Viral'

#149

I've read the doc. At first skim, I thought it was going to be a reasonable "stop the echochamber" style doc, that points out issues with over-loving diversity without thinking about the impact of it, and that decries the strong-left culture at Google that can be alienating to right-leaning employees. But in reality, dude went full /r/TheRedPill and The_Donald on this. I think the best description I heard of the doc…

Welp, before the entire document was released I made a long statement below based on what I read, trying to give a reasonable consideration for somebody elses viewpoint, but then I read the document where the reader noncholantly listed the following things as inherent underlying biological differences unique to women, not to be up for debate, as the nondisputable premise for how to address the ideological echo chambe…

I'm a historically highly neurotic man. Klockan posts the following link above: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2031866/

The author did not seem to me to be arguing for a biological cause, though I only read the manifesto once and may easily have missed this.

There are genuine sociological reasons for Women, who are on average much shorter and weaker than Men, who have historically raped and murdered in far greater numbers than Women, to have higher agreeableness and higher neuroticism scores on average in any society, much less modern society.

Unfortunately, like most social programs and surveys, these generalities miss the specifics and outliers. But they still statistically generalize.

Re: Google Employee's Anti-Diversity Manifesto Goes 'Internally Viral'

#150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having observed the fall of the USSR it's nothing unusual to me. When people are not comfortable with an oppressive regime they keep their moderate opinions to themselves. Voicing any opinion contrary to the Party line is dangerous no matter how extreme or moderate it is. So all dissenting opinions you are going to hear in public will be coming from extremists (e.g. "Have a Nuremberg-type tribunal for the Party's chi…

Great comment. What you are describing is called a 'preference cascade'. > In short, average people behave the way they think they ought to, even though that behavior might not reflect their own personal feelings. Given a sufficient "A-HA!" moment when they discover that their personal feelings are shared by a large portion of the population their behavior may change dramatically. An example of this is the British co…

Also preference falsification.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference_falsification

Post reply on HN