Live data from Hacker News

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

gizmodo.com

561–570 of 660 posts

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

#561
post #549

We had this discussion years ago on my Harvard class list, back during the Larry Summers flap. Obviously, no one would be/could be against women choosing whatever field of study and work that fulfills them the most. (I say that with 6 daughters in mind!) However, perhaps the lower representation of women in STEM is simply because they find other fields more interesting (law, medicine, what-have-you). STEM (at least t…

When I see someone mention virtue signalling, I dismiss them as posturing for their community of opinion. Is that fair?

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

#562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think it's unfair for me to call people who believe in the objective supremacy of one race over another "supremacists", simply because people have very dim opinions of racial supremacists?

I just want to make the syllogism you're operating with clear here: 1. If two groups have statistical differences in IQ across the population, then the group with the higher average is superior to the other 2. Person A believes that Group 1 has a higher average IQ than Group 2 3. Therefore, Person A is a Group 1 supremecist I would want to very strongly and categorically denounce point #1 in this list. Point #2 is ju…

Handwaving.

Literally the only reason the topic of "statistical differences in IQ across the population" comes up on this site is as a defense for why there's a microscopic population of African Americans and Latinos in our industry. The reason, the logic goes, is that the supposed racial IQ differences mean that there simply aren't enough African Americans intellectually qualified for the field.

There are plenty of reasons why a cohort of US persons of African descent could have lower recorded IQ scores than US persons of European descent. I'm not the one making the logical leap that the reason is a genetic disposition towards lower intelligence, rather than socioeconomic, environmental, or methodological issues. The white supremacists are the ones saying that†. If you're not, and you're not bringing the topic up unbidden as a defense of the status quo, I'm not saying anything about you.

I'm not interested in pretending that there's a good or rational kind of white supremacist. Several people on this site, and this thread, seem determined to do so. You can, too, and I won't stop you, but "good kind" or "bad kind" I'm going to call them what they are.

(much to the consternation of some of the best-known people doing the actual science)

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

#563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the case of nursing, which is the most popular incarnation of the trope, what it also means is that our first line of health care in the United States are doctors, who are expensive and scarce. "Nurses", who really ought to be called "Associate Doctors" or something similar, do a far better job at handling that job. But the (gendered!) lower status of "nursing" both keeps us from expanding the corps of Nurses-Prac…

Your labeling of my argument as a "trope" is unnecessary and dismissive. If we are talking tropes, pretty much nothing is more trope-y right now than the cycle of outrage and virtue signaling that is sure to follow any push-back against the current orthodoxy of social justice. It's so predictable you can set your watch to it (witness: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/08/06... ). So please, spare…

You asked a question. I answered it directly and civilly. You responded with a bunch of slurs. If you're wondering why the discussion stopped here, now you know.

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

#564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you believe that, in the aggregate, "white" people are intellectually superior to any other race of people, you're a white supremacist. That's not a value judgement; it's literally what it means to be a white supremacist. Is this 'any' as in 'a single group' or 'all other groups'? Either way it's not true. You can think a race has better average X without thinking it's superior. A dedicated white supremacist will…

" You can think a race has better average X without thinking it's superior. " Ironically, what this argument tends to reveal is the degree to which the upper crust fetishizes intelligence and believes in the primacy of IQ as the measure of the person. Google practically invented the big, scary interview process that proves you're smart enough to belong. Is it any surprise that the winners of that genetic lottery beli…

This is more or less the response Curtis Yarvin gives when his racism, which seems (if you can hack your way through his prose) virulent, is challenged. To paraphrase:

"I'm not saying black people are worse than white people. I'm saying that white people are smarter than black people, and that our society is biased against those who aren't as smart as white people. Oh, the unfairness of it all".

I have no idea who you are or of this is what you mean; you're just an abstraction to me, a nick on this site I have no association with whatsoever and will presumably soon forget about. But if you're interested (you responded to me upthread), it might be useful to you to know how this kind of logic comes across to me.

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

#565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your labeling of my argument as a "trope" is unnecessary and dismissive. If we are talking tropes, pretty much nothing is more trope-y right now than the cycle of outrage and virtue signaling that is sure to follow any push-back against the current orthodoxy of social justice. It's so predictable you can set your watch to it (witness: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/08/06... ). So please, spare…

You asked a question. I answered it directly and civilly. You responded with a bunch of slurs. If you're wondering why the discussion stopped here, now you know.

That's not accurate at all. You took a dismissive tone with me right off the bat, and labeled my good-faith argument as a "trope", twice. Also, my "slurs" were directed at a Washington Post article, not at you. Exit the discussion if you like, but I don't think you get to plead the moral high ground on this.

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

#566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" You can think a race has better average X without thinking it's superior. " Ironically, what this argument tends to reveal is the degree to which the upper crust fetishizes intelligence and believes in the primacy of IQ as the measure of the person. Google practically invented the big, scary interview process that proves you're smart enough to belong. Is it any surprise that the winners of that genetic lottery beli…

This is more or less the response Curtis Yarvin gives when his racism, which seems (if you can hack your way through his prose) virulent, is challenged. To paraphrase: "I'm not saying black people are worse than white people. I'm saying that white people are smarter than black people, and that our society is biased against those who aren't as smart as white people. Oh, the unfairness of it all". I have no idea who yo…

I didn't read dionidium's post as an endorsement of the chain of logic, or of the fetishization of intelligence by the upper crust, at all. In fact, quite the opposite.

I don't know who you are either, but this comment comes across as rather harsh and over the top,

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

#567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think it's unfair for me to call people who believe in the objective supremacy of one race over another "supremacists", simply because people have very dim opinions of racial supremacists?

I just want to make the syllogism you're operating with clear here: 1. If two groups have statistical differences in IQ across the population, then the group with the higher average is superior to the other 2. Person A believes that Group 1 has a higher average IQ than Group 2 3. Therefore, Person A is a Group 1 supremecist I would want to very strongly and categorically denounce point #1 in this list. Point #2 is ju…

[deleted]

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

#568
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Grounded in reality?" Could we get some sources for these claims? In particular, I'd like to see values and standard deviations for "On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways."

> I'd like to see values and standard deviations for "On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways." Here are some values that represent biological differences: Men: "8===D" Women: "{}"

Would you please not do this here?

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

#570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" You can think a race has better average X without thinking it's superior. " Ironically, what this argument tends to reveal is the degree to which the upper crust fetishizes intelligence and believes in the primacy of IQ as the measure of the person. Google practically invented the big, scary interview process that proves you're smart enough to belong. Is it any surprise that the winners of that genetic lottery beli…

This is more or less the response Curtis Yarvin gives when his racism, which seems (if you can hack your way through his prose) virulent, is challenged. To paraphrase: "I'm not saying black people are worse than white people. I'm saying that white people are smarter than black people, and that our society is biased against those who aren't as smart as white people. Oh, the unfairness of it all". I have no idea who yo…

I have no idea who that guy is or why I'm being asked to defend him, so I'll speak only for myself when saying that the statement, "white people are smarter than black people" as a summary of population differences is statistically and biologically illiterate.

This is just simply not how serious people talk about populations.

Further, to conclude that such differences, should they even exist, imply anything else about the world (or how to treat the people in it) is morally incomprehensible.

Post reply on HN