The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google • Hacker News Board

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

#571

Post by nowo » Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 5:15 AM UTC

haberman wrote: post #559

tptacek wrote: post #556

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…

> The question is: where are the goalposts? Is the industry sick and oppressive towards women until it hits 50% representation? I don't think that's a fair expectation.

It's hard to find a benign reason why the percentage of women CS majors would halve in the last 30 years while the profession as such has become more attractive.

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-...

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

#572

Post by dang » Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 5:50 AM UTC

devrandomguy wrote: post #170

How is it sexual?

At some point this becomes indistinguishable from trolling and in my opinion you hit that point. Please don't post like this.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14938471 and marked it off-topic.

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

#573

Post by ggreer » Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 5:59 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #562

dionidium wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Before Scott Alexander started http://slatestarcodex.com/, he wrote this post http://squid314.livejournal.com/323694.html:

> I declare the Worst Argument In The World to be this: "If we can apply an emotionally charged word to something, we must judge it exactly the same as a typical instance of that emotionally charged word."

Scott's post is full of examples, many of which I'm sure you'll agree are bad arguments. You are using this tactic with the term "white supremacy". Please note that doing so undermines your position and makes it clear to others that you are not arguing in good faith.

I try to behave such that if someone who held opposite views used the same norms, we wouldn't end up feeling contempt for one another. This means interpreting charitably, trying to understand why people believe what they believe, and avoiding snark and sarcasm. Most importantly, it means not misrepresenting other people's views. Throughout this thread, you have reliably failed at all of these things.

Could you imagine how two tptaceks with opposite views would behave? I'm convinced they would never get beyond name-calling and strawmanning. Both would feel certain in their cause and vindicated by their opponent's behavior. Worst of all, neither's beliefs would get closer to the truth.

Please, for the love of all that is good, be more charitable.

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

#574

Post by TheLilHipster » Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 6:09 AM UTC

rhizome wrote: post #440

Veratyr wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First situation that comes to mind is in a conversation where the coworker has raised the subject in conversation: "I've been working out a lot the last few months. I managed to lose a lot of weight and I think I look good." "Yeah, you looks great, that work definitely paid off." The coworker brought it up, which indicates that they're comfortable talking about it and the comment is a celebration of the coworker's ac…

The Google example is none of those.

> The Google example is none of those.

Right. Its a comment on a thread, it has zero context. You don't know whether it was or wasn't appropriate based on the context.

You're jumping on the "unprofessional" bandwagon without investigating further. An "affirmative stance" if you will.

You don't see the irony?

This is why I avoid gender politics like the plague, the debates are not grounded in logic and rationality.

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

#575

Post by rifung » Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 6:14 AM UTC

0xbear wrote: post #454

rifung wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps I didn't express myself well but I certainly did not intend to confirm your statement. > Truth is, it's dangerous to not "keep it to yourself", so people don't talk about it. I meant people don't talk about it out of respect for their coworkers, not because they are afraid to get fired. I'm sure there are some who are just afraid to get fired, but I sincerely believe they're the minority.

Can't tell if you're one of those people who get people fired for differences of opinion or you just honestly don't see it. So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter. I find it amusing that I only have to concern myself with "respect for my coworkers" if my opinion is different from the liberal side on some cause célèbre. I.e. if I comply with liberal dogma and say that having lower hiring bar (…

> I find it amusing that I only have to concern myself with "respect for my coworkers" if my opinion is different from the liberal side on some cause célèbre

I can see why you would think this because as far as I can tell a large majority of Googlers are liberal, but I don't believe this is the case? I'm pretty sure if you went around saying Trump supporters are racists or something you would also quickly get reprimanded..

Indeed I had to call some people out for being really insulting to conservatives because that is really not okay either =/

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

#576

Post by TheLilHipster » Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 6:36 AM UTC

naiveattack wrote: post #287

Smaug123 wrote: post #4

Oh dear, this seems like a bit of an unwise thing to have written. Whether or not it's true, it's something you're Not Allowed to reason about, where "Not Allowed" is in the sense of PG's http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html .

This was an excellent read about how to deal with the irrationality and repression of mobs. Thanks. Perhaps this is where anonymous speech is important as it allows the discussion of ideas without giving importance to the persons behind them. Of courae, allowing for the fact that nothing can be truly anonymous :)

> Perhaps this is where anonymous speech is important

I'd like to rebut that point as we have anonymous, mainstream means to socialize nowadays. Chaotic (4chan) and moderated (mediums like Hacker News).

Users speak truth to power all the time on these platforms, is it effective? eh.

IMO there is a lot of value in these words coming from someone (from google) who is clearly switched-on, yet has A LOT to lose. Either the discussion is presented to the general populace and we accept it and learn from it, or the google employee becomes a martyr.

Either way, the fallout of this document is what interests me.

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

#577

Post by Dylan16807 » Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 6:40 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #564

dionidium wrote: post #558

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…

"Society is biased against black people" is a perfectly accurate statement, so I'm not sure what that is supposed to show.

Can't you make an objectively-true equivalent statement about height? People with certain ethnicities are taller. Taller people are treated better. It's unfair.

It doesn't seem like the way that logic is constructed reveals any racism. Just the premise of "X are smarter than Y" is the problem. Kind of begging the question.

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

#578

Post by kamaal » Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 7:00 AM UTC

brooklyn_ashey wrote: post #383

haberman wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that "???" is unrigorous handwaving. And I don't think it purports to be rigorous; from the document: "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." (emphasis mine). "May" and "in part." I don't think this purports to be a proof. Is this argument any more rigorous? 1. There is a non-50% representation bet…

>However, if 100% of these pressures were removed, would we have exactly 50% representation of men and women in tech? Many people appear to believe very strongly that this is true. What is the basis for this belief? We could have an even higher percentage of women, like we do in many top-notch classical outfits today. There is some history here I'm qualified to speak about as a woman who took many orchestral audition…

>>We could have an even higher percentage of women, like we do in many top-notch classical outfits today.

There is a difference between succeeding in difficult tasks and succeeding at tasks that are seeing very high growth in overall accumulation of knowledge.

In high growth areas its not easy to make it big without working insane hours. Or return to regular practice after long breaks.

To me tech will will see near equal representation over time. As our trade becomes normal like any other. Of course that will mean the high intensity action will move onto else where.

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

#579

Post by ggreer » Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 7:35 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #420

ggreer wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I realize this is getting off topic, but can you explain why you think that, "All available evidence strongly suggests that Charles Murray is in fact a racist"? I've read The Bell Curve and listened to a debate where Murray argued in favor of universal basic income. I came away from both thinking that he's been totally misrepresented. I just reviewed my notes for The Bell Curve to make sure I hadn't mis-remembered th…

The SPLC is not a reliable source, but I think what they have to say about Charles Murray checks out.

I found https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/indi... but:

- It reads like a hit piece, in that it states facts that are technically true but designed to mislead. For example: It says "Murray advocates the total elimination of the welfare state" but neglects to mention that he wants to replace it with universal basic income.

- The SPLC accuses Murray of using "tainted sources" in The Bell Curve, but the vast majority of the data was from early cohorts of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. The "tainted source" is apparently Richard Lynn, discoverer of the Flynn effect. Anyone doing any intelligence research is going to depend on Lynn's research, and anyone doing such research in the early 90's is going to use his data. This accusation can be made even if Murray had come to opposite conclusions in The Bell Curve. Sadly, Lynn seems to have gone batty since his days as a researcher. Still, that shouldn't affect the truth value of the data he collected before his decline.

- Many of the accusations are guilt by association, such as condemning Murray for taking money from the Pioneer Fund. Apparently, the fund was started by a proponent of 1930's-era eugenics. As Murray has pointed out, the Pioneer Fund of today is nothing like its original incarnation.

- The SPLC piece never mentions The Bell Curve's conclusion that east asians tend to have higher IQs than whites. It's hard to label Murray a white supremacist when he thinks whites are not supreme.

All-in-all, I have difficulty believing the SPLC's piece on Murray. I don't have the time to vet every accusation, but the ones I have looked into seem without merit. Moreover: Every time I've given the SPLC the benefit of the doubt, they've let me down. Their hatchet jobs of Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz have completely destroyed my trust in them.

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

#580

Post by smb06 » Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 7:41 AM UTC

eintagsfiege wrote: post #64

smb06 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wouldn't jump to conclusions just because you find such outliers. Some weird mechanisms might be driving such numbers

Well do you know anything about what is going on in Iran? Then please share.

I've had dozens of Iranian friends, most of them women engineers.

All of them in it for the love of science and engineering.