Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 443 posts

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#231

Post by TallGuyShort »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #136
kristianc wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But we're back to discussing the reaction again. Which is a neat way of avoiding the content of the article itself. I have no particular need to apply the label of "sexist" to this guy. I have no opinion, nor enough information, to say whether he should be fired or not. I do think he's profoundly wrong though, and think his arguments about biological differences bear at least a passing resemblance to some wholly disc…

>> he's trying to find a biological justification to exclude a class of people from a high-status career. >> avoiding the content of the article itself. That's what I'm talking about. I also think his ideas wouldn't be terribly effective, but I think villifying and dismissing him just for saying it does more harm than him saying it. That's why there are people focusing on the reaction. It doesn't really matter who th…

Much like how I find the other replies to your last comment far more bothersome than anything you said...

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#232

Post by dieterrams »

blusterXY wrote: post #213
blablabla123 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's great that the person stated his opinion. I regard him much higher than hypocrites who think and act the same, but pretend to be 1000% pc. It's not necessary to tediously counter-argue every single argument the author made. I'm sure you don't expect people to counter-argue overly long badly written texts by various political ideologists from today or the past. I'm convinced it suffices to just argue why summary…

> tediously counter-argue every single argument I haven't seen a single criticism of the paper that even recognizes the author is referencing large-scale incontrovertible research involving the Big-5 personality model (the giveaway is the use of terms "agreeability", "conscienciousness", "neuroticism"). Instead we get what you offer: off-hand casual assertions that there must exist research which runs against large-n…

> I haven't seen a single criticism of the paper that even recognizes the author is referencing large-scale incontrovertible research involving the Big-5 personality model (the giveaway is the use of terms "agreeability", "conscienciousness", "neuroticism").

I've seen that research. What conclusions do you think you can draw from it?

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#233

Post by rhapsodic »

blablabla123 wrote: post #145
EddieRingle wrote: post #43

One of my first exposures to this "manifesto" was on Twitter with someone starting a thread with "Google has a Nazi problem." The majority of the other responses I read either attacked the author, dismissed the entire text in whole, and/or refused to actually argue the paper's points because they saw them as so ridiculous or "obviously" wrong. I read the paper. I don't see at all how it relates to fascism, Trumpism,…

It's great that the person stated his opinion. I regard him much higher than hypocrites who think and act the same, but pretend to be 1000% pc. It's not necessary to tediously counter-argue every single argument the author made. I'm sure you don't expect people to counter-argue overly long badly written texts by various political ideologists from today or the past. I'm convinced it suffices to just argue why summary…

>This really sucks and this proves to me that if you are female, you are basically screwed if you want to do something engineering like because even Engineers don't act analytically but emotionally based on prejudices.

I think you should brush up on the meaning of the word "proves".

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#234

Post by camperman »

tptacek wrote: post #174
JoshTriplett wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The story is not "a Google engineer wrote it". The story is "a large fraction of Google circulated and endorsed it". That's what makes this news.

A large fraction of Google circulated it. Is there evidence that a large fraction endorsed it? That's not remotely the impression I get.

More than a third of respondents to his survey either strongly or almost agreed with the documents point of view.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#235

Post by drngdds »

splintercell wrote: post #141
EddieRingle wrote: post #43

One of my first exposures to this "manifesto" was on Twitter with someone starting a thread with "Google has a Nazi problem." The majority of the other responses I read either attacked the author, dismissed the entire text in whole, and/or refused to actually argue the paper's points because they saw them as so ridiculous or "obviously" wrong. I read the paper. I don't see at all how it relates to fascism, Trumpism,…

> I am against discrimination, and that includes positive discrimination. Because all positive discrimination is negative discrimination to someone else, so obviously when you are against discrimination you should be against positive discrimination too.

That's overly simplistic. If you know with good certainty that negative discrimination against a group is pervasive and manifests itself in a certain way (say, hiring bias (though I'm not arguing that this is the case in a particular instance; that's a separate debate)) it makes sense to have positive discrimination to counteract that.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#236

Post by lawnchair_larry »

gdix wrote: post #229
lawnchair_larry wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see that you said "compete". Testosterone has effects on competition, so there could still be bias there. Competitions are overrepresented by people who think they can win. We are taught that confidence and overconfidence skews male.

So if confidence is a major factor, is it possible that affirmative action affects confidence negatively in the people that it is meant to support?

I have no idea. Maybe?

I wasn't taking a position on the debate either, just pointing out that specific argument could be problematic.

Regardless, I'm opposed to affirmative action for many other reasons anyway.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#237

Post by naiveattack »

drngdds wrote: post #235
splintercell wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am against discrimination, and that includes positive discrimination. Because all positive discrimination is negative discrimination to someone else, so obviously when you are against discrimination you should be against positive discrimination too.

That's overly simplistic. If you know with good certainty that negative discrimination against a group is pervasive and manifests itself in a certain way (say, hiring bias (though I'm not arguing that this is the case in a particular instance; that's a separate debate)) it makes sense to have positive discrimination to counteract that.

This is a good point. Here's an open question:

How do you know when you have enough positive discrimination?

Do you just make sure that the representation of different groups is the same as in the population? This is a poor solution because it cannot be said that this would have been the distribution without negative discrimination.

Also, along what lines would you now pick your categories?

Would you ensure representation for latino lesbian women who speak spanish and like chocolate cake on tuesdays?

Which is to say that the category can get arbitrarily small.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#238

Post by [deleted] »

blablabla123 wrote: post #145
EddieRingle wrote: post #43

One of my first exposures to this "manifesto" was on Twitter with someone starting a thread with "Google has a Nazi problem." The majority of the other responses I read either attacked the author, dismissed the entire text in whole, and/or refused to actually argue the paper's points because they saw them as so ridiculous or "obviously" wrong. I read the paper. I don't see at all how it relates to fascism, Trumpism,…

It's great that the person stated his opinion. I regard him much higher than hypocrites who think and act the same, but pretend to be 1000% pc. It's not necessary to tediously counter-argue every single argument the author made. I'm sure you don't expect people to counter-argue overly long badly written texts by various political ideologists from today or the past. I'm convinced it suffices to just argue why summary…

[deleted]

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#239

Post by sidlls »

bkeroack wrote: post #38

Hacker culture used to trend towards libertarian ideals: free speech absolutism, cyberpunk freedom, etc. Now we have a huge mass of people at Google forming a rage mob to punish someone for expressing an unpopular idea. Should people lose their livelihoods and be blacklisted from the industry because you disagree with them? (see also Brendan Eich)

The software industry still trends toward libertarianism. A tiny slice of it in a specific area does not in some marginal ways on a small subset of social issues.

As a leftist, I find the notion that SV, northern California, or the likes of Google, Facebook, etc. have a left bias to be hilarious.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#240

Post by rcoveson »

evgen wrote: post #183
rcoveson wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was the bar lowered to recruit female or minority candidates? That's not a rhetorical question and I don't presume to have an answer to it. It was, however, the subject of the original memo, which suggests that some policies or proposed policies exist that lower standards for diversity candidates in the author's opinion. One example is, in the author's words: "Setting org level OKRs for increased representation." If…

I think you are suffering from the same delusion that many have regarding this so-called bar. At the level of recruiting done by the big-five you end up with a pool of candidates who all make it over "the bar." You only need a couple, so now you get to decide on additional criteria like how well they seem to work in teams, how well they can communicate with their peers, how easily they can adapt to new situations and…

I don't think you made much of an effort to understand me. Which of the following aspects of my comment was "delusional"?

1. Posing the question, "Was the bar lowered to recruit female or minority candidates?"

2. Stating that I did not have an answer to that question.

3. Suggesting that the author believed the answer to that question was "yes."

4. Asserting that it was not wrong for the author to dispute the merit of policies that he believed had lowered the bar in question.

5. Disputing the idea that the original memo was "aggressive."

Post reply on HN