On managing outrage in Silicon Valley • Hacker News Board

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#261

Post by Udik » Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 11:11 PM UTC

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #200

arnioxux wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rather than looking at the math ability distribution as a proxy, why not look at coding competition ability? They are pretty objective since an autograder doesn't know your gender and they are predictive of whether you can pass a tech interview since it's the same format. In that case, even at the IOI level (high school, so 14-18 year old kids) women are already severely underrepresented: https://www.quora.com/How-ha…

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.

> Testosterone has effects on competition, so there could still be bias there

Oh. And that would be a biological, innate difference in behaviour between men and women, wouldn't it?

And even if women are as good as men at maths or computer programming- which wouldn't surprise me much- can't they be just less interested in it, just in the same way they're less interested (as you seem to imply) in competition?

And could I be as good as the average woman in teaching or as a nurse? Possible. Am I interested in it? No.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#262

Post by wolco » Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 11:13 PM UTC

EddieRingle wrote: post #114

bbctol wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you were on Twitter? The most annoying thing about this back-and-forth ping-ponging of increasing outrage is that everyone, on both sides, only reacts to the silliest arguments. Sturgeon's Law holds up pretty well for hot takes, and the majority of anything written on an issue is likely to be bad. If most of the responses you read struck you as irrational, that's a function of the infrastructure that sends yo…

There were quite a few Medium posts as well. But no, I completely agree with you. I've discussed with others recently about how I'd love to have a tool or place where I can search for a given assertion and see the (scientific) evidence for and against it, as well as related assertions and opposing assertions. And I'm not just talking about being able to "Google it". If I use Google or a general search engine then I h…

Science is fluid and is funded by agenda our understanding is rarely 100% so often you can only see one side. In a world where ideas are funded you usually get a bias view.

Googling and searching can give you a scan of total web assessible content.

Ultimately you need to either review available knowledge and make decisions or put your trust into an external entity.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#263

Post by vkou » Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 11:14 PM UTC

rcoveson wrote: post #241

vkou wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As to "aggressions", I would challenge anybody to find a quote from the memo that could be considered aggressive. The entire premise of the manifesto is that one third of the company only has a job because of their gender. In what world is saying to thousands of people "We only hired you because you don't have male genitals" is not an aggression? Maybe it's not to people who don't give two shits about their work, o…

While the author used dubious rhetorical tactics (e.g. stating scientific "facts" without citation), he was never hostile towards any one person or group of people. Even if the argument he was making was that Google should fire or cut the pay of its female software engineers (which it wasn't), it wouldn't necessarily be aggressive. That word is not applicable here. And yes, I have been in a situation where my merit a…

> he was never hostile towards any one person or group of people. Even if the argument he was making was that Google should fire or cut the pay of its female software engineers (which it wasn't), it wouldn't necessarily be aggressive.

Let me present an argument:

"Black people are killers, thieves, and lazy layabouts. Statistics [Citation, Citation, Citation] support me. The only reason employs black people is affirmative action. Draw your own conclusions, folks. ;)"

How is this not aggression? What would be aggression, at this point? Dressing up in a white hood, and circling the office with a wooden cross? Do we need to have rational, calm, logical debate about whether or not the statistics I'm citing are correct?

Physical violence isn't the only form of aggression. Telling your colleagues that they aren't wanted in your workplace is absolutely a form of aggression.

> And yes, I have been in a situation where my merit as an engineer was called into question (I'm sure most engineers have).

Was your merit called into question because of the colour of your skin? Or your gender?

There is a world of difference between being treated like crap for , and being treated like crap because the asshole you're dealing with is prejudiced towards you. It really has to be experienced to be believed.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#264

Post by TheAdamAndChe » Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 11:14 PM UTC

orangecat wrote: post #249

grey-area wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since most of these threads are pretty content free, and you asked for it, here's a rebuttal, by a woman who's good at math. https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/slideshow/embed_code/key/3... Of course men and women are different on average, but are they different enough to justify the massive disparity in tech? No.

Of course men and women are different on average Many people would disagree, and some would have you fired for saying that. As far as the presentation, it accurately notes that as far as we can tell, the average difference in ability between men and women is very small or zero. But there is compelling evidence that men and women do naturally differ in interests (the "people vs things" thing), which if true would dire…

> Many people would disagree, and some would have you fired for saying that.

This mentality is exactly why the Google enginner made the post. The company and many others like it are forming echo chambers where anyone with any opinions that go against the status quo is fired. That's ridiculous! Especially with something as nuanced as sex and gender.

It is a known fact that there are physical[1], emotional, and psychological[2] differences in people around the world. If there are psychological and emotional differences between the genders, then why is it so surprising to think that they would overall have different career preferences? The fact that someone would fire an employee instead of let them question the boundary between biology and cultural influences is absurd.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans

[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#265

Post by mcguire » Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 11:15 PM UTC

sbierwagen wrote: post #194

Danihan wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/1... Justin Keller was a nobody.

Read the titles: S.F. ‘tech bro’ writes open letter to mayor: ‘I shouldn’t have to see the pain, struggle, and despair of homeless people’, ‘riff raff’ and Exclusive: Here's The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google [Updated] A news story presents novel recent events, given context by a narrative. The title of a piece informs the reader of that narrative. It is a given that when Breitbar…

"A news story presents novel recent events, given context by a narrative. The title of a piece informs the reader of that narrative."

That's a very postmodern take on it.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#266

Post by andkon » Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 11:16 PM UTC

Fang_ wrote: post #258

andkon wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's be super clear: if this guy gets fired, it would not be because he expressed his opinions. It would be because he has abhorrent opinions that will forever affect his ability to work with women, whom he has decided are inherently incapable of working at Google.

> women, whom he has decided are inherently incapable of working at Google. But that's not at all what he wrote?

Oh sorry. I was too broad. He wrote that it is unpopular for him to say that, for many biologically determined reasons, women do not have the traits required to excel in computer science, and that in reality the lack of their employment at Google could be reducible to their being women.

He then went on to explain at length that any effort to suppress this sort of opinion is the real diversity problem.

So I'd summarize that as: he believes that women are biologically not fit to work at Google, and therefore diversity programs are misguided, and therefore the real diversity problem is in not taking his unpopular opinions seriously.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#267

Post by burntsushi » Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 11:16 PM UTC

drewrv wrote: post #69

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)

Most people don't want to work with jerks, and in a libertarian ideal would be free to choose whether to do so. Most companies choose to get rid of jerks for a ton of sensible reasons. In a libertarian ideal they'd be free to choose who to hire/fire. Large groups calling for someone to lose their job is totally in line with libertarian ideals. Nobody is calling for government regulation, this is just the (employment)…

Misunderstanding libertarianism to mean "whatever the market does is just" is a common straw man. Just because libertarianism says that large groups calling for someone to lose their job is legal doesn't mean that all libertarians must necessarily believe that such a thing is moral or even right in every single case.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#268

Post by Moshe_Silnorin » Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 11:18 PM UTC

andkon wrote: post #254

rhapsodic wrote: post #179

No matter what side of this debate you're on, I don't think you can argue against the notion that there is only one side of it whose adherents can feel completely free to express their opinions or argue their case without fear of retaliation. Many stupid, unsupportable statements have been made by people on the left side, but I've yet to see much in the way of internet rage mobs formed against them. I think if google…

Let's be super clear: if this guy gets fired, it would not be because he expressed his opinions. It would be because he has abhorrent opinions that will forever affect his ability to work with women, whom he has decided are inherently incapable of working at Google.

It is tempting to reduce an argument to the most uncharitable caricature imaginable. To counteract this, image I transported you to a world where there was not a subconscious misogynistic pressure keeping women out of programming and women chose not to become programmers because of some combination of average differences in personality and variance in ability. What would this world look like? How would it differ from our own?

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#269

Post by splintercell » Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 11:19 PM UTC

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.

> If you know with good certainty that negative discrimination against a group is pervasive and manifests itself in a certain way

But you're missing the point.

All discrimination is aimed at individuals. Claiming that because individuals of group A have been negatively discriminated against, you don't balance it out by performing positive discrimination for them (even if it is exactly the same individuals), because you achieve that positive discrimination by performing negative discrimination against another set of individuals.

If you notice that Zuckerberg rejected a person because she was a black woman, because she was black, and you counter that by somehow benefitting that woman, and having Zuckerberg pay some sort of penalty, then that is just and you have 'counteracted' Zuckerberg's negative discrimination.

But if, after noticing that Zuckerberg rejected a person because she was a black woman, you penalize him and make him hire some another black woman over where a white woman would have been more qualified, then you have not 'counteracted' anything. You have performed negative discrimination against another set of individuals, under the color of 'positive discrimination'.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#270

Post by schimmy_changa » Mon, Aug 07, 2017, 11:19 PM UTC

rhapsodic wrote: post #179

No matter what side of this debate you're on, I don't think you can argue against the notion that there is only one side of it whose adherents can feel completely free to express their opinions or argue their case without fear of retaliation. Many stupid, unsupportable statements have been made by people on the left side, but I've yet to see much in the way of internet rage mobs formed against them. I think if google…

This sounds true, but is actually incorrect. Whenever women speak out on social media, they get at the very least abuse, but also often rape threats and death threats against them. That is retaliation, plain and simple.

That's just the loud stuff. There's also the quiet "oh she's too much of a firebrand" or "oh she won't fit into the small team because she might call people out for their casual sexism" that happens all the time.