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

291–300 of 443 posts

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#291

Post by smsm42 »

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…

> At work I often get overtalked and still deliver over-average results because I emphasise being polite, use proper argument and I look 10 years younger than I am.

That surely sucks and should not happen to you, or anybody. However, it happens - and it happens to many people that tend to be introverted, shy or just tend to be conflict-avoidant. You'd be surprised how many such people are among males. Not every male is a stereotypical hyper-aggressive alpha.

> 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 find it somewhat disappointing that you just made judgement about millions of people working in certain area because you've had some bad experiences in one place with a handful of people - most of which probably didn't even realize their behavior is counter-productive and would be ready to accommodate given proper tools - such as meeting setup with explicit way of ensuring everybody has an opportunity to participate and somebody who is more extroverted and verbal does not hog the scene. There are many known methods to do this and many people who are trained in doing it, one only needs to be willing to look it up and use it. I would think it's much more productive approach then rendering a wholesale judgement on the whole field and declaring it hopeless.

I would say approach of "if you're female and want to Engineering, you should be ready to overcome some challenges, and here are the tools for doing so and for those wanting to help in this" is a much more productive approach.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#292

Post by therebedragons »

wolco wrote: post #262
EddieRingle wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the idea is you get the research, plus all the citations for or against, versus pages of articles on The Guardian, or Techcrunch, or Breitbart. That tool sounds pretty cool to me to be honest!

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#293

Post by Moshe_Silnorin »

andkon wrote: post #280
Moshe_Silnorin wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast majority of people are biologically not fit to work at Google. All he said is because of slight differences in average ability and preferences we should expect the proportion of women in that incredibly small pool of people who are capable of working at Google to be lower than you would assume if you thought there was no sexual dimorphism in traits needed for engineering. Another example, East Asian people a…

Biologically unfit? The vast majority of people are _biologically unfit_ to work at Google? Are you serious? What 100 meter sprint time do you need to get a job at Google?

IQ is mostly genetics. You won't find many 100 or even 120 IQ engineers working at Google.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#294

Post by Udik »

asciicircum wrote: post #189

Could someone opposed to the arguments the manifesto makes explain to me what quotes caused them to strongly dislike it? Reading the reactions to the manifesto I'm left feeling like I'm taking crazy pills. I must have read a different manifesto. AFAICT the main idea of the manifesto is that biological differences between men and women account for part of the representation gap. This seems to be perfectly logical and…

> Reading the reactions to the manifesto I'm left feeling like I'm taking crazy pills

I've discovered several years ago, debating very similar issues on usenet, that people (maybe some people, but a good proportion in any case) have the ability to make themselves perfectly blind to aspects of reality they decided to disregard. They'll be even ready to contradict themselves multiple times in the space of a few sentences, and never admit it, rather than allowing the possibility of a different view. I think it must be what allowed religious piety and bigotry to flourish for millennia: a natural disposition to stand with all your heart and soul to defend ideas that unite a community. Climate change (irrespective of its scientific validity) is another of those.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#295

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#296

Post by pavlov »

rhapsodic wrote: post #246
jmull wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fight angry outrage with threats of angry outrage? It's hard to see how that makes sense. Personally, I hope Google ignores the angry people on all sides and does the right thing. I think it's ok to have principles and standards and to stick by them when the situation is tough. (Otherwise, what's the point?)

>Fight angry outrage with threats of angry outrage? It's hard to see how that makes sense. Not threats of angry outrage, actual angry outrage. The left's tactics should be used against them, in greater degrees, until they cease using those tactics.

You mean there is not enough angry outrage on the right? Are you serious?

Your comment highlights the main problem in American politics, on both sides: a vicious cycle of self-victimization where participants seem to become completely blind to how their own actions are a reflection of the hated others'.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#297

Post by RangerScience »

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.

I didn't see your sarcasm the first time.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#298

Post by schimmy_changa »

asciicircum wrote: post #189

Could someone opposed to the arguments the manifesto makes explain to me what quotes caused them to strongly dislike it? Reading the reactions to the manifesto I'm left feeling like I'm taking crazy pills. I must have read a different manifesto. AFAICT the main idea of the manifesto is that biological differences between men and women account for part of the representation gap. This seems to be perfectly logical and…

The issue is that he is trying to solve an social problem via engineering, and in trying to simplify the problem, not spending enough time researching, and by "de emphasizing empathy" he takes a step backwards.

Basically, he sets forward incorrect assertions about biological differences without the self-awareness about why he takes those differences as truth. For instance "Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things". This is true at least in a very large part because women are socialized from birth to do so. There are dozens of similar examples.

The people unhappy with him are frustrated by always having to make the same damn argument to the same people who somehow think behavioral evolution is the end-all-be-all, as if somehow the computer they're typing on was a natural result of that evolution.

Now, in this particular case I don't think the author had any bad intent, and I think people who disagree should argue straightforwardly and use this as a great, clear opportunity to address the many people who actually do agree with this person but don't speak out. I also think the author has some good feedback when it comes to how dissenting opinions are heard on the left, but it's overshadowed by his lack of understanding of the more serious problem of bias and discrimination of women in tech. (yes, it is a more serious problem than conservatives being unable to express their views - at least they can choose to talk or not, even if I'd rather everyone be able to freely share their views)

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#299

Post by RangerScience »

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.

I don't think it works that way. This version is problematically simplistic: I have +10 and you have -2; now add Affirmative Action and I've got +8 and you've got +2. I'm still not receiving negative discrimination. But, you're also missing the follow-on effects; specifically:

1) People who are not actually deserving on their own merits, but were getting in due to the privilege boost, are no longer present.

2) People who are actually deserving on their own merits, but were not getting due to other disadvantages, are now present. Overall merit of my coworkers goes up; I'm now working with better people and so get better/faster myself.

It didn't start as a zero-sum game; it's not going to end up as a zero-sum game.

Remember the myths of the meritocracy; success is not limited to the deserving, and the deserving are not limited from failure.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#300

Post by sigmar »

blusterXY wrote: post #252
dieterrams wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

The author of the paper is well-read, and the people criticizing his science understand neither the underlying science, nor what it implies for the problems they profess to care about.

He doesn't cite any science so it is hard to appreciate that any of it is based on quality research. Seems like a lot of stereotypes mixed in with hedging. For example: suggesting that women are too emotional to "reason about the facts" as well as men do.
Post reply on HN