151–160 of 1001 posts
Um, yeah... I'm just gonna go ahead and not have an opinion on this one.
And if for no other reason, irrespective of the topic, that chilling effect is really disconcerting.
Fun fact: the author of the memo earned a PhD in Biology from Harvard. Google can fire him and get away with it, but it's going to be tough, very tough, for him to be falsely characterized as someone who is misinformed or unscientific. And the court of public opinion may well be more important in this controversy than any court of law.
fired from a tech company for "perpetuating gender stereotypes"... What in the world is happening right now? This is absurd beyond reason.
> fired from a tech company for "perpetuating gender stereotypes"... Fired from a tech company for publishing a company-wide memo insinuating that some of his coworkers are, on average, at a biological disadvantage for the type of work they do and suggesting that some subset of them haven't achieved their position based on merit.
All we really know is that the Silicon Valley thought bubble, and political intolerance is extreme to such a degree that people have to watch what they say and think at all times so as not to anger the thought police. The moral superiors.
No room for discussion. No room for debate. Just fall in line and be sure to advertise your virtue and 100% agree with views that the political left mandates you to hold.
Good. I get that HN is not into this, but this employee stated, bluntly, that they don't believe many of their colleagues should be there because of their sex. Every peer review, every no-hire, every interaction , is and should be suspect. Happy where I am now, but future interviews will include me asking what management would do about this, and termination is the only correct answer. This is textbook hostile environ…
Right, that's what he campaigned for. And not hire people due to their sex, race, sexual orientation, or any other innate attribute irrelevant to their job performance...
Fun fact: the author of the memo earned a PhD in Biology from Harvard. Google can fire him and get away with it, but it's going to be tough, very tough, for him to be falsely characterized as someone who is misinformed or unscientific. And the court of public opinion may well be more important in this controversy than any court of law.
Nobel prize winning scientists have damaged their reputations by opining on matters they know little about (James Watson on genetics, and many others )
Some infamous examples:
http://www.cracked.com/article_18638_4-nobel-prize-winners-w...
Well done, guys. It's hard to imagine any way you could have more effectively proved him correct.
The author's arguments have been completely misrepresented. He pointed out widely-believed and sometimes scientifically-established differences in the DISTRIBUTION OF traits in men and women. He said that those differences make attempts to achieve numerical parity misguided, discriminatory, and harmful. What is his conclusion about how we should behave? "Treat people as individuals, not as just another member of thei…
Since you more or less pasted your comment from the other thread, I'll TLDR my same reply: The claims in this document are FAR from "widely-believed" or "scientifically established". By count, most of his claims are just asserted. But even most of the claims with a link are highly debatable. This is NOT a particularly good advocacy document on the core scientific questions surrounding inequality. It may have some poi…
http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-...
They seem not to agree with you.
Yep, after reading the public response provided by Google's new Vice President of Diversity, Integrity & Governance ( https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-di... ) I was pretty sure this was all that was left. Regardless of whether you agreed with the letter or not, it's 100% correct in asserting that it's super difficult to have productive, rational conversations about the issue of diversity. Goo…
You don't need to go very far and blame Google for the level of difficulty. Making generalizations based on sex and without references is hostile from the get go. If you want to have a rational conversation, have it rationally.
This is starting to be scary. Instead of government companies are acting as thought police. I think a lot of people will watch what they are saying publicly from now on.