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

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

gizmodo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

641–650 of 660 posts

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

#641

Post by gspetr »

rmc wrote: post #589
flukus wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Politics at the national level is made up of outliers, like sports people and actors. It's entirely possible that women are better at politics but not better than this 0.01% of people at politics, especially considering that men deviate from the norm more often.

What about local politics? Surely that's dominated by women? What about the politics of a social club, a trade union, or similar groups? Are they all dominated by women? (Answer: No). I'm not sure how you can merge the two theories that "Women are just better at people skills" and "Women aren't better than the best". The whole thesis is claiming that women are as naturally superior at people skills as men are natural…

Women in general used to have better cooking skills than men, but the majority of chefs were male and are still male.

Here's a UK survey of chefs: http://www.bighospitality.co.uk/People/Survey-finds-imbalanc...

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

#642

Post by gspetr »

LyndsySimon wrote: post #491
Pulcinella wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"99% server uptime is enough!"

Indeed - we design systems to operate under the expectation that services are available. We handle their not being available as an exceptional case. This seems analogous; we should design social structures (or allow social structures to emerge) that assume that individuals are male or female, but which handle the exceptional case of non-cisgendered individuals. Just like a software system that doesn't handle exceptio…

Catastrophically how?

Society also lacks "provisions" for violent criminals[0] but it still handles them and is yet to fail catastrophically.

[0] I'm not equating these two categories of people, merely illustrating that your example of comparing software exceptions to people is deeply flawed.

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

#643

Post by gspetr »

skywhopper wrote: post #50
amiga-workbench wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see what's micro about losing your job for wrongthink.

Who has lost their job for wrongthink?

PyCon 2013 joke incident might also qualify. Everyone lost there - both the accuser and the accused lost their jobs.

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

#644

Post by stmfreak »

rifung wrote: post #575
0xbear wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 reprima…

LOL. Trump supporters are totally fair game in the valley.

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

#645

Post by yarper »

rmc wrote: post #614
yarper wrote: post #594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a pretty drastic oversimplification to say "women have better people skills" but there are definitely personality differences between men and women [1]. (I don't know why this comes as a surprise to anyone) [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/

When people see a tech company that's 90% male, they say "Oh well, men and women are different, that's the explaination." So where are the places which are 90% women? Why isn't politics 90% women. Instead it's about ~20% and that's after years of campaigning & activism.

Dental hygienists (98%), Occupational therapists (92%), nurses (~92%)[1].

[1] https://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/occ_gender_share_em_1020_txt.ht...

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

#646

Post by mAdamTus »

marknutter wrote: post #632
mAdamTus wrote: post #68

He started out well, but about halfway through meandered into bullshit. Bad data, cherry picked data, incorrect incorrect understanding of the science, incorrect conclusions -- he even referenced the Cultural Marxism Conspiracy theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marx... By the time we hit "why we're blind" he's gone fully off the rails. I sympathize with him -- and even agree with several…

Why do you call Cultural Marxism a conspiracy theory? Have you actually read through any of the papers being pumped out by humanities departments in academia? Not only is marxism on full display, it's actively promoted. Hell, it's one of the foundational elements of Critical Theory.

Nutter indeed.

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

#647

Post by zimpenfish »

0xbear wrote: post #623
zimpenfish wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Indeed I had to call some people out for being really insulting to conservatives because that is really not okay either Slightly off-topic but I don't understand this viewpoint. The conservative stance, as best I can tell from following politics, generally involves enriching the 1% whilst actively wanting to hurt the less well off and minorities. To me, that does not warrant politeness and pleasantries.

You are mindlessly parroting liberal talking points. I'm not going to try to change your mind here, but do try to hear the actual conservative POV from an actual person offline, not what the democrats tell you it is.

> You are mindlessly parroting liberal talking points.

Of course.

> do try to hear the actual conservative POV from an actual person offline

What about living for decades under conservative rule in the UK? Or watching what the GOP have been doing for the last 20 years? Do those count as hearing the "actual conservative POV"?

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

#648

Post by jee_accnt »

remarkEon wrote: post #515
jee_accnt wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point, firing him would be a huge PR mistake for Google.

Would it? Imagine the think pieces and clickbait it would generate. The guy would get an interview on Tucker Carlson and the Joe Rogan podcast but the whole thing would be over in 2 weeks.

ok, you were right.

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

#649

Post by nzp »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #635
tptacek wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a strange response to a straightforward question, but I can't say I'm unhappy to see this weird little thread die here.

What do you want ? How is '''the differences are probably explained by a complicated mix of factors, but that genetics likely play some role''' '''a genetic explanation, should one exist, says absolutely nada about policy, "supremacy," how we should treat each other, or really anything else. I also strongly believe that a good faith inquiry into this question (and acceptance of whatever the science reveals) is a purs…

How can there be a genetic difference between genetically invalid (badly defined as you say) concepts? I.e. the concept of race is completely social, there is nothing genetic about it (a person commenting on HN is well withing education threshold to be expected to know this). Yet you allow that someone who believes there might still be genetic factors "somewhere" in these differences is not a (closet) racist ... because they don't call for mass murder and insist the supposedly slightly inferior group should "not be discriminated" (just calling them genetically dumber is enough)?

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

#650

Post by rmc »

gspetr wrote: post #641
rmc wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about local politics? Surely that's dominated by women? What about the politics of a social club, a trade union, or similar groups? Are they all dominated by women? (Answer: No). I'm not sure how you can merge the two theories that "Women are just better at people skills" and "Women aren't better than the best". The whole thesis is claiming that women are as naturally superior at people skills as men are natural…

Women in general used to have better cooking skills than men, but the majority of chefs were male and are still male. Here's a UK survey of chefs: http://www.bighospitality.co.uk/People/Survey-finds-imbalanc...

A lot of the popular fashion designers are men too.

It's almost like there's some sort of social factors which will ensure men get to the top!

Post reply on HN