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

Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 352 posts

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#161

Post by jorgemf »

noncoml wrote: post #88
leereeves wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> unsupported Did you only read the Gizmodo version that removed all the references? Here's a copy with the references: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...

I don't see many references. I just see a lot of stereotyping with no citations at all. Eg: > Women, on average, have more: > ● Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing) > ● Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, hig…

Hey, from the original document (I have added the references for you):

- Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things [1], relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing [2])

- Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.

- Neuroticism [3] (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).

Now what do you think about it, now you know the real references of the article?

[1] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9004....

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathizing%E2%80%93systemizin...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism

EDIT: noncoml I wanted to reply you (but I cann't I don't know why) and apologize because my comment sound like an attack when It wasn't my intention. I just wanted to provide the references and know your opinion. Take your time to check them.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#162

Post by leereeves »

bilbo0s wrote: post #125
nxsynonym wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's kind of the point though. Google is one of, if not the, biggest player in terms of information served over the internet. If they are willing to censor at this level, how far will they go to protect their public image and suppress discussion they don't agree with?

But Google isn't really "censor"-ing anyone. Any more than I "censor" you if you come on to my property and refer to my daughter as the "c"-word. I mean... you can call my daughter whatever you like, I just don't allow you to do it in my house. That's not really censorship no matter how big the house is, that's just something that people should expect to happen. In fact... I think people should find it more strange i…

Google's platform isn't analogous to a house (a private space) it's more like a privately-owned public space.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#163

Post by landon32 »

quickben wrote: post #71
Retric wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is ~70/30 which is not unusual in IT. Women are less than 25% of the tech workforce though the exact numbers depend on what you count as Tech.

I read 80-20 in another article yesterday. But, it's all speculation, they denied that data to DoL.

I'd imagine you could split it in different ways too-- technical employees, employees in the Mountain View office, all employees, etc.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#164

Post by azinman2 »

nxsynonym wrote: post #34
azinman2 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it’s not civil when you suggest there’s inherently biological reasons for your coworkers to be inferior to you.

But it is. Just because he holds one opinion does not mean that he will act on it, expect google to act on it, or cause harm because of it. Ideas don't hurt people. People with no way to voice their ideas and opinions become angry, and then hurt other people.

Guessing you’re not a minority in anyway. When others who aren’t a member of your class tell you anything that’s inherent to your class DOES hurt people... such ideas are often used to restrict what you can do or set you up for failure in society in a particular way because ideas spread. They also do a lot of internal self-harm just from being expressed by others.

It’s bad enough to get that in life in general, but then to get it at work as well....

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#165

Post by MBCook »

macspoofing wrote: post #65
ucaetano wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am surprised how big this 'manifesto' got. Is it really that big of a deal that it I'd guess that you feel that way because you're not affected by the issues discussed in the essay. I've been there myself, it takes a lot of time and effort to understand the real impact of something that doesn't impact yourself. Also, please don't think that I'm judging you or saying that you're a bad person because of it. We all…

>I'd guess that you feel that way because you're not affected by the issues discussed in the essay. I don't work at Google, so I'm not. The manifesto itself is controversial in that if you poll the plurality of the population or employees of Google on whether they agree with some or all of it, you won't have consensus, I'm sure of it. >I've been there myself, it takes a lot of time and effort to understand the real i…

I think what the GP meant is that if you're a young white guy this all seems a bit accedemic because your job isn't in direct question. Perhaps it would be harder to get hired in the future.

If you're in a minority being questioned (women here, could be a racial group, age range, etc) people are directly questioning your ability and implying you aren't fit for your job. It looks like a much more personal attack.

So they're a lot more incentivised share/discuss it.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#166

Post by WalterSear »

protomyth wrote: post #141
WalterSear wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I have been told, he posted this to an internal list specifically created to provide a place for frank, open discussion of contentious, diversity related topics.

As Netscape discovered[1], there is no such thing as an internal list or e-mail[2]. People would be well advised not to believe in such things even if they are presented as such. 1) https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0O3ZRp... (cache version) 2) http://lilly.tumblr.com/post/11230723028/steve-jobs

By internal, I didn't mean he had any expectation of secure privacy, but that he was writing for a specific audience, and that what he wrote was essentially being taken out of context.

People are portraying it like he posted it on the cafeteria bulletin board. That was someone else's doing, trying (and succeeding) in punishing him.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#167

Post by JSONwebtoken »

runako wrote: post #111
nxsynonym wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's kind of the point though. Google is one of, if not the, biggest player in terms of information served over the internet. If they are willing to censor at this level, how far will they go to protect their public image and suppress discussion they don't agree with?

> suppress discussion they don't agree with Worth noting: he could post this publicly on Google+, Blogspot, or any other Google platform. It's only his paycheck that's being suppressed, his views are not.

I doubt it. The women threatening to quit over twitter would still do the same thing if a social media post attached to his name and job went viral.

Make no mistake, it's his views that he was fired over, not the medium in which he shared them. Google made no indication otherwise.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#168

Post by noncoml »

onli wrote: post #140
noncoml wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see many references. I just see a lot of stereotyping with no citations at all. Eg: > Women, on average, have more: > ● Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing) > ● Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, hig…

The very exact text you are citing has links that lead to sources. Why would you ignore them?

OK, I see now. I was expecting citations in the usual academic-paper form as they were in other parts of the document. Didn't notice they were inline links. My bad.

Thanks for correcting me.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#169

Post by phinnaeus »

sidlls wrote: post #99
leereeves wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> unsupported Did you only read the Gizmodo version that removed all the references? Here's a copy with the references: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...

Those references are actually the opposite of helpful to his case. And, in fact, as a biologist he ought to know better than to apply the generalizations he refers to to specific populations or individuals.

Isn't the article basically all about how we should avoid applying generalizations to specific individuals?

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#170

Post by brighteyes »

runako wrote: post #95
eco wrote: post #19

> Media outlets like TechCrunch, Gizmodo and Motherboard jumped on board to declare the memo an “Anti-Diversity Manifesto.” It appears that the ideological echo chamber extends beyond Google’s campus. As I look up and see this article flagged on HN (since unflagged). The points and ideas from his memo may be wrong or they may be right (or anywhere in between) but more important than this incident has been the reactio…

> I don't understand the attempts at shutting down conversation about it To try to shed a little light on this phenomenon, the "it" you refer to expands to "why women and minorities may be biologically less qualified for this job, and those that are here as our teammates are illegitimate in some way." Using the expansion in your paragraph: ===== I don't understand the attempts at shutting down conversation about why…

It is a serious problem if people are hearing that - by which I mean, if many people understand the document one way, and many people understand it in a completely different way, then how can we even communicate as a society?
Post reply on HN