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

181–190 of 352 posts

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#181

Post by onli »

noncoml wrote: post #168
onli wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're welcome :)

If you are a bit interested in more references (those claims sound horrible, but they are not as far-fetched as they sound), have a look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n691pLhQBkw. It's a presentation by Steven Pinker that explains a lot about what science actually has to say about biological differences, and in an aside at the end even mentions stereotypes.

I already mentioned it in a subthread to this post, no harm intended.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#182

Post by fucktech »

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…

Cunt. Use your big boy words

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#183

Post by fucktech »

amyjess wrote: post #138
paapi__gudiya wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This whole episode has been so disgusting and shows how regressive and authoritarian the mainstream tech community is. People can't work with someone because he has a different point of view about injustice in the society and has the courage to voice it respectfully? They would resort to violence against someone because they have a different point of view? If you can resort to violence against someone and get away wi…

As a woman, I could not work with an outspoken misogynist. As a lesbian, I could not work with an outspoken homophobe. As a Jew, I could not work with an outspoken antisemite. Forcing minorities and women to work with people who are bigoted against them is a recipe for a lawsuit.

You sound like a cunt. I am being outspoken and misogynistic for calling you this. Not the other guy. Stop being a cunt.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#184

Post by ticviking »

gobugat wrote: post #147
IMTDb wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sooner or later, one must take a stand, which is exactly what Google executives just did. Exactly but then in the statement, don't pretend people should have the ability to speak their mind freely. By firing the guy they basically closed that door entirely, they choose to inflict the maximum penalty they legally could on a guy that wrote an internal memo. Google executives basically just said: "Anyone expressing an…

> "You may agree with the manifesto author or not, but his thought were articulate. He provided evidence for his theories and at no point was he needlessly insulting to anyone. " No, no, and no. Asserting that half of humanity is incapable of taking on pressure and responsibility is insulting, and suggesting that his rant was articulate or evidenced shows a serious lack of basic humanity. Strong words, but as I said,…

> Asserting that half of humanity is incapable of taking on pressure and responsibility is insulting

Where in his manifesto did he say that?

I've read it through a few times, and nowhere does he say that.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#185

Post by mrarg »

gobugat wrote: post #147
IMTDb wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sooner or later, one must take a stand, which is exactly what Google executives just did. Exactly but then in the statement, don't pretend people should have the ability to speak their mind freely. By firing the guy they basically closed that door entirely, they choose to inflict the maximum penalty they legally could on a guy that wrote an internal memo. Google executives basically just said: "Anyone expressing an…

> "You may agree with the manifesto author or not, but his thought were articulate. He provided evidence for his theories and at no point was he needlessly insulting to anyone. " No, no, and no. Asserting that half of humanity is incapable of taking on pressure and responsibility is insulting, and suggesting that his rant was articulate or evidenced shows a serious lack of basic humanity. Strong words, but as I said,…

> Asserting that half of humanity is incapable of taking on pressure and responsibility is insulting [...]

That is actually what he is trying extra hard to explain that he is _not_ asserting (if you go read the thing).

It's basically what he is spending the first few pages trying to be absolutely clear about. The overlapping normal distribution curves is a very immediate way to visualise it, but an excerpt will have to do:

"Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions."

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#186

Post by sevilo »

ithilglin909 wrote: post #52

Here, here. I’m a software engineer who happens to be a woman. Mr. Damore's piece didn’t offend me at all. There were parts I agreed with and parts I didn’t agree with. I’m more bothered by Google’s response(s) which seemed to reveal an incredible lack of critical reading ability, and far more disturbed by the levels of harshly enforced group-think that seem to increasingly dominate supposedly intelligent circles.

same here, I am a software engineer who happen to be a woman. There are things I don't agree in Damore's article. But that's just his opinion and that's okay. However I have no words to describe how frustrated I am to see media twisting and portraying him into this pure sexist, using words like "Anti-diversity" in their headlines just to get views.

And what's even more frustrating is Google's response of firing him. It makes me scared of working in the tech industry, luckily, I am a "minority" in both gender and race. Yet I can't help but wonder, if someday I speak up about my different views than the vast majority of my company, am I going to get fired for it?

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#187

Post by TheTruestKyle »

As someone who is looking for a job, but does not particularly agree with most people in tech or even on HN, how would you approach looking for a job and interviewing knowing that you are apart of a minority and can be ostracized for not having the same viewpoints?

This is getting scary.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#188

Post by zbobet2012 »

gobugat wrote: post #147
IMTDb wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sooner or later, one must take a stand, which is exactly what Google executives just did. Exactly but then in the statement, don't pretend people should have the ability to speak their mind freely. By firing the guy they basically closed that door entirely, they choose to inflict the maximum penalty they legally could on a guy that wrote an internal memo. Google executives basically just said: "Anyone expressing an…

> "You may agree with the manifesto author or not, but his thought were articulate. He provided evidence for his theories and at no point was he needlessly insulting to anyone. " No, no, and no. Asserting that half of humanity is incapable of taking on pressure and responsibility is insulting, and suggesting that his rant was articulate or evidenced shows a serious lack of basic humanity. Strong words, but as I said,…

But he didn't do that. At all.

He opens _and closes_ with:

> Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.

He even includes a chart to show the amount of overlap between the curves (high) and directly argues against applying traits towards individual behavior.

Let's phrase this another way if I state that if you are "black" (sub-Saharan African) in origin you have a higher likelyhood of Sickle-cell is that racist?

No. It is a _population_, _average_ difference.

Now the _science he cites_ (women are more prone to Neuroticism) is less well settled. That's something to disagree with.

But if its insulting to even have a discussion that the population of women, on average, show different traits then men what discussion _can be had_? Can we even talk about diseases that are more likely to affect women? What's okay?

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#189

Post by brighteyes »

vkou wrote: post #101
coldtea wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author was fired because some issues are considered thought crimes and you have to go with the mainstream opinion.

For a clear-cut example: Is calling my co-workers who are people of colour racial slurs a thought crime? Should I be fired for that, or should my employer tolerate it? Should I be allowed to make remarks about how evolutionary psychology tells me that women should be in the kitchen? Or that African Americans are predisposed to crime? At what point does saying things stops becoming thought crime, and starts becoming '…

To try to give a reasoned answer: there must be limits. And the limits will always be somewhat arbitrary. But the limits implied by Google's actions are clearly unreasonable in two ways:

1. I agree we should not allow racial slurs, or Nazi symbols, etc. We can do that because the vast majority of society disapproves of them. But the opinions in the document are not in that status: they are mostly rejected by progressives, debated by centrists, and mostly accepted by conservatives. In other words, Google has sent a signal of "you can't work here if you're not a progressive", and that's harmful on a societal level, because while we can have a functioning society after kicking out Nazis and people saying slurs, can we thrive if we have separate corporations for progressives and conservatives? No, we have to find a way to work together. Google's actions were a blow against such cooperation.

2. Saying that average group differences exist is a scientific fact (there are debates about where the differences lie, what they mean, what caused them, etc. but that some exist is long settled). And just acknowledging their existence seems to be what got this person fired, after others - including Google leadership - misunderstood average group differences to mean "one group is inferior to another".

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#190

Post by protomyth »

WalterSear wrote: post #166
protomyth wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> By internal, I meant a limited audience.

Well, It surely did not work out that way, and I stand by my caution to folks that however its defined (limited audience, private list, etc.) there will be someone to spread it beyond the original intended audience.

Post reply on HN