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

331–340 of 352 posts

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#331

Post by pottersbasilisk »

ucaetano wrote: post #317
macspoofing wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>No, you don't. By your extremely aggressive tone I responded to your patronizing and condescending tone. If you want a civil debate, make an rational argument. When you write: "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." Isn't that the most condescending thing you could write to someone else? You're implying that because I don't…

> Isn't that the most condescending thing you could write to someone else? Wait, I'm admitting my own fault at being able to see the world through other's perspectives, and that's condescending? > Do you? Are you maybe wrong about how you see the world? There's is no right or wrong way to see the world per se. There are just different ways. And yes, I'm usually wrong, I never claimed not to be. > you're lecturing me…

You think you won the argument but all youve done is created 10 more another trump supporters in silicon valley no less.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#332

Post by [deleted] »

ucaetano wrote: post #317
macspoofing wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>No, you don't. By your extremely aggressive tone I responded to your patronizing and condescending tone. If you want a civil debate, make an rational argument. When you write: "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." Isn't that the most condescending thing you could write to someone else? You're implying that because I don't…

> Isn't that the most condescending thing you could write to someone else? Wait, I'm admitting my own fault at being able to see the world through other's perspectives, and that's condescending? > Do you? Are you maybe wrong about how you see the world? There's is no right or wrong way to see the world per se. There are just different ways. And yes, I'm usually wrong, I never claimed not to be. > you're lecturing me…

[deleted]

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#333

Post by notdonspaulding »

zimpenfish wrote: post #293
ambulancechaser wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And as for its impact on you: Do you understand that at this point, I could not in good conscience assign anyone to work with you? I certainly couldn’t assign any women to deal with this, a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face, and even if there were a group of like-minded individuals I could put you with, nobody would be able to collaborate with them. You have just…

I'm not seeing the bit about where he says he'd understand about the people punching him in the face? In fact, he's saying that he wouldn't assign people to work with him for fear of that - which I would take to mean he disagrees with the action.

He's saying that he would keep those of his employees who, when presented with a viewpoint which they consider offensive, would punch their coworkers in the face from having to be in any kind of a working relationship with someone because of the viewpoints which they hold.

He's very clearly siding with the face-punchers.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#334

Post by keerthiko »

dqv wrote: post #284
keerthiko wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A scientific approach to discussing something is not about upholding your view with select studies that back your viewpoint. It's about proposing a hypothesis, then collecting and presenting unbiased studies, observations and data for all sides, and then supporting final inferences and conclusions. The last part is "the message" of a scientific publication (the "why I worked on/wrote this"). Why was his memo unscient…

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/08/07/the_google_a... > the sources linked in this slate article I couldn't find any counter-studies in the article you linked. I tried traversing the sources, but those sources don't have any studies either. Is that the link you intended to post?

You are correct, it was my mistake. The medium article (posted elsewhere and often in response to this) counters several of the points and is reasonably cited. However, I noticed that there are few responses to #1 (the medium author writes "I’ll leave that to someone else" and I haven't found anyone else take that up).

I'll grant that I had a kneejerk reaction of "that can't be accurate" and assumed there must be lots of literature to back me up, but it isn't easy to find it. Personally I neither support nor oppose this manifesto, but I think given the very expectable backlash and damage potential, drawing such concrete conclusions without stronger grounds was a bit too risque to be considered scientific.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#335

Post by notdonspaulding »

dcole2929 wrote: post #81
int_19h wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not the Ex-Google guy with his medium rant about how people would punch him in the face and he would understand. Could you give a link to that rant?

That's a mischaracterization of his argument. Essentially the author argues that right or wrong the manifesto is especially polarizing and the engineer has essentially made it very difficult for him to work with anyone else at Google moving forward. Zunger in no way states that he condones, or suggests the action of punching the manifesto guy in the face, he just outlines it as a possible reaction, of releasing a com…

Yes, we wouldn't want to mischaracterize what the main thrust of someone's message is by putting up a straw man argument and then criticizing them for it. /s

Zunger's response makes it clear that the promulgation of ideas in the memo are unacceptable, but is strangely silent on judging the actions of the hypothetical face-puncher.

And as we now know from Google, taking no action is tantamount to endorsing the opinions of those under you.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#336

Post by kafkaesq »

nxsynonym wrote: post #151
bilbo0s wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think it would be more like if your Son said "what if I called my sister a c-word" and you kicked him out of the house and cut him off completely. I'm not saying you don't have the right to do that, or that in this example your son was right, I just think it would be an over-reaction and would create a chilling effect on your other children from asking questions or thinking about things differently.

From the context it sounds like you're talking about the actions of some hypothetical teenage son, here.

Recall that the employee that was fired is an adult (and apparently in his 30s, at least).

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#337

Post by notdonspaulding »

rbanffy wrote: post #303
flukus wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it was true then yes. If you find reality offensive then that's your problem to deal with.

Is it true?

Yes.

- There are fewer white men in the NBA because they are biologically unsuited to it.

- There are fewer tall fighter pilots because they are biologically unsuited to it.

- There are fewer women as pitchers in the MLB because they are biologically unsuited to it.

These are descriptive statements about reality. The world in which we find ourselves. You may not like that world, you may think we should change the rules of that world, but it is the world as it exists today. Calling it out as such can not rationally be considered offensive.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#338

Post by kafkaesq »

josteink wrote: post #330
kafkaesq wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you didn't actually read it, Did you ever actually read L. Ron Hubbard's seminal work, Dianetics ? I mean, really read it? Cover-to-cover? No, you say? And yet you dismiss it? That's crazy.

> And yet you dismiss it? I don't dismiss it because I have no idea what it's about. I don't approve of it either, for the exact same reasons. Anyhow: You're comparing reading less than 10 pages of large text with generous spacing and numerous illustrations to end-to-end reading a full book almost 500 pages long. You can't be serious.

I don't dismiss it because I have no idea what it's about.

The church he founded was one of the major annoyances of the latter half of the 20th century. If you're interested in the general history of Really Bad Ideas (and how they draw otherwise warm sensitive, intelligent people into their fold), you might want to look into it.

Let's just say I've considered the works of a lot cranks and crackpots, over the years - and a lot of viewpoints that, while not quite in that category, are just muddled and inflammatory and don't have a lot to offer to the discussion. Enough to develop a pretty reliable sense of "smell" as to whether a given piece of work merits further exploration beyond a few paragraphs or so.

So whether or not one thinks he should be fired for it -- his "manifesto" definitely does not pass that smell test.

That's my view. If you view his work differently, that's fine for you.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#339

Post by anon12345690 »

kafkaesq wrote: post #322
anon12345690 wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and here we go -- it wasnt an academic paper but it was completely based on facts. biologically, men and women are different, and they think differently and so no matter how much society and culture impacts you, that biology will ever so slightly bias every decision in your life and may be part of the mismatch in representation between genders. the idea that females and males LIKE different things and its IN PART bas…

So you know that it's entirely possible to write something that's "based on facts" -- with nice diagrams and all! -- yet when we consider the whole cloth of what's being said, it turns out to be fatally flawed -- and basically a load of tripe? That's what this "manifesto" was.

i summarized it right there, what part do you think is flawed?

if you're saying men/women think identically, then there is even no reason for gender diversity because it only becomes physical differences at that point, do you realize that?

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#340

Post by BlackLotus89 »

kafkaesq wrote: post #336
nxsynonym wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it would be more like if your Son said "what if I called my sister a c-word" and you kicked him out of the house and cut him off completely. I'm not saying you don't have the right to do that, or that in this example your son was right, I just think it would be an over-reaction and would create a chilling effect on your other children from asking questions or thinking about things differently.

From the context it sounds like you're talking about the actions of some hypothetical teenage son, here. Recall that the employee that was fired is an adult (and apparently in his 30s, at least).

Yeah he ist talking about the hypthetical son, but obviously not because of the age but because of the relation. The point was rule through fear. (Siblings don't speak up anymore - coworkers don't speak up anymore)

Also yeah he had to bei in his 30th how else would he have gotten his phd? But like I said the age wasn't the point.

Post reply on HN