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

Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

backreaction.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 872 posts

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#41

Post by jorgemf »

riffraff wrote: post #25
btilly wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll take up that challenge with https://www.edge.org/response-detail/10670 which provides quantitative data indicating that male abilities vary more than female ones, and this fact is sufficient to explain why men should be overrepresented in CEO boardrooms and prisons.

funny, I have no idea if this is true, but this was the "common knowledge" among hunting/truffle dogs breeders when I was a kid. Something like "if you want a good nosed dog get a female pup, if you get a male it might be a champion, or terrible". It would be fun if this was true, and also applied to people.

If it based on the genes because of the chromosome X and Y then I think there is no reason why it wouldn't apply to any specie with chromosomes X Y.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#42

Post by supremesaboteur »

This article also has a few problems

> I believe for example if it wasn’t for biases and unequal opportunities, then the higher ranks in science and politics would be dominated by women. Hence, aiming at a 50-50 representation gives men an unfair advantage. I challenge you to provide any evidence to the contrary.

Claim bearers are burdened with proof. Otherwise I can say 'I claim it is not so and if you believe otherwise you provide evidence to the contrary' and we would be a bunch of children shouting nonsense

> I’m not remotely surprised, however, that Damore naturally assumes the differences between typically female and male traits mean that men are more skilled.

He didn't say that

> The biggest problem with Damore’s memo however is that he doesn’t understand what makes a company successful. If a significant fraction of employees think that diversity is important, then it is important. No further justification is needed for this.

No, what makes a company successful is the positive impact it has on employees, customers, the communities it operates in and shareholders

> Biases and unequal opportunities are real. (If you doubt that, you are a problem and should do some reading.)

Why assume your readers can only reach conclusions if they are dumb ? Why not point out the specific readings that you have done ?

> And let us be clear that, yes, such policies mean every once in a while you will not hire the most skilled person for a job. Therefore, a value judgement must be made here, not a logical deduction from data

Value judgements should also be subject to logical deductions

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#43

Post by bendmorris »

mirimir wrote: post #4

This is an excellent discussion. I especially love this comment: > I believe for example if it wasn’t for biases and unequal opportunities, then the higher ranks in science and politics would be dominated by women. Hence, aiming at a 50-50 representation gives men an unfair advantage. I challenge you to provide any evidence to the contrary. Because arguably that's where gender differences highlighted in Damore's memo…

>I believe for example if it wasn’t for biases and unequal opportunities, then the higher ranks in science and politics would be dominated by women. Hence, aiming at a 50-50 representation gives men an unfair advantage.

This makes zero sense considering the reality that women are underrepresented. "Aiming at 50-50 representation" could at best lift the disadvantaged group closer to 50% representation. It could in no way cause an underrepresented group to dominate a field.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#44

Post by pacala »

mirimir wrote: post #4

This is an excellent discussion. I especially love this comment: > I believe for example if it wasn’t for biases and unequal opportunities, then the higher ranks in science and politics would be dominated by women. Hence, aiming at a 50-50 representation gives men an unfair advantage. I challenge you to provide any evidence to the contrary. Because arguably that's where gender differences highlighted in Damore's memo…

Feel free to work towards changing "bias" towards the distribution you think is more proper and see if it indeed proves the point of "the higher ranks in science and politics would be dominated by women". You'll need a concrete way to measure and quantify "bias". No, workforce representation is not a measure of "bias". That is the unproven hypothesis and using it is merely circular reasoning.

Meanwhile, consider that "diversity" programs are institutionalized discrimination.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#45

Post by SolaceQuantum »

btilly wrote: post #16
mirimir wrote: post #4

This is an excellent discussion. I especially love this comment: > I believe for example if it wasn’t for biases and unequal opportunities, then the higher ranks in science and politics would be dominated by women. Hence, aiming at a 50-50 representation gives men an unfair advantage. I challenge you to provide any evidence to the contrary. Because arguably that's where gender differences highlighted in Damore's memo…

I'll take up that challenge with https://www.edge.org/response-detail/10670 which provides quantitative data indicating that male abilities vary more than female ones, and this fact is sufficient to explain why men should be overrepresented in CEO boardrooms and prisons.

I'm actually curious because I would think that even at higher levels, assuming the majority of women are stable performers and a minority of men are top producers there should only be a slight bump in the male representation in areas where "female" skills are paramount like CEO boardrooms, with the few men being he outlier performances. It would be the reverse problem of why it's unreasonable to say "we should go for 50/50 when the population representation is 20/80".

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#46

Post by anabis »

l33tbro wrote: post #12

Okay, slipping into my bomb-squad EOD suit to comment on this topic. But, seriously, the more I read about Damore, the more it seems like this was a cunning plan to get fired and then sue the roller-hockey pants off Sergey Brin and Co. While much has been made of a Harvard education being no substitute for social intelligence, Damore is no slouch and really does just seem like a disgruntled employee who devised an al…

The timing of going to NLRB made it look like emergency maneuvers to me. If I were him, I would also have copied e-mails and forum posts like crazy, but I am wondering what the level of security at Google is.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#47

Post by anabis »

kevincrane wrote: post #40
anabis wrote: post #21

Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers being fired in 2006 showed that there could be no rational discussion of this topic. Sad to see it unchanged in 2017. Doubly sad because if the anonymous survey linked in the post is true, 1/3 of Googlers agree with the memo. Only 1/3 "strongly disagree", and the people who wanted him fired should be a further fraction of that 1/3. https://basicgestalt.wordpress.com/2017/08/06/pr…

I mean, you linked to a white supremacist's blog to prove your point. Is that a good case for your argument?

OK, OK. I noticed that the parent link has the same image, so fixed.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#48

Post by etchalon »

l33tbro wrote: post #12

Okay, slipping into my bomb-squad EOD suit to comment on this topic. But, seriously, the more I read about Damore, the more it seems like this was a cunning plan to get fired and then sue the roller-hockey pants off Sergey Brin and Co. While much has been made of a Harvard education being no substitute for social intelligence, Damore is no slouch and really does just seem like a disgruntled employee who devised an al…

I'm never sure I buy the 3D chess argument.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#49

Post by Zpalmtree »

freespeech9009 wrote: post #15

Please consider donating to help get James Damore back on his feet and gainfully employed again: https://www.wesearchr.com/bounties/james-damore-official-fun... This could have been any of us.

While I feel bad for the guy, he was working at google. Provided he didn't hire hookers every night, I think he'll have a decent amount of money till he finds a new job.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#50

Post by tyingq »

Johnny555 wrote: post #27
l33tbro wrote: post #12

Okay, slipping into my bomb-squad EOD suit to comment on this topic. But, seriously, the more I read about Damore, the more it seems like this was a cunning plan to get fired and then sue the roller-hockey pants off Sergey Brin and Co. While much has been made of a Harvard education being no substitute for social intelligence, Damore is no slouch and really does just seem like a disgruntled employee who devised an al…

While his plan may be to sue, what grounds do you think he can sue for? There's no right to free speech in the work place. If he was fired for something he wrote on his private blog, or discussed with coworkers at an off-site bar, that might be different. If he does sue, Google will have little problem showing that the employee, through his memo, has created a hostile workplace for women at Google.

>While his plan may be to sue, what grounds do you think he can sue for?

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14967987

Post reply on HN