Outraged about the Google diversity memo? • Hacker News Board

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#61

Post by mirimir » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 5:03 AM UTC

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.

Well, some would argue that many CEOs ought to be in prison ;)

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#62

Post by dahart » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 5:03 AM UTC

supremesaboteur wrote: post #42

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 other…

> Claim bearers are burdened with proof.

I think that was her point...

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#63

Post by etchalon » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 5:03 AM UTC

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.

I generally reserve my donations to people whom are struck by tradegy, not the eminently employable and well educated who fail to think through their actions.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#64

Post by aianus » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 5:03 AM UTC

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.

He'll likely argue that he was whistleblowing on discriminatory hiring practices and was fired in retaliation. He may even have proof that Google won't want aired out in court and they'll settle.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#65

Post by ramensea » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 5:04 AM UTC

jeswin wrote: post #22

ramensea wrote: post #8

I agree that the left and the rights reaction over the memo has been overblown. However I am unsure whether or not you think the Googler's opinion is novel. You state both, "that Damore’s skepticism about current practices is widespread" and "imperfect his attempt, he was fired, in short, for thinking on his own". As someone who works in the tech industry let me tell you his beliefs were not novel. Its a commonly hel…

> This is not how "affirmative action" works. "Affirmative action" states that if you have two "equally" qualified candidates you favor the least represented in your society or company. Thus there should be no added risk. Your definition of affirmative action is not entirely accurate. Affirmative action does not kick in merely as a tie-breaker. In practice, affirmative action almost always causes a better qualified p…

I don't think you're correct. However I do not have a lot of experience hiring people, so I can only argue over the philosophy of the subject.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#66

Post by mberning » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 5:04 AM UTC

yellowapple wrote: post #38

mberning wrote: post #13

I like the discussion. I think the point about software being significantly "people centric" is a bit off base and betrays the authors lack of experience in the field. Working with people is certainly part of the job and in some roles maybe a large portion of the work. Being a good communicator is an important part of being a good developer, but it doesn't make you a good developer. Being a talented and experienced p…

Being a talented and experienced developer means interacting with people, though. Knowing how to program is half the battle; knowing why is the other half, and that's hard to do if you don't understand the perspectives of your users/customers/coworkers/etc.

Knowing how to program is most of the battle. Being a good communicator helps. If your predominant skill was dealing with people you would be working as a BA, PM, or other similar role. Most businesses aren't stupid enough to pay a developer salary to somebody not actually doing development.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#67

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 5:05 AM UTC

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.

[deleted]

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#68

Post by etchalon » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 5:05 AM UTC

chrischen wrote: post #3

mef wrote: post #2

Yet another take on the diversity memo that doesn't mention the systemic sexism that the 50/50 target is intended to offset. The closest she gets is saying that having more women in the field will make their presence unremarkable, which will reduce bias. But what about the institutionalized sexism that prevents so many more women from ever getting anywhere near a job at Google in the first place?

Offsetting masks the problem and makes it harder to focus on or identify the institutionalized sexism. Think about it: if you successfully offset the problem, it’d just entrench the root causes making everything seem erroneously fine, or normalizing instituionalized sexist behavior.

That does doesn't make any sense.

If the problem exists due to an imbalance, an offset can improve it.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#69

Post by bendmorris » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 5:07 AM UTC

jorgemf wrote: post #54

bendmorris wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

She means that aiming to 50-50 doesn't represent the skills set. As women are more skilled for that job they should have more representation (based on the biological theory). If it is a 50-50 you are promoting men in the positions when you shouldn't. (the disadvantaged group here are the men)

You're missing my point. If women would naturally have more representation and were disadvantaged by this policy, and the policy was 100% effective (unheard of), their representation would drop from >50% to 50% - it wouldn't somehow switch to women being significantly underrepresented. This assertion doesn't make sense based on the actual situation we have today.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#70

Post by pacala » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 5:07 AM UTC

etchalon wrote: post #52

pacala wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Institutional discrimination programs aimed at countering the effects of institutionalized discrimination.

* institutionalized discrimination: Policies that explicitly favor one group over another based on phenotype differences. For example, Jim Crow laws or "diversity" hiring policies.

* "institutionalized discrimination": The hypothesis that society is skewed by the vast conspiracy of "bias". For example, for the past 10 years, computer science graduation rates skew under 20% / 80% for female / male graduates [0]. Presumably females are kept down by "bias".

[0] http://www.randalolson.com/2014/06/14/percentage-of-bachelor.... Does anyone have more recent data than 2012? I've remember skimming a link recently...