91–100 of 872 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK, OK. I noticed that the parent link has the same image, so fixed.
Definitely not better man... There are nazi memes and misoginistic memes on the new link.
It is the same link that the parent article is using, at the 3rd to last paragraph with text "and a poll conducted at Google confirms" .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then then why would affirmative action lead to less capable employees?
The OP used the term "qualified" and not "capable". I also find the OP's writing effective as they demonstrate their own conflict and lack of clarity on the topic. Previously in the thread my response is in protest of the reduction both of the OPs related writing and the topic.
looking at the men:women (8:2) ratio in software science at my university in NL, I can perfectly understand where the inbalance in ratio in the workforce comes from. Maybe we should focus on that first? Trying to get a different ratio at the workforce in all companies will effectively mean you will have less qualified women. Assuming a CS university degree is an important qualification.
I do think "diversity initiatives" are like voting in that it's the least amount of effort to put to the issue. I agree with your comment in this sense: I'd like very much for companies to go much further to address the root issues.
I'll repeat this again here: it's very likely he wasn't fired for trying to have a discussion. It is more likely he was fired because he did so by propagating gender stereotypes and doubling-down on those stereotypes (his suggestions for how to improve diversity essentially were just context-specific extensions of these stereotypes), which both almost certainly reduced his credibility as a coworker to the point that…
Well, that's great, because his points on gender differences are actually extensively backed by research. When he's talking about that, he isn't talking about what should be or what can be, he's talking about what is.
Even after clarifying to the poor-intended reader about what is, he still states that more diversity is what should be. He just doesn't agree with the present method.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Upvoted. Thanks for your honesty. I think this forum could benefit from a larger meta discussion about flagging. I believe we could have closed this faster and with less problems if we allowed the debate to happen and only flagged comments -on both sides- that broke hn guidelines. Instead we now have 50 threads and where people are getting increasingly frustrated.
I don't prevent any debating flagging another post saying exactly the same than the last 3 posts (actually I agree with most of the post). You can still comment in the post (I did indeed). I do think people flagged post because they didn't aline with their opinions, but they are in their right. If this is a community site and people decide to flag something, you should accept it (or leave the community if you don't l…
Here's where I accept the current rules but suggest looking into whether flags are given too much weight compared to upvotes.
I know people always want to discuss the merits of the memo -- whether he was right, wrong, or somewhere in between -- but I'd like to have a meta-discussion. I believe the memo is irrelevant not because of its content, but rather because it's embarrassingly reductive. In my opinion, anyone that takes it seriously validates Damore's ultra-reductive approach to social policy -- and this is, I think, unequivocally wron…
Really the above thought is related to the "worth" of views or arguments. I'm not sure there's more than a tenuous link between many practical worths and specialized study in a college.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is not how "affirmative action" works. "Affirmative action" states that if you have two "equally" qualified candidates If you can quantify candidates' capabilities, please start your money printing press.
Then then why would affirmative action lead to less capable employees?
It can happen if the target diversity ratio is different from that of the candidate pool. For example, trying to have software engineer distribution that matches that of the general population, or even just college graduates.
Let's assume men and women are equal in the distribution of their ability to perform tasks required as a software engineer, i.e. same mean, same standard deviation, etc.
Let's also assume the female candidate pool targeted by affirmative action is smaller than that of male candidate pool, i.e. more male applicants than female, hence underrepresented relative to general population.
Let's say the hiring bar is such that top 10% from either gender meets the bar, since the distributions are the same.
Now, if male pool has 1000 applicants, and female pool has 400 applicants, this would mean there are 100 qualified male candidates, and 40 qualified female candidates.
If the company wants 60/40 representation, with the understanding that 50/50 desirable but not probable, as long as the company only needs 100 hires, the company can hit the target without lowering the bar (60 male + 40 female). However, if the company wants to hire more employees and still maintain diversity target, it would be necessary to hire female candidates that are not within the top 10%.
Again, this is assuming the target diversity is _not_ the same as the candidate pool, but rather some other demographics that the company is trying to match (like local population demographics).
Since Google gets so many qualified applicants (and even more applicants in general), most engineers are probably overqualified anyway regardless of gender, so unqualified female engineer is most likely not issue at all. However, more qualified male engineer would be rejected (in the case of 100 hires, 40 male engineers would be rejected vs none for female engineers). And this is probably where the reduced false negative rate for applicants that fall under affirmative action umbrella comes from in Damore's memo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have to say that I flagged one of the other post because I was tired of the topic and there weren't adding anything new. But this one is outstanding.
Upvoted. Thanks for your honesty. I think this forum could benefit from a larger meta discussion about flagging. I believe we could have closed this faster and with less problems if we allowed the debate to happen and only flagged comments -on both sides- that broke hn guidelines. Instead we now have 50 threads and where people are getting increasingly frustrated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't prevent any debating flagging another post saying exactly the same than the last 3 posts (actually I agree with most of the post). You can still comment in the post (I did indeed). I do think people flagged post because they didn't aline with their opinions, but they are in their right. If this is a community site and people decide to flag something, you should accept it (or leave the community if you don't l…
If this is a community site and people decide to flag something, you should accept it (or leave the community if you don't like it). Here's where I accept the current rules but suggest looking into whether flags are given too much weight compared to upvotes.