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

101–110 of 872 posts

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#101

Post by koonsolo »

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 once had a colleague who had the following theory: "Some actions let you doubt whether a person is either a brilliant genius, or a complete idiot. Most of the time, it's the second."

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#102

Post by jorgemf »

reitanqild wrote: post #19
jorgemf wrote: post #9

Completely right. I hope this is not banned because it is worth the read.

Whichever side you are on this is probably the most important topic discussed in this forum this week. It is also very interesting to a large number of the audience. Yet sadly there seems to be a number of people here who think they have a right to overrule everyone who upvote (and no, I'm not talking about the mods but about the flaggers.)

Now in the second page. so sad...

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#103

Post by nippples »

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…

It looks like a cunning plan because it doesn't look like it's going to turn out he's going to be forever unemployed after expressing concern about a monoculture, getting extensively character-assassinated by the circus media and coworkers, and expressly fired?

How many steps ahead did he see exactly?

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#104

Post by panda88888 »

ramensea wrote: post #65
jeswin wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It really just comes down to the difficulty in assessing candidate capability and predict future performance. Couple that with pressure from executive to improve diversity numbers, reinforce it with bonus tied to hitting diversity numbers, now there's a lot of incentives to hire minority candidate that's good enough and pass on a stronger, non-minority candidate (better by how much, who knows? Interviews are notoriously unreliable indicator of future job performance anyway). :P

Edit: note that if the minority candidate is as strong or stronger than non-minority candidate, it is a no-brainer decision and win-win for all involved. :)

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#105

Post by whitemale »

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.

> through his memo, has created a hostile workplace for women at Google.

Can you point out the part of his memo that created a hostile environment for women?

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#106

Post by panda88888 »

steveeq1 wrote: post #26

> That leaked internal memo from James Damore at Google? The one that says one shouldn’t expect employees in all professions to reflect the demographics of the whole population? I don't see how this is an unreasonable argument to make. There is a dearth of male kindergarten teachers, for instance. This doesn't mean the school is being "sexist". It might just mean that certain genders tend to be attracted to certain t…

Playing the devil's advocate...it could mean the school is being "sexist"

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#107

Post by imminentviolet »

Johnny555 wrote: post #29
steveeq1 wrote: post #26

> That leaked internal memo from James Damore at Google? The one that says one shouldn’t expect employees in all professions to reflect the demographics of the whole population? I don't see how this is an unreasonable argument to make. There is a dearth of male kindergarten teachers, for instance. This doesn't mean the school is being "sexist". It might just mean that certain genders tend to be attracted to certain t…

Or it might mean that certain genders tend to be dissuaded from pursuing certain career paths.

So what? There are some barriers, implicit and explicit, that are perfectly appropriate. Some of them serve a higher purpose, like reinforcing gender archetypes and standards of behavior that are productive in the long run in their own ways. Why should we be so quick to demolish those because a few loud mouths want to destroy them? If exceptional people really have something to offer in areas where they are shunned for other reasons, let them brave the consequences. Tearing down the entire social structure to cater to a minority who thinks too highly of themselves anyway is a poor trade off.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#108

Post by nippples »

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…

The confusion comes in the lack of distinction between software programming and software design in these discussions. The former values mathematical thinking, the latter values understanding how much the user will fuck things up for everyone.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#109

Post by ebola1717 »

mberning wrote: post #66
yellowapple wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Developing is communicating, especially at a large company like Google. Anytime you're building a new feature, you have to reach out to stakeholders, write docs, and build consensus. I've been working as an engineer for years, and I've progressively spent less time coding and more time consensus building. The staff engineers I know spend even more of their time doing that, not to mention mentoring other teams, reviewing technical designs, etc.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#110

Post by michaelchisari »

jorgemf wrote: post #77
bendmorris wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't know if I understand you. We have the situation we have today because "biases and unequal opportunities".

I think the person you're responding to is assuming that we are already at a decently fair equilibrium, and that diversity and other concepts and goals are disrupting that equilibrium. I think the biggest failure of communication around these issues is that a lot of people arguing against these programs are coming at it from the just world hypothesis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

Post reply on HN