381–390 of 872 posts
But more importantly, if you're going to walk the path of claiming that some of your coworkers are biologically unsuited for their roles, you'd best be sure your research and reasoning are ironclad. There's no "just starting a discussion" on such a topic.
Certainly much better than a lot of the outrage that's been going on. A couple of nits: > I know most of Google’s work is people-centric. Hmmm...is that really so? Last I checked a lot of Google's code output and value-generation is backend-y, with very little interaction with humans. Google is also notoriously bad-mediocre at UX, though this has improved lately. > Assuming that job skills and performance can be dedu…
> Last I checked a lot of Google's code output and value-generation is backend-y, with very little interaction with humans. Honest question: When was the last time you checked Google's code output and how it was accomplished? Have you worked at Google for an extended period? I've worked at Google for many years, on more projects than one can count on 2 hands, and in my experience this commonly held stereotype about w…
From the skill perspective, sure, you need all this interaction (and the skills for it) to succeed. However, if you look at the time spent, some roles and career paths will spend 80% of their time working with machines, and some will spend like 80% of their time with people - and this expectation on how they'll spend most of their working day will make some of these paths (un)attractive to some of the people, in proportions that are highly correlated with gender.
IMO the best comment from there: Giulio Prisco said... The results of this incident are easy to predict. Now everyone at Google (and everyone in large tech companies, and everyone in academy) knows that they can be fired for expressing opinions that dissent from the party line. Of course they'll shut up for fear of losing their job and the means to support their family. But they won't change their position. If anythi…
And when the consequences become obvious, the media will continue to complain about how shitty Western men are and how we need to crack down on them hard and fast. And it'll just keep snowballing, unless people realize we need to stop and try talking with people we disagree with, instead of doing our best to crush their every outlet to express themselves before they grow bitter and reactionary. The media can't stop t…
The left does want the power not the talking.
IMO the best comment from there: Giulio Prisco said... The results of this incident are easy to predict. Now everyone at Google (and everyone in large tech companies, and everyone in academy) knows that they can be fired for expressing opinions that dissent from the party line. Of course they'll shut up for fear of losing their job and the means to support their family. But they won't change their position. If anythi…
After this, although I disagree with the engineer, I don't think that Google is the kind of company I would want to work for.
This event is eerily reminiscent of a comment I made on HN 2 months ago about big corporations and suppression of free speech (see last line): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14527934
I think that if these companies get too big and keep suppressing free speech, eventually they will get mutinied from the inside.
Hilary Clinton lost to a pussy graber you don't have to be a Google employee with PhD to see the world for what it is.
You see... two people can play that game. If anything, a pro-trump person could have used that same sentence of yours to demonstrate the opposite sentiment. Don't attribute biases to situations that are nothing other than complete and utter incompetence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Note that men and women typically present themselves differently on CVs and in selection criteria, with men typically giving themselves credit for work done in teams while women typically talk about the teams they were part of. This would easily explain why blind resumes resulted in a larger proportion of men being selected. edit: to contrast with the orchestra scenario, a resume is not a skill test, while an auditio…
Interesting hypothesis, but apparently not what happened: "The trial found assigning a male name to a candidate made them 3.2 per cent less likely to get a job interview. Adding a woman's name to a CV made the candidate 2.9 per cent more likely to get a foot in the door." http://abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to...
* People aware of this will prefer otherwise identical CVs with female names (expectation is the underlying candidate is stronger, just more modest)
* Blind hiring will get you more men (because hiring managers can't correct for the male/female difference in self promotion anymore)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I absolutely agree that agreeing with the memo doesn't make someone a far right extremist, and I don't believe I ever stated or insinuated that. That's a bit of a non-sequitur, though. This is the exact point I was referring to: they won't change their position. If anything, their position will be radicalized. For example, from classical liberal to alt-right. This is been a common sort of mantra since Trump won the p…
Do you think the author will be radicalized? When I try to empathize with Damore the alt-right looks welcoming while liberals look very unwelcoming. I could see myself being drawn towards the group that accepts me (or doesn't attack me). That's the process that I assumed from the radicalization idea. Have I missed the mark?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I made the grave mistake of trying to express that point on Twitter. Twitter seems to be a poor vehicle for nuanced debate at the best of time, but it's a dumpster fire right now full of raging people who don't understand what you've just said. I was in SV last year for a couple of months during the election, and everyone I met were all paid up members of the church of political correctness up front, but when you spo…
> "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum" "What kind of freedom is there inside a corporation? They’re totalitarian institutions – you take orders from above and maybe give them to people below you. There’s about as much freedom as under Stalinism." Amen to that.
I think this assumption is made by most people but unfortunately simply filling slots based on socially constructed identity labels does not seem to be effective in addressing underlying inequalities.
For instance, we have had "race" based affirmative action policies for universities for decades but very limited effect in having those policies translate into balancing income and wealth gaps between socially constructed race groups. In fact those gaps have widened considerably over the past couple decades.
I think that people still fail to understand the extent of sub-conscious prejudice and fail to understand that the programs they are putting in place to try to solve inequalities between socially constructed identity groups are actually reinforcing the underlying causes of those inequalities instead of eliminating them.