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

451–460 of 872 posts

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#451

Post by GVIrish »

sheepmullet wrote: post #275
GVIrish wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When has that ever not been the case in the workplace? Every workplace has norms and values where someone who runs afoul of them may be fired. Norms change over time. There was a time when it would've been okay to use the 'n' word to insult black people in many work places, now it's not okay. There was a time when lewd and demeaning talk about women was ok in the workplace, now it's not. The people who sign the check…

The difference is senior leadership lying through their teeth about valuing diversity of opinion.

But surely not all opinions are welcome in the workplace. If someone spread a document that said, 'we shouldn't hire muslims because we can't trust their loyalties', surely expressing that opinion would merit firing.

And there's also the question of how opinions are expressed. When you post something publicly for wide distribution, there's much less room to walk things back or to discreetly talk through things. Damore intended for his document to have impact, which it did. But that also means that if the impact is negative it's more likely to lead to his dismissal.

I'm not sure he should have been fired in this case but I can see why it was done.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#452

Post by rayiner »

jondubois wrote: post #405
_b8r0 wrote: post #183

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…

Whenever you have a discussion about a topic in which people feel personally invested, their reasoning skills drop and their sentiment analysis ability goes up.

Explains the sloppy reasoning of the Google Memo perfectly.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#453

Post by tednoob »

OscarCunningham wrote: post #350
tednoob wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have to know the target? Correct for bias you have, then question what it is upstream that is creating that bias.

How do we correct for the bias if we don't know what the unbiased state would look like?

Frankly I do not see how 50/50, or any fixed number, can be a representation of the unbiased state. The unbiased state is unknown.

If you look at what the orchestra did and remove factors you know are irrelevant for the applicants then you should move towards a more unbiased state independent of what the number actually is. The problem is to find out what bias you have. One way is to compare the people who apply with the people you hire. You can see what traits you select on, then you can decide if you think those traits are good or bad.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#454

Post by throwanem »

protomyth wrote: post #394
archagon wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it disturbing that somebody would even consider switching to the alt-right over this. Do people not have deeply-held beliefs anymore? Personally, that is a line that I would never , under any circumstance, cross, even if I was the one who got fired and blacklisted. It is a non-negotiable position.

It’s not that someone would switch to the alt-right, it’s that the definition of belief is moving the line so others are defining you as alt-right. As an example, Ben Shapiro is by statements and beliefs not alt-right. He was attacked by them quite a bit. Yet, people have started calling him alt-right in media and forums. I too would never cross that line, but I believe others will be happy to redraw that line regard…

"Alt-right" means "Nazi" now. It didn't always. Somebody dragged Richard Spencer out from whatever rock he lives under and into the public eye, specifically for the purpose of changing that meaning - or, as you have it, moving that line.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#455

Post by TeMPOraL »

doubleshame wrote: post #410
TeMPOraL wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see yet another problem: if you're a rational person who happens to hold wrong beliefs on the topic, you will have less chance to discover and correct your mistake, because the only way the others are willing to engage with you is with stupidity and violence. This low standard of discourse hurts everyone.

Except... wait for it... the employer: Google. Employees at work: shouldn't be discussing issues that distract them; shouldn't be socializing with each other because work and personal life should obviously be separate; they should just keep their heads down and keep working. There's no doubting that all recent controvertial topics have led to the ideas that: divide up society into individuals afraid to express their…

Recent discussions have unearthed this plot twist: Google soliticed employees' opinion on the topic. They asked people what they think, then sacked an employee who did what they asked.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#456

Post by marchenko »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #366
Lukasa wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He was very clear that he was talking about the group not any individuals. Since when does that excuse anything? If he'd written "Jews are, in general, hateful monsters. Not the Jews who work here, they're great, but most of the rest" does that statement become acceptable? More importantly , Mr Damore does not know all the women at Google personally. He cannot. So when he says "In general, women are less suited to/…

> he cannot possibly implicitly mean "but clearly that does not apply to every woman currently employed at Google, who were all hired because they are the best in the world at their jobs" He clearly can , were it not for affirmative actions - if you assume perfect recruitment based on merit, you can expect everyone accepted to be suitable for the role. But in this case you'll also find, as the memo author explained q…

I think that the media and Google itself did a horrible disservice to the memo author in mis-representing his words, and I'm fairly certain they did so on purpose and will continue to do so. However, to be charitable to googlers offended by the memo:

If the author asserted in the memo that Google practices discriminatory hiring practices ("Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate" is the only relevant language I encountered), wouldn't that imply that some members of Group X currently employed at Google are less qualified than the members of Group Y who were discriminated against? Otherwise it would seem we are discussing a situation where tiebreaks tend to be decided in favor of the current minority group, or recruitment efforts for underrepresented groups are more intensive. The "lower the bar" phrase would seem to imply that he believes there are different standards in effect for selecting current employees.

The memo author's point about differing interest distributions does not necessarily imply anything about ability differences in the current Google employee pool, but claiming discriminatory hiring practices might.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#457

Post by tchaffee »

jernfrost wrote: post #400

Great perspective. As a Northern European having dealt with American company ownership I don't think the main problem in Google's case was political correctness but rather a general American problem with how free speech is defined in the US. Freedom in America is always about government NOT doing something, while in Europe government is defined as a protector of these freedoms. This shows up clearly with respect to s…

As much as I think the standard of living in Europe is better than in the US (having lived both places for a significant amount of time), I still prefer a constitution that limits the powers of the government instead of a constitution that gives the government more powers "to protect". As long as the government is not interfering with my freedom of speech, I am happy to deal with individuals or companies myself without the government protecting my "free speech". It's called human interaction and there are zero guarantees that someone will like what you are saying or have to listen to you or even honor your right to say something.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#458

Post by Brockenstein »

candiodari wrote: post #403
_dps wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is the freedom to negotiate, and the freedom to leave. Comparing it to Stalinism is silly, and surely disrespects the millions of people who genuinely suffered and died under Stalin.

And, of course, there is the freedom to reduce the chances of getting confronted with this issue. Let's see ... How would one do that ... Make sure no women passes any interview. Obstruct women and generally get them out of the team, or at least don't work with them when avoidable. Why ? Because otherwise there WILL be instances, on occasion, where gender either is, or is simply perceived to be the basis for decision…

That's a pretty unrealistic black and white picture you're painting. Cultures and groups within a company that are already diverse and are truly merit based aren't going to be bothered by these sorts of events. They're already got their house in order, so to speak.

The people you're describing of being so terrified by these events or adopting unofficial policies against women already had a misogynistic bent. They were already a problem. Them using an event like this to justify their anti-social behavior is typical, but it is not the cause. They weren't accepting bastions of equality until they were frightened into sexism. Putting them on notice isn't the end of the world for anyone.

Whether we appease bigots or confront them, some people are going to be assholes until they die. I'd rather confront them and leave no question about which way the world is going.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#459

Post by _Codemonkeyism »

KirinDave wrote: post #142
Const-me wrote: post #113

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…

It's mysterious to me how literally every action a feminist takes is somehow directly responsibile for all problems that befall them, with every action that might possibly hurt a man being somehow a catastrophe in the making. Not 3 weeks ago we had a thread here where a woman spoke up about harassment and people said it was exactly the wrong thing. Mad someone for touching your bum? Speak up. You spoke up? Now you're…

"Not 3 weeks ago we had a thread here where a woman spoke up about harassment and people said it was exactly the wrong thing."

Not sure I can follow,

so the guy is wrong that he spoke up but the feminist is right? Or is the guy right and the feminist wrong? Or are both wrong? Or people who speak up against the guy are right and the guy speaking up is wrong? Or HN is wrong because we discuss this?

Can't follow your argument in the slightest.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#460

Post by alkonaut »

mathw wrote: post #171
axlprose wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or even if the number of women just stays the same. Is the effort to level the playing field then deemed a 'failure' if the results don't change in the way they're expected to? That's the important question here, especially since there have now been preliminary experiments in tech interviews suggesting such an outcome is not implausible: http://blog.interviewing.io/we-built-voice-modulation-to-mas...

If you've removed possible bias from your hiring process, then you have to accept an imbalance is either a result of uneven retention inclusive-or something operating earlier in the process of training your candidates. The point is to remove as many obstacles as possible. We want the best to get the jobs, but if the are barriers based on gender or race or religion that's potentially denying us a brilliant woman, or b…

> We want the best to get the jobs

I think it's important to remember that this might not be the case. We want the best team (or orchestra, or whatever).

Post reply on HN