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

471–480 of 872 posts

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#471

Post by yorwba »

nailer wrote: post #323
yorwba wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter whether a characteristic is innate or not; if it isn't relevant to the job, then nobody should be judged based on it. Even if you disregard that people can choose to change their gender or that politics can be inherited from the parents, gender and politics are interchangeable as far as social treatment is concerned. If you (dis)agree with the arguments of the memo in the gender/politics-swapped ver…

First and more important things: nobody is suggesting judging individuals by their gender. Damore's post was explicitly about not doing that. Of course an individual's suitability for a job should not be affected by anything irrelevant. However individual choices may be relevant: for example, you might not be suitable to work in the fitness industry if you're shy about showing your body. Hence distinguishing choices…

It seems my point was a bit muddled by trying to keep it opinion-symmetric. Maybe using a veiled analogy helps?

After reading this woman's opinion on Google's programs to increase their share of politically conservative workers, I realized that political bias, although indubitably present, might not fully explain the observed distribution of political alignments. To evaluate "affirmative action" efforts, the effect of bias would have to be quantified in relation to other phenomena incidentally correlating with political affiliation. However, I was disappointed that she didn't to that in her memo itself, arguing qualitatively instead of rigorously computing the expected distribution her suggested explanations would predict. The resulting number can easily make or break her case. Regardless of my opinion on her choice of presentation, I am appalled by the strong backlash from a group of vocal men within Google, some of which went so far as to threaten her with physical violence. Although the subject and manner of this discussion might not have been within Google's business interests, firing her for expressing her opinion (apparently in a forum where it was explicitly solicited) was definitely an unreasonably harsh response.

I think that gender and politics are plenty interchangeable in this case, provided you can suspend disbelief about Google actively trying to hire more conservative engineers and the media reaction surrounding this case.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#472

Post by Brockenstein »

mnglkhn2 wrote: post #383
fiblye wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Talking assumes reasoning. Or, when you are in a power grab, reasoning is the last thing you want to do. The left does want the power not the talking.

And the people on the wrong side of history want to talk and talk and talk. They want to stall for time. And every individual who doesn't get a shot to talk and shape the culture feels like they've been robbed and their ideas and beliefs suppressed. They're just ignorant of the fact that these issues have been talked about, at length, ad nauseam, for decades, centuries even. And they don't understand that they don't have anything new to offer, they only have their ignorance. There's no particular reason to tolerate it forever.

And when folks who are apparently ignorant of the subject history get pissy because no one has the time to entertain their ignorant BS, that's a personal problem. Rail against it all you want, it's a losing battle.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#473

Post by idibidiart »

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…

Sexism is not free speech.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#474

Post by adrianratnapala »

atilaneves wrote: post #436
_b8r0 wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've noticed that. But it does appear that for a lot of normally rational people this personal investment is at least amplified, if not manufactured almost entirely through the media.

A "normally rational person" is a person that is emotional at least 50% of the time but convinces themselves otherwise. Facts that seem to go against a person's beliefs provoke cognitive dissonance - it doesn't matter how technical they are or how logical they need to be to do their jobs.

It goes beyond that, Sabine Hossenfelder is better than a "normally rational person", she is seriously very smart it is in her bones to make a decent rational case for whatever she is saying. And here I am talking about her blog posts, not her job -- I have never read any of her papers.

But in this case though, she is does repeat some interweb fallacies about the memo, even though she has certainly read it herself and thought about it for herself.

But she does get the important thing right: which is that even if the memo is as bad as she says it is, it's still no reason for a sacking.

[Disclamer: I am a Googler, but quite obviously I am not speaking for the company here.]

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#475

Post by PeterisP »

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?

You ensure a fair process (without attempting to overcompensate/correct for other processes out of your control), and whatever comes out is the unbiased state.

You can't escape the fact that (assuming any innate differences whatsoever) equality of opportunity will mean unequal outcomes, and equality of outcomes requires unequal opportunities.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#476

Post by t00l2 »

michaelchisari wrote: post #187
panda88888 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since it's allegedly Google internal poll, you probably won't find more information on it beyond screenshot. After what happened to Damore and calls for his supporters to be fired as well, most people are probably clamming up now.

I can't say that inspires confidence that the poll is even legitimate. Do we at least have proof that it actually was an internal Google poll and not someone's 15 minutes in photoshop?

You might not get anyone to sign on this because they may feel threatened for even starting this poll, especially after results like this. Links to the original idea of people hiding their thoughts, leading to problems with discussing what is and what is not a fact.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#477

Post by AnthonyMouse »

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?

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

The goal isn't to choose some specific gender balance and then take whatever steps necessary to produce it, it's to eliminate unfair bias. The way to do that is to find it, not indirectly by looking at ratios, but directly by actually finding it.

High school teachers who say things like "women are no good at computers" to young women should be reprimanded etc. Poll women who didn't go into tech and ask them why not, and if any of the reasons are unjust then change them.

If no one can find anything like that then the gender balance at that point is what it's supposed to be. We're obviously not there yet, but the way we know is because we keep finding things like that, not because the gender balance is uneven.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#478

Post by etchalon »

memedtodeath wrote: post #196
etchalon wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Here is a chart of the gender balance of over a hundred different professions. Few of them are near a 50/50 balance. Could you tell me which ones are suffering from institutionalized discrimination? https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/06/chart-the-perce...

I have no idea what the cultures of other fields are like. I work in technology, so I can only speak for that.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#479

Post by alkonaut »

bobstaples wrote: post #85

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.

The cause and effect is hard to tell, but this is exactly why large corporations should try to be diverse. How do you get from 8:2 to 7:3 in 5 or 10 years?

Little girls don't want to be programmers or scientists - why is that?

My gut feeling is that it's ti very a small part biological and to a large extent just momentum. With more female role models (moms not least!) in tech, things will change. Thats why I think it's very reasonable to hire for diversity (that is - hire someone on the basis of being a woman)

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#480

Post by dijit »

jernfrost wrote: post #422
sokoloff wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A random HN thread from possibly several weeks ago to which you don't provide a link. Are you surprised that some (most?) people couldn't make a connection?

I did without even having read that particular thread. But I know all too well the types of arguments getting thrown around. I think it is a question of awareness and beliefs. If you firmly don't think there is an issue then you simply don't notice. I've been at the other side of the fence so I know what it is like ;-)

So it's a myth.

"I saw the topic a week ago, I will not link to it, I didn't even read it, but I'm sure of what was in it"

insert snarky wink face

Post reply on HN