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

651–660 of 872 posts

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#651

Post by tchaffee »

sersi wrote: post #597
tchaffee wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that means that it's a topic that needs to be discussed instead of being censored and the author fired. Here is what CEO said on the about it in his response [1]: "many points raised in the memo—such as the portions criticizing Google’s trainings, questioning the role of ideology in the workplace, and debating whether programs for women and underserved groups are sufficiently open to all—are important topics. The a…

The main problem I see with that is that poll that says that a third of the employees didn't disagree with the memo. If there's such a large percentage that agree with it then it's time for discussion. It's not a minority opinion and that memo shows what a lot of people think but will not be afraid to express. So, instead of having open discussion on the topic which would help changing ideas, those opinions are being…

In my comment I quoted the CEO saying many parts of the memo are open to discussion. Discussion and debate comes with responsibilities, and one of the responsibilities per the CoC is that you do not intimidate or harass other employees.

Is it unreasonable to say you are not allowed to intimidate or harass other employees?

> be afraid to express.

They should be afraid to express an opinion that violates the code of conduct. The code of conduct values some things over others, and a workplace free of harassment and intimidation is more important to Google than making sure no one is ever afraid of expressing an opinion. It might well be the opinion of some engineer in Google that all blacks should be called niggers. That engineer should rightly be afraid of expressing that opinion no matter how deeply held that opinion is, and no matter how many other employees share that opinion.

> the people holding them will be further radicalized.

Source?

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#652

Post by yorwba »

michaelchisari wrote: post #632
yorwba wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So I think unless there's someone who can point to greater evidence that this is an internal graph, there's just no reason to believe it is. So I think unless there's someone who can point to the actual internal graph, there's just no reason to believe this is fake. The distribution this poll shows is not so outlandish as to be unbelievable, and importantly it does not lend itself to overwhelmingly support one side…

> Why would anyone spend time and effort to fake it? It's a heated argument on the internet. There'd be plenty of incentive to fake a graph in order to bolster one's opinion.

My point is that if you are going to fake a graph to bolster your opinion, you might as well fake one that actually bolsters your opinion, instead of just mildly suggesting that not everyone disagrees with you.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#653

Post by lawnchair_larry »

cm2187 wrote: post #590
KirinDave wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but it will result in less female google employees than male employees. Well, again, the Google memo started by arguing Google's technical standard was being hurt so James doesn't seem to believe his colleagues all got the same interviews he did. I'd be more inclicned to this sort of argument for racial and gender diveristy if Google & others didn't have such abysmly skewed distributions towards white men. Go look…

Well, is Google's diversity profile really different from the diversity profile of the computer science departments it recruits from?

It actually beats them.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#654

Post by biofox »

Frondo wrote: post #629
humanrebar wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is that you can use unprovable statements to justify anything. This is exactly why we can't shut down conversations the way Google did. Saying line employees are unqualified but Google executives are qualified to judge truth is very stifling to rational thinking and, yes, diversity that actually means something. But nobody really believe that Google leadership is the best arbiter of diversity. Otherwise…

Do we want the Google execs to sit there and make line-by-line technical decisions? Would you want the head of HR to tell this guy what kind of sort algorithm he should be using, or get into arguments about Go's lack of generics? Or do we expect them to defer to the smart engineers they hire? This guy is probably a very smart software writing dude, but why would that make us want to listen to what he has to say on an…

Should employees be allowed to raise concerns about practices that appear to waste resources or lower morale? (I'm thinking of things like compulsory diversity / bias training)

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#655

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#656

Post by tynpeddler »

dahart wrote: post #604
nailer wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Politics, favorite foods, religion, dress sense and other ideas aren't innate. Gender, age, ethnicity and sexuality are. Hence swapping gender for politics doesn't work. Additionally Damore argued for assessing individuals as individuals rather than as tribe members and assuming discrepancy is down to bias - even if you did sub someone's chosen politics for their gender, Damore's proposed fix would still require you…

> Politics, favorite foods, religion, dress sense and other ideas aren't innate. Gender, age, ethnicity and sexuality are. Hence swapping gender for politics doesn't work. That is incorrect. The word "gender" is defined as the social and cultural differences between male and female, as opposed to the biological ones. You also meant to say "sex" and not "sexuality". Sex is the innate biology of males & females. Sexual…

Your statement that "he complained about the plight of the conservatives at Google, and suggested that women as a group are innately less capable technologists," is not a fair recounting of his arguments. He claims that Google's internal cultural dynamic is hostile towards conservatives, and that Google's hiring policy towards women is inappropriately favorable. There is nothing innately contradictory about these beliefs.

Damore never argues against using groups to make big picture, strategic decision. Quite the opposite. What Damore is arguing is that Google's strategic decisions are rooted in ideology, not research, and the consequences of those decisions are discriminatory at the individual level. Worst of all is that because those decisions are rooted in ideology, they can't be questioned.

Of course, Damore makes several other arguments. Damore suggests that Google's minority retention practices are discriminatory and ineffective, while agreeing that Google's corporate environment is likely a poor fit for women.

Damore does make recommendations on how to show sensitivity towards women in order to boost retention of women and he bases these recommendations of his understanding of current, replicable research in psychology. What's important to note about Damore's recommendations is that while strategically they favor women, on an individual basis they do not. The practices that Damore suggests would be as open to men as they are to women.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#657

Post by t00l2 »

tchaffee wrote: post #464
sersi wrote: post #349

I do not agree with a lot of points of that diversity memo but that means that it's a topic that needs to be discussed instead of being censored and the author fired. Discussion is how people change their opinion. It's by being free to discuss and say what you think that you can exchange ideas with other people you disagree with and maybe change your mind once you understand their view point. If you close discussion,…

> that means that it's a topic that needs to be discussed instead of being censored and the author fired. Here is what CEO said on the about it in his response [1]: "many points raised in the memo—such as the portions criticizing Google’s trainings, questioning the role of ideology in the workplace, and debating whether programs for women and underserved groups are sufficiently open to all—are important topics. The a…

Wasn't this memo a reply to survey about diversity within Google? So they kinda asked for that topic themselves and there happened to be this one guy unkeen to jump into cheer pressure, trying politely and using best available to him science materials to defend his own belief?

Also, "Blacks on average are [insert negative here]" is quite a bad title, I agree. But "On average we don't get much productivity return from pursuing black candidates specifically and here's why" is probably more acceptable, even if math cited is bad, then someone could just correct you - or would you not talk about this at all as well?

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#658

Post by sctb »

rpiguy wrote: post #550
coldtea wrote: post #253

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. It's worse. They don't care for what you've said, and they don't particularly care about the issues they talk about either. Some (media people, etc.) use the issues to have…

Extreme leftism is literally a religion, so much so that you can't even present scientific evidence that is contrary to their decided narrative. Born Again/Woke Transgression/Microagression Heresy/Dissent Sinner/(Racist, Misogynist, Bigot, Sexist) EDIT: Original Sin/(Privilege, Unconscious Bias) They even follow the same behavior pattern. First they declare you a Sinner. If you've done research they question the moti…

When we ask users to take care to post civilly and substantively, this is what we want to avoid. The ratio of insight to inflammation doesn't meet the bar for the kind of thoughtful discussion we're after here.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#659

Post by kuschku »

TACIXAT wrote: post #536
kuschku wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please try doing that to every internet troll out there, if you have the time. Most of the population don't, and at some point just have to dismiss some ridiculous arguments instead of discussing every single badly researched wall of text. I suggest you start with all the articles on /r/the_donald.

Like many online echo chambers, /r/the_donald bans people who dissent in any way. It is not a place where it is possible to engage in discussion. In fact, reddit is a horrible place to engage in meaningful discussion, as users can downvote any opinion they disagree with and make it disappear, and mods can ban any users they disagree with. It's easy to label people as trolls, but I have been banned from multiple subre…

> In fact, reddit is a horrible place to engage in meaningful discussion, as users can downvote any opinion they disagree with and make it disappear, and mods can ban any users they disagree with.

That's a funny response to a comment that was so heavily downvoted it's completely hidden for users unless they specifically change their HN settings.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#660

Post by marrs »

GVIrish wrote: post #440
maehwasu wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely agree. The point here is that the situation isn't static: many people don't like what is now ok in the workplace, and are trying to shift it back. Simply calling them "racist" or "sexist" as if that ends the discussion completely misses the point.

Yeah and maybe what needs to happen is people need to talk more about how 'the line' is moving so people can understand better where people are coming from. I agree that labeling people as racist or sexist for being caught out by shifting norms is not productive, but at the same time people need to put effort into empathizing with others and educating themselves. There are jokes I would've made 10 years ago I wouldn'…

    I agree that labeling people as racist or sexist for being 
    caught out by shifting norms is not productive, but at the
    same time people need to put effort into empathizing with
    others and educating themselves.
Maybe that cuts both ways
Post reply on HN