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

661–670 of 872 posts

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#661

Post by humanrebar »

madez wrote: post #634
humanrebar wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's why I think it is bad to speak of muslim people, as if that defined them the most. Lots of people primarily identify by their religious affiliations. I think that's fair. > Your sex and skin colour is given, your religion can change. Ask a Muslim which will change first: their gender, their skin color, or whether Mohammed was Allah's prophet. All that being said, your point about religion and race being sepa…

> Ask a Muslim which will change first: their gender, their skin color, or whether Mohammed was Allah's prophet. You are generalizing in a way that will create animosity. There are liberal people which identify as muslims. Even though most religious people identify themselves by their religious affiliations, not all do, and not everbody is religious. I think religion is a cancerous meme, that we shouldn't pay respect…

> You are generalizing in a way that will create animosity

> I think religion is a cancerous meme

My underlying point was that people with faith don't see their faith as a choice about the existence and character of their god (or other non-deist beliefs). It's not objective or accurate to say religion is different because it's a choice.

If anyone is offended by my point, I would challenge them to rethink their assumptions about how tolerant and accepting they are.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#662

Post by rpiguy »

halfnibble wrote: post #627
rpiguy wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is quite humorous. Can I use this?

Of course. Just be careful where you post it, you might get added to a naughty list somewhere.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#664

Post by Apocryphon »

ryanx435 wrote: post #449
jamespo wrote: post #327

It's interesting to see the right wing interest and faith in scientific papers here, I look forward to similar enthusiasm for climate science.

Go virtue signal somewhere else

It's ironic that using the very term "virtue signaling" has itself become an act of virtue signaling.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#665

Post by tchaffee »

oculusthrift wrote: post #346
e40 wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was my first thought after reading a small portion of the memo.

any normally functioning person would realize the reaction that memo would cause. (not that the reaction is justified, just that hes in a super politicially correct area where making nuanced points isnt tolerated)

> hes in a super politicially correct area where making nuanced points isnt tolerated

This is popular to say, and there certainly are some knee jerk reactions. But my experience has been that most people are quite willing to discuss nuanced points about this topic, and most topics.

What's not tolerated is more specific: a lack of emotional nuance and an insistence that scientific truth is the only possible truth. As if emotions aren't a huge and valid part of human experience.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#666

Post by pi_qed »

There's an irony to the downvotes in this thread. People are outraged that this guy was harassed for expressing his opinion and then downvoting anyone here who expresses an opinion they don't like.

Are people so afraid of having a discussion with opposing views that they shut down any conversation they don't like with downvotes. If you disagree say why and give the person a chance to respond.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#667

Post by adrusi »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #637
adrusi wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an unreasonable reading. If you read past the tl;dr you see that none of the differences in traits he talks about are about ability, just interest, so interpreting it as "women aren't as good" is wrong.

Can you explain why hiring women who are just as good as, if not better than, men at the job, but who would prefer (on average) to work elsewhere, perhaps somewhere with more women employees, would make the business do worse? And can we note that I replied to someone saying "he didn't say that", suggested a place where he did and got replies from different people saying "yes he did say that, and he's correct" and rep…

Can you explain why hiring women who are just as good as, if not better than, men at the job, but who would prefer (on average) to work elsewhere, perhaps somewhere with more women employees, would make the business do worse?

In the section you quoted, he doesn't say that hiring more women is bad for business, he said that doing so via discriminatory hiring practices, and if you hadn't ellipsized that line, there would have been an explanation for why right there. The full bullet point reads "Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business." So he says that unequal representation is partially explained by gender differences in interests, and then that trying to eliminate the differences, specifically via the method of discriminatory hiring, is bad for business because it's unfair and divisive.

To be clear, the reason I'm interpreting the "differences" he refers to as differences in interest as opposed to competence is because of the content in the "Personality differences" section of the memo, which is the only place he addresses specific gender differences. In that section he says that women are less interested on average in tasks which focus mainly on systemizing, and are less interested in high-stress jobs, as well as that they are less likely to advocate for their own promotions.

I replied to someone saying "he didn't say that", suggested a place where he did

No, you replied to someone saying "he didn't say that" and suggested a place where he said something ambiguous — the tl;dr, which is necessarily ambiguous.

So it appears at the very least (and I feel I'm being generous here), that his words can be misread by people on both sides of the issue

Who do you think is misinterpreting what? I've pointed out what I think you're misinterpreting and offered an alternative interpretation. You don't get to simply assert that other people are misinterpreting the memo, you've got to offer some evidence of that.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#668

Post by hashberry »

jl6 wrote: post #647

In the last month I have hired 4 people in specialist technical roles. I reviewed 15 CVs. All were from men. No women applied. There is clearly something filtering women out. There is something deep in the supply chain of labor (by which I mean education) which results in women being siphoned off long before they hit my company's diversity and inclusion policies. I believe these policies are reasonably effective at t…

I'm skeptical of blaming education. For example, 69% of developers say they are partially self-taught[0]. I've worked with many talented developers with liberal art degrees. The main takeaway of the memo is that women are filtering themselves out.

[0] https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2016

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#669

Post by sersi »

tchaffee wrote: post #651
sersi wrote: post #597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

Ok, where is the intimidation or harassment? He expressed unpopular opinion and unenlightened points of view but is there harassment?

In another comment, you say it's the mention that women tend to have on average more neuroticism although you seem to acknowledge in that comment that it has basis in research [1]. If, as you say, it's a fact, then how can it be harassment?

You cannot have reasonable discussions, if you dismiss what you consider to be true facts because you consider them to be harassment. There could be factors that could cause a statistical difference between genders due to physiology or due to culture (I disagree with the memo's author in his dismissal of cultural and parenting influences on gender behaviors) and any discussion of diversity would need to take those into account.

Now, the author claims that his memo had notes to supporting evidence but the leaked copies do not have that.

[1] For the record, I haven't found the research on that and I'm rather skeptical of that result.

Post reply on HN