Live data from Hacker News

Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

backreaction.blogspot.com

701–710 of 872 posts

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#701
post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No he CLAIMED he wanted to treat people like individuals, but that's literally, completely negated by the rest of his memo. He cites statistics with some sources that aren't even reputable and others than haven't been touched in a quarter of a century, and when there is credible science he attempts to create detached conclusions that implied that these certain psychological traits across various populations were some…

Yeah, there's no evidence for gender preferences at all, except for the tons of evidence for gender preferences. This evidence is certainly up for debate, but don't go preaching on your high horse about how it is settled and no one has ever studied this, and how dare he even make an argument. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/wh...

Err, where did I say there's no evidence for gender preferences? Where did I say it's settled? Why are you characterizing my statement as "preaching on a high horse" simply because I recognize that forming conclusions based on disparate sets of data (some of which is continually contradicted) is not a rational thing to do?

>This evidence is certainly up for debate

Well thankfully you had the cognition to see that.

I'm advocating for discussion, but pretending that you can start setting up solutions based on the data we have around how psychological traits affect professional outcomes, attempting to shoe horn those "solutions" into a political framework that treats everyone else that rationally disagrees with it as being in an "echo chamber", especially when you are essentially characterizing an entire population of professionals, is pretty foolish and toxic.

Did you even read the article you linked? How is that even remotely relevant to anything I said or what the memo's goal was?

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#702
post #623

Disagreeing with Damore’s arguments is perfectly ok. Not liking the style of his memo is perfectly ok. Calling Damore young and clueless is useless ad hominem. Chances are he is smarter than you and me and the memo is actually well sourced. Calling him a WHITE MAN is an essentialism that reveals the author's bias.

I'd happily agree he's a better engineer than me. That doesn't make him smarter, and his engineering acumen certainly doesn't give him any specific ability to do any kind of psychology or neuroscience lit review. Know how we get up in arms when someone with expertise one field starts going on about some totally unrelated field and makes a lot of leaps of reasoning? Expertise in one field doesn't make you an expert in…

There were a few psychologists who have publicly commented on this, saying that that what he quoted was reasonably accurate.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#703
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,…

I'm not convinced by this. Respectful discourse is good, but I'm not sure disrespectful discourse is. I feel sometime that does more harm, because it sends an underlying message, that our moral values allow us to be hateful to others.

By encouraging and allowing hateful discourse, I don't think people are able to follow reasonable arguments and think about things fairly. So I see these things turning more so into propaganda speech.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#704
post #658
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…

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.

I agree that this comment wasn't _quite_ as substance based as many others in this thread, but I think it made an interesting comparison that I hadn't seen elsewhere. I've read the same thing said a hundred different ways in other comments and this one said something different. It's possible that this could be interpreted as uncivil, but It seemed _relatively_ politely put and I think the fact that it's a different perspective is reason enough for its existence.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#705
post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 yo…

There is a leaked copy with the links intact: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...

The citation for higher neuroticism is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology#..., this in turn cites http://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0022-3514.81..., which confirms the claims.

> ... gender differences are small relative to individual variation within genders; differences are replicated across cultures for both college-age and adult samples, and differences are broadly consistent with gender stereotypes: Women reported themselves to be higher in Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Warmth, and Openness to Feelings, whereas men were higher in Assertiveness and Openness to Ideas.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#706
The problem here is that there actually is a biological disadvantage that women possess in regard to career success. That disadvantage is that on average 100% of children are born from women. Additionally on average 100% men do not bear children. Due to this statistical anomaly even if only a small percent of women; say 10% decide to have children there will be a measurable disadvantage/bias towards the male gender in the workforce for a simple reason. A person carrying a child even on a most optimistic outlook must spend a least a tiny percent of their time dealing with the fact they are pregnant. This includes hormone levels, energy, medical issues and general physiological inconvenience. Furthermore this inconvenience lasts a minimum of 9 months and reasonably even a year. During this time of less than maximum career effort a man will never suffer such setbacks and is theoretically able to devote nearly 100% of his effort to career advancement.

Until we either have artificial wombs or completely change the laws dealing with childbearing to deal with the actual childbearing rather than serve an outdated form of social contract (marriage) there will never be a true resolution.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#707
post #657

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…

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…

> Wasn't this memo a reply to survey about diversity within Google?

I don't know. Does anyone have a reliable source on this?

> "On average we don't get much productivity return from pursuing black candidates specifically and here's why" is probably more acceptable,

Just as bad. This has nothing to do with scientific truth or even how to better word scientific truth, although it's not surprising many HN readers like us tend favor answers that come from science.

The problem domain here is mostly human relationships. There is just some shit you can't say in a workplace without making some employees feel intimidated or harassed. Right or wrong, most humans are emotional creatures more than they are rational creatures. Even the most scientific of us have far more built in cognitive biases than are useful for a purely rational view of reality.

As an aside, choosing skin color as a grouping factor is almost always going to be wrong scientifically. If you want to talk about melanin, it might be a good grouping. But if you are trying to correlate skin color with a genetic or innate characteristic, you're firmly outside of biology and heading towards racism. If you can't find the the less obvious groupings that point towards actual causation, it's still not an excuse for resorting to correlation. If you can't group without resorting to correlation, don't group yet.

> or would you not talk about this at all as well?

If you find yourself leaning heavily on the scientific facts of other experts in order to support a controversial opinion in your workplace, you might do a favor to your future career to run your ideas past the touchy-feely people and get their reaction. Human resources, the sales people, marketing, etc. They'll give you excellent guidance that has nothing to do with scientific fact. And chances are it won't be "that's quite a bad title, here's how to re-phrase". In a case like this, the advice will often be "I would never say this at work, some people will be very offended." People and their feelings are pretty important.

The shame here is that even the CEO of Google said that large parts of the memo were great talking points. If the guy had really cared about his ideas, he might have bothered to run them by some touchy-feely experts to delete the 5% offensive parts and he would still be around to move his agenda forward.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#708

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you intimidate enough employees via a widespread memo, you will get fired. Which part of the memo was intimidating, harassing, or illegal? Which part promoted biases? > As an example, would anyone expect to keep their job if they published a memo with "Blacks on average are [insert negative here]." No, but that's because of my low expectation of fairness from corporate leadership and middle management, not becau…

> Which part of the memo was intimidating, harassing, "Women on average have more neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance)." is one example. Just because something is true or a fact does not give some magical guarantee that people will not feel intimidated or harassed if that fact is presented in a certain way or in a certain context. And perhaps people who have lived an entire life of being discriminated…

Hey, I'd like to challenge your view about advice to "learn people skills" which seems to push responsibility to one group, those who aren't already people skilled enough.

There are more extroverts than introverts in the world. The first group is happy with social contact, talking with people and generally score better in empathy. Introverts are the other way around: they prefer to use text, do not like to give in to emotions and score worse in people skills. That's according to the book "Quiet: The Power of Introverts" but I guess it's not a controversial point to make anyway, and while you can find many outliers as in any discipline, I think it's a fairly good generalization.

Now, it may depend on the company or group, so two scenarios:

1) Introverts are a majority, extroverts a minority - maybe that's a tech company: shouldn't extroverts use their people skills and be able to figure out that introverts mean no harm and just prefer to communicate by sending long pieces of text with many scientific sources cited instead of talking with even one person? They might have even been doing this for many years, in the introvertive bubble of their fellow colleagues who shy away from emotions. Of course, extroverts could still feel emotionally touched and maybe even attacked as the minority - but then, been empathetic and knowing the style of introverts, shouldn't they try to teach them people skills? Are we sure firing this person is going to be an actual lesson to him? Or maybe there is no way to teach introverts people skills, as Google with a load of money and staff cannot even challenge beliefs of one employee? How come then we can ask single introverts to learn it on their own? Does it mean we're all doomed as more and more tech companies change from big groups of introverted engineers to cross-disciplinary team with a mix of characters?

2) Extroverts are a majority, introverts are a minority - again, using their people skills extroverts would surely recognize that introverts are not comfortable with people skills... so if introverts are a minority, is firing them for miss-following the code of conduct, written most likely by the majority i.e. extroverts, a form of discrimination? For the sake of diversity, shouldn't they all learn about more scientific, less emotional approach? Or should you be schooled only if you're in the minority without those skills?

IMO author of the memo made a decent attempt at using his people skills on this paper - what the post from Sabine acutally acknowledged, although you could generalize based on her background she's an introvert as well. It just looks like that other people have higher expectations of people skills but the question is have they done enough to learn the science skills themselves or just assume that everyone should have people skills at the exact level they want because they dictate so as a majority.

(Cheers, sorry for all the mistakes, English is not my native language.)

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#709
post #679
post #658

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I will concede the post could have been more civil and I apologize. However, it is extremely substantive, an entire doctoral thesis could be written on secular religions/orthodoxies and their illiberal and authoritarian nature and is directly relevant to the discussion of the reaction to the Google memo.

Substantiveness and civility aren't unrelated: a lack of the latter undermines the former. A doctoral thesis would be expressed quite differently, for example.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#710
post #345

An interesting anecdote regarding gender bias and tech. In the very early stage of my company, we wanted to outsource some UX work. After an exhausting review of applicants on one of the freelance sites out there, we finally settled on a Pakistani woman who had the best balance of portfolio vs cost. At the initial Skype call, there was no video. And it turned out to be a guy speaking in a very high voice. We didn't r…

When I applied to colleges, I put that I was Native American, because, you know, I was born here.
Post reply on HN