Brief thoughts on the “Google memo” • Hacker News Board

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#51

Post by freetime2 » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 6:54 AM UTC

pavlov wrote: post #33

The real tragedy in the discussion is this assumption, quoted from the OP: "His hypothesis implies that personality differences mean a smaller percentage of women will be interested in and/or qualified for a Google job than men" Empathy and social intelligence are actively disqualifying factors for a job at Google, or software in general? That is so wrong on so many levels. I really like Bob Wyman's take on this: htt…

I completely agree that communication and people skills are necessary to be a great programmer.

But consider that in order to get a job as a programmer, I first had to spend 4 years taking relatively intensive courses in math and computer science (even longer if you go back to elective courses in high school), and empathy was not an important factor in getting through my coursework or examinations. Sure there are other paths into the industry, but no matter how you get here, the fact is that learning to code is intensive.

Consider also that a large portion of the population can't pass a FizzBuzz programming interview (at least if Jeff Atwood is to be believed). And if you can't write FizzBuzz, no amount of empathy in the world is going to make you a good programmer.

So yes, "soft skills" are tremendously important. But "hard skills" take priority. And whatever the cause may be, the fact is that right now there is a larger proportion of men than women who possess those hard skills.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#52

Post by hangonhn » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 6:55 AM UTC

VarFarYonder wrote: post #27

retube wrote: post #17

I don't understand why it's such big news. No matter what's in it, it's just some random guy who happens to work at google. It's not a senior exec, it's not an official google position, it's.... nothing. I just don't understand why what this guy thinks warrants discussion?

It's not about the guy. It's about what he said. And what he said is highly polarizing.

But anyone can say or write something idiotic and inflammatory (just for the sake of argument, let's assumed that the memo was such), would it have become this huge thing if he didn't work at Google? If not, then why is Google placed on such a pedestal and why do we lionize and in turn pillory Googlers? I think part of the problem is the place Google occupies in the popular imagination. It's sort of this lightning rod and poster child of Silicon Valley. Had this happen at most company, it would have simply been an HR issue at that company.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#53

Post by santoshalper » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 6:55 AM UTC

I find the idealism present in this thread both sweet and optimistic, and simultaneously incredibly naive. In a way, it's SV/startup culture in a nutshell. "Anything is possible if we work together and use our brains!".... "Move fast and break things!"... "What could possibly go wrong?"

The reality is that we are only a generation from a time when not hiring black people or women for jobs requiring intelligence or competence was standard operating procedure and saying out loud "You really think hiring a black/female engineer is a good idea?" would not have been considered especially controversial. Our parents (or grandparents for some of you) lived through this time, saw the incredible damage it did to millions of people, and wisely decided to seal it away with a powerful ward (laws + social taboo). This is of course an oversimplification of a process that started long ago and is not finished - but it will have to suffice as a metaphor.

Keep in mind, this process was (and is) a hard fought war with many casualties - friendships, families, and of course actual lost lives. When I chastise my 73 year old father for not being progressive enough, he reminds me that his mother, who grew up during the depression in the south, did not consider black people to be human. His outspoken support for civil rights caused a major rift in their relationship that never healed before she died.

Of course there are costs to this ward of taboos - as well as the similar ones we are presently building around LGBT people. Any time an avenue of discussion is cut off, we are all slightly poorer for it. I would argue however that we know what is behind that ward - awful things that hurt people - and I would argue that right now, it is just not worth it. Maybe in a century we will be ready to have more frank conversations about sex, gender, and race, but I am pretty sure we are not ready now.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#54

Post by hackpert » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 6:57 AM UTC

maehwasu wrote: post #24

MattRix wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These "facts" are used in harmful ways against individuals. Stereotypes are harmful. Unless a stereotype applies to literally 100 percent of a population then they ARE going to hurt those people who do not fit it.

This is a great example of only examining costs of a hypothesis without examining the benefits. Literally ANY opinion/fact/belief set looks like pure evil if you only examine costs.

The question in this particular case is, what exactly the benefits?

The costs are quite clear. An entire generation or more of about half the population feeling demolarized and incapable of doing certain tasks as well as their peers is a pretty huge cost.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#55

Post by Griffinsauce » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 6:58 AM UTC

gfodor wrote: post #14

The core of what he is asking, and failed to drilled into sufficiently in my view, is exactly what the OP says: what % of the gender gap in various fields can be explained (within that field specifically) due to demographically correlated population preferences vs other factors. I think there are two unforced errors: - Trying to tie things back to causation due to biological factors gave cherry pickers sufficient amm…

I'd wager a lack of empathy is the source of most of humanity's problems at this moment.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#56

Post by Griffinsauce » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 7:00 AM UTC

retube wrote: post #17

I don't understand why it's such big news. No matter what's in it, it's just some random guy who happens to work at google. It's not a senior exec, it's not an official google position, it's.... nothing. I just don't understand why what this guy thinks warrants discussion?

It sparked a discussion with many participants inside Google (which is a huge company) and outside. The news was mostly related to the size of the group discussing it and then circled back to "what will the company execs do"

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#57

Post by santoshalper » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 7:01 AM UTC

ryan-allen wrote: post #26

my_first_acct wrote: post #4

Recycling (and slightly modifying) a previous comment [0]: Certain topics, that otherwise might be interesting to discuss, are surrounded by minefields. One such topic is the distribution of intellectual ability within subgroups of the population. This minefield was not put in place by a repressive government. Nor was it secretly put in place overnight by a fanatic band of social-justice zealots. My observation, whic…

It's better to let people discuss these topics rather than to try to stop them talking about them. If the sentiments exist and they are repressed they will simply go underground where you cannot see them. Don't you want to know what your opposition think? Painting those you disagree with (whether you're wrong, or you're right) with the bigot brush is not going to bring any change, there's only two choices: violence o…

I liked it better when these people were confined to ugly subreddits, Daily Stormer, and Breitbart and not working in the White House and getting attention in popular media. I hope we send them back to hell ASAP and twist the lid on a little tighter next time.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#58

Post by jack9 » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 7:01 AM UTC

> 1)/[sic]he never made a case for why we shouldn’t think other factors are even bigger

Really? The memo wasn't about answering life's questions, but to propose narrow solutions with based on pointed evidence. Preference or not, attacking the hypothesis because you want a different one answered is idiotic and is not a proper response. It's basically a common SJW ad hominem. "You just aren't smart enough to understand what's going on here!"

Julia might want to look at the nordic countries that have pushed the gender gaps even wider with some very sophisticated progressive social policies to prevent other factors.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#59

Post by jamesrcole » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 7:01 AM UTC

MattRix wrote: post #23

maehwasu wrote: post #12

> However, his overall claim that there exist personality differences between genders that differentially affect men’s and women’s interest in and aptitude for tech jobs, is what people are mostly getting mad at. And that’s a claim that seems plausibly true. Not obviously true, but also not a claim you would be justified in emphatically dismissing as false, as many people have, including Google, who called them “inco…

The problem is that there still are strong systemic biases at work. Once we get that fixed, maybe we can move on to the nitty gritty statistics of exactly what is nature/nurture etc. At this moment it's pointless. It reminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7ihNLEDiuM

There's an underlying assumption in this: more freely discussing those topics would hinder progress in overcoming those strong systemic biases.

I'm deeply sceptical of that assumption.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#60

Post by _pmf_ » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 7:03 AM UTC

Note that Sundar Pichai is very clearly in category 2, i.e. he does not dismiss the memo as untruthful or expressly voices disagreement.

What irks me is that the discussion in the main stream media ignores the fact that someone was fired for writing relevant information in a forum explicitely introduced by the employer to anonymously voicing workplace opinions (a "safe space"), not by "circulating a memo". Maybe discussions in this forum can be restricted to arguments about whether the fried chicken was particularly bad today.