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

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#61

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

Griffinsauce wrote: post #55

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.

hear hear

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#62

Post by freetime2 » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 7:04 AM UTC

santoshalper wrote: post #53

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 co…

That seems to me like a pretty length way of saying you agree with option 2:

Say “This topic is harmful to people and we shouldn’t discuss it” (a little draconian maybe, but at least intellectually honest)

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#63

Post by ryan-allen » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 7:12 AM UTC

santoshalper wrote: post #57

ryan-allen wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's pretty obvious what choice you prefer. You're part of the problem.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#64

Post by vanderreeah » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 7:13 AM UTC

Aloha wrote: post #13

avaer wrote: post #9

> This topic is harmful to people and we shouldn’t discuss it It would be so very refreshing to hear a company just say "let's not throw incendiary memos around at work; it upsets people", instead of feeding the fire with a rationalized social stance. Actually, I _have_ seen great CEO's defuse situations like this. I don't understand why it's not done more often.

I take umbrage that its actually harmful - I'd totally get behind the idea that its a gross distraction. I really believe truly that each gender (because of biology and societal gender roles) has been given some unique problems solving gifts - and that we're shoving square pegs in round holes to gloss that over - but there is no universality here - I've seen men that are amazing at 'people' problems - and women who a…

On the contrary, it's a sign of our "evolution" that sexist ideas like the one in your second paragraph are now increasingly subject to fierce rebuttal.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#65

Post by kybernetikos » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 7:14 AM UTC

imron wrote: post #43

shadowmint wrote: post #11

> 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, but that doesn’t mean any of the women at Google fall below the “qualified” threshold. I think its fair to say that not everyone shares that view. This is probably the key to controversy in my mind. You could read it that way. However, you can choose to interpret t…

> 'Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate' Imagine you have 100 people applying for 10 positions, and the demographic breakdown of applicants (based on current trends in tech) is 20 women and 80 men. Let's also say that being male or female doesn't give you any special aptitude, and that the aptitude of all candidates regardless of gender…

If the fact that the applicant population is slanted towards a particular gender means (or is caused by the fact) that it is harder for the other gender in that field, then the smaller population will in fact be better on average than the larger, because it will have taken them more motivation, determination, work and ability to win over others just to get them to where they are.

At least, this seems like the most likely explanation for the fact that individuals in the much smaller group of female startup founders outperform the male startup founders that has been reported in a number of places. e.g.

> For growing start-ups, those with female founders almost universally outperformed their male-only counterparts. The fastest-growing companies at 200%+ growth, are 75% more likely to have a female founder.

https://www.tinypulse.com/startup-culture-report

> Once again assuming a normal distribution with neither men nor women over or underrepresented in skill level

This is probably wrong, and if your hiring practices assume it in a scenario where it is harder for one gender to even make it to the applicant stage then they are unfairly discriminatory.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#66

Post by sgift » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 7:16 AM UTC

siliconc0w wrote: post #46

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…

Sure it's uncomfortable to talk about but it's becoming increasingly important that we do. Without understanding why a phenomena like the STEM/leadership gap exists we can't hope to fix it. Diversity programs really aren't working - Google is at 80/20 for tech which is just about the same as the industry (78/22) (Department Of Labor). My policy is 'Fuck Chesterton Fences'(FCF). I don't want to live in a world of rust…

> My policy is 'Fuck Chesterton Fences'(FCF). I don't want to live in a world of rusting fences.

I remember that policy from the time of rampant privatization here in Europe. "Why should the government provide this service .." - well, a few years later we knew why.

It's also quite often the mentality of people that say "you know what? Our software sucks and the architecture is stupid, I will build a new, far better one!" ... yeah, that usually doesn't work either.

I saw a comment the other day which sums the problem with that attitude up quite nicely (paraphrased, cannot find it right now): "Without inside knowledge it's hard to distinguish stupidity from good engineering"

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#67

Post by freetime2 » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 7:16 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 would like to believe that if he had worded things better, things would have turned out differently. I don't know that it's true though. Sadly, I think a lot of the most vocal critics calling for him to be fired never even read the memo. And a lot of the reporting seemed to just cherry pick (and misrepresent) the most controversial parts.

Seems to me that his undoing was having a thought that couldn't be expressed in 140 characters.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#68

Post by Aloha » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 7:17 AM UTC

hackpert wrote: post #54

maehwasu wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's an unpopular opinion, but I'm convinced that the reason women are under represented in tech has more to do with an inherent disinterest in it, than structural barriers to it.

We can do more/better to ensure that the women who do find their way to technology face less barriers though, ending the 'brogrammer' culture, making sure women are paid a fair and equal salary, and honestly some sensitivity training (on both sides) to help improve us geeks with poor social skills, getting rid of predatory leadership is also a required element.

I'd also suggest not framing this as "incapable", that's a gross disservice to everyone, different should never be treated as inferior - and also, there is no universality here.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#69

Post by gfodor » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 7:18 AM UTC

freetime2 wrote: post #67

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 would like to believe that if he had worded things better, things would have turned out differently. I don't know that it's true though. Sadly, I think a lot of the most vocal critics calling for him to be fired never even read the memo. And a lot of the reporting seemed to just cherry pick (and misrepresent) the most controversial parts. Seems to me that his undoing was having a thought that couldn't be expressed…

Maybe. I think the parties he had to write it for were the cherry-pickers. Leave them no cherries to pick, first and foremost. As soon as that fails, you lose. If you clear that hurdle, now you at least have a good chance of people reading the paper. The next hurdle is to get them to actually reading it without flipping the bozo bit due to being offended by the voice in their head telling them this person is a bigot, etc.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#70

Post by chmike » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 7:20 AM UTC

> 2. Say “This topic is harmful to people and we shouldn’t discuss it” (a little draconian maybe, but at least intellectually honest)

This is so wrong in so many ways. Don't call back in question that the universe was created in 7 day, that the earth is flat, global warming etc. Because it is harmful to believers ?

It's not just a difference in personality. It's a difference in behavioral and intellectual capability. Denying or repressing it is plain stupid. This essay proves that something is totally wrong in the way people handle this issue. But this is sadly not a surprize.