Live data from Hacker News

Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

juliagalef.com

111–120 of 194 posts

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#111
post #91
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless specific sexual organs are required for a job (eg surrogate mother, wet nurse), there should be no appreciable skew in any industry.

Well there is. So are you suggesting equal efforts should be expended to equalizing the representation of men in nursing and women in bricklaying, as we do other fields? They are skewed worse than most, so perhaps more effort should be put there? Are the skews in those fields equally unacceptable or somehow more acceptable? And if they are more acceptable, why? Based upon the public discourse, the commonly accepted a…

I'm simply making an ethical claim. Any` skew sounds unacceptable to me.

If we agree that any` skew is unacceptable, I'd suggest we take advantage of leverage and seek the greatest skew correction per resources allocated. That might well turn out to be in construction workers…

`statistically significant

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#112
post #82

Yes, there may or may not be biological differences. Or cultural differences. In fact, it's almost certainly both, and it really doesn't matter. The single most important argument people like this ex-Googler never seem to understand is that they're confusing what is with what ought to be. If there's one defining characteristic of humanity, it's our ability to overcome biology (the 'hardware',so to speak), using our u…

> Even if there were jobs that women were less qualified for, or had less interest in, we would want lower the difference, with equal representation if possible. I agree that a 50/50 split in men and female software engineers seems like a desirable thing. If it existed today I would not consider it surprising, and I would consider it to be a great thing. That said: is this also true for bricklayers and construction w…

> is this also true for bricklayers and construction workers...?

No, it is not–and I tried to make that argument: you want female CEOs and politicians and software engineers not (just) for the sake of each of these CEOs and engineers. You want it because these roles come with power over other people, either directly, because they make the law or they design the software we all use. And also, quite generically, they are well-paid, and money is also power.

There are, obviously, no absolutes in this: I wouldn't for a second doubt that I, as a white male can be adequately represented by a black congresswoman.

But I can easily see that, for example, more women at the CXO level could lead to better company-financed childcare.

I think what's important to mention is that this isn't a zero-sum game where any advances by women create equal and opposite losses for men: when women fail to advance to the level that their skills would usually warrant (not just because they didn't get that top job, but also because they got the impression that they should rather go into nursing than medicine etc.), then we are, as a society, letting these skills go to waste.

To see this mechanism, just consider what would happen if we prohibited everyone born in the summer months to work: would that make it easier for the other 3/4 to find a job? Of course not: their loss of income would result in a loss of demand, and therefore jobs, of equal proportions.

This effect, together with the idea that higher diversity seems to also result in better performance of companies, should more than compensate any first-order losses that better representation may initially bring.

And, specifically to your question about bricklayers etc.: of course nobody complains about not having access to something that they don't want. But women being underrepresented in some of these labor jobs doesn't mean they're getting a better deal than men: the female overrepresentation in nursing alone probably makes up for it, considering how many nurses there are. And I'd even say us men have at some point collectively decided that housework is rather unattractive, and women do the vast majority of that.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#113
post #95

Yes, there may or may not be biological differences. Or cultural differences. In fact, it's almost certainly both, and it really doesn't matter. The single most important argument people like this ex-Googler never seem to understand is that they're confusing what is with what ought to be. If there's one defining characteristic of humanity, it's our ability to overcome biology (the 'hardware',so to speak), using our u…

If you wrote just the first three paragraphs, I would upvote you. I agree completely. But then: > Even if there were jobs that women were less qualified for, or had less interest in, we would want lower the difference, with equal representation if possible. Who are we to tell people what they should do? If people want or don't want to work in some field, they should have the freedom to do so. They shouldn't be forced…

This isn't about telling anyone what they should do–at least not in any new way.

Everyone is in some way being told what to do by society, in that the needs of the economy are reflected in any number of mechanisms that influence peoples' decisions. I'd even say almost nobody actually gets to "work in the field they want to work in", simply because the demand for "highly paid beer tester" is lower than peoples' interest in the job.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#114
> 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 “incorrect assumptions.”

I'm sorry, the last sentence is not true - Pichai was very careful not to say which parts of the memo were "incorrect assumptions".

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#115
post #82

Yes, there may or may not be biological differences. Or cultural differences. In fact, it's almost certainly both, and it really doesn't matter. The single most important argument people like this ex-Googler never seem to understand is that they're confusing what is with what ought to be. If there's one defining characteristic of humanity, it's our ability to overcome biology (the 'hardware',so to speak), using our u…

> Even if there were jobs that women were less qualified for, or had less interest in, we would want lower the difference, with equal representation if possible. I agree that a 50/50 split in men and female software engineers seems like a desirable thing. If it existed today I would not consider it surprising, and I would consider it to be a great thing. That said: is this also true for bricklayers and construction w…

> That said: is this also true for bricklayers and construction workers, who are basically 100% male? What about nurses or child care givers, who are predominantly female?

There are projects to fix the gender imbalances in each of those industries.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#116
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is a different between refuting (proving it wrong) and rebutting (stating it is wrong) an idea - I've seen many rebuttals, but few refutals.

People being different should never be used as an brickbat to claim inferiority - all people are different, and equality is one of the most important values to be found.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#117

Yes, there may or may not be biological differences. Or cultural differences. In fact, it's almost certainly both, and it really doesn't matter. The single most important argument people like this ex-Googler never seem to understand is that they're confusing what is with what ought to be. If there's one defining characteristic of humanity, it's our ability to overcome biology (the 'hardware',so to speak), using our u…

> If there's one defining characteristic of humanity, it's our ability to overcome biology (the 'hardware',so to speak), using our unique 'software' of self-awareness and abstract reasoning.

Sure, when there's a compelling benefit to doing so, we totally can.

There are obvious benefits to gender diversity when it comes to political representation. Women are still oppressed when it comes to healthcare in the US. They need representation to be treated fairly.

It's not as obvious that there is a need for equal representation in tech. If the current geek culture works quite well, and women by and large aren't interested in joining that culture, that's not obviously a problem as long as those who do want to join aren't prevented or discouraged from doing so.

Changing that culture so that it's more appealing to women might make it better, might make it worse, or might have no effect on the effectiveness of the tech sector.

It's certainly lowered productivity for now though, with all of us commenting on these frequent stories on HN!

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is no reason for feeling that way though, as Julia points out in her text. The memo wasn't about the individual abilities. We are looking here at very intelligent types of persons. Shouldn't they be able to actually grasp the difference (and realize that in fact the conclusions from the memo even do allow for a hypthetical outcome of women as the qualitatively better coders -> i tried to explain this here https…

Agree in total.

People seem to forget (of late) that consensus requires discussion and cannot be achieved by fiat.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#119
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...empathy was not an important factor in getting through my coursework or examinations. When you put it that way, it is a shocking indictment of how little the current educational system actually serves the needs of the software industry. Most of us work on things that interact with, and affect, real people. Yet engineers are usually hired based on how well they can memorize data structures that they will almost nev…

Everything that everyone works on affects people. Programming is no different than any other profession in that regard.

That's obviously not true, as there are major differences between professions.

The work of an architect or event planner affects people directly and intimately in everyday interactions. The work of a mathematician or sociologist doesn't.

Programmers' work is closer to the former group, but educational and hiring practices pretend it's more like the latter.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#120

> 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…

I don't get this obsession with negating biology, rather than celebrating it. That men and women are biologically different is a 100% fact. Why do we have to try and make them equal? The equality doctrines I learned growing up in India always came down to this: celebrate people as individuals. Give them freedom to do what they want and love. Am I wrong in holding this belief to still be true?

> The equality doctrines I learned growing up in India

Does India have equality? Caste systems and preference for male children.

Post reply on HN