Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

juliagalef.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 194 posts

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#121

Post by gbog »

someguydave wrote: post #22
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…

>It's intellectually stifling, and I'm no longer interested in enabling people who use that kind of rhetoric. Not only is it stifling, it is tearing our society apart. If a person believes one of these "forbidden hypotheses" they sudden find themselves to be the target of irrational hatred and hostile actions. Everyone must understand that demonizing people creates demons who may one day seek violent revenge.

> "demonizing people creates demons"

I had exactly the same impression with racism a couple decades ago in France: I met a few young guys saying on purpose a lot of racist clichés. I do not think they were really racists, just fed up with the hardcore demonization we had then.

By for some topics such as racism, I'm under the impression that the demonizing pressure is a bit lower than before, at least in France. So there is hope.

For what's happening in the US, it seems to be very frightening -- this guy has been fired for talking about some hypothesis! I wonder why the pressure is so high. Maybe because the "deep american society" remains much more sexist than in Europe, thus justifying a much stronger defense from feminists?

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#122

Post by gbog »

gbog wrote: post #121
someguydave wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's intellectually stifling, and I'm no longer interested in enabling people who use that kind of rhetoric. Not only is it stifling, it is tearing our society apart. If a person believes one of these "forbidden hypotheses" they sudden find themselves to be the target of irrational hatred and hostile actions. Everyone must understand that demonizing people creates demons who may one day seek violent revenge.

> "demonizing people creates demons" I had exactly the same impression with racism a couple decades ago in France: I met a few young guys saying on purpose a lot of racist clichés. I do not think they were really racists, just fed up with the hardcore demonization we had then. By for some topics such as racism, I'm under the impression that the demonizing pressure is a bit lower than before, at least in France. So th…

Also, “Google memo” threads seem to be buried very quickly on HN, which is the only place I imagine where this discussion can be held between consenting adults, how come?

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#123

Post by Smutte »

ryan-allen wrote: post #105
mercer wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure the ex-Googler would disagree with you on this, though. There's even a section titled 'Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap' that clearly indicates he at least is not opposed to reducing the gender gap.

I've been wondering about this. Say that we can prove the distribution of Male/Female interest in technology/no interest in technology, and for arguments sake say we can reliably measure that to be 75:25 male to female. Then we look at the industry as a whole and we discover placement is 90:10, that'd be indicative of a gap, and it'd be equitable to ensure that people who's interests lie in tech are not prevented fro…

First of all, even having that conversation would be a HUGE leap forward in terms of intellectual honesty.

The easy answer to you question (which I think many would agree with) is yes. However, reality is a bit more complicated. Is the 75/25 split in the total population or Google applicants? Are differences originating from things under Google control or from other parts of society? etcetcetc. This is the conversation that should be had. To see differences and honestly discuss them (including striking down on unfair discrimination), while also discussing what the goal should be and what trade-offs we might want to make to get there.

But all of this is impossible when a significant and loud part of the population answer with calling people "sexist" and firing anyone who tries to broaden and nuance the conversation

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#124

Post by yorwba »

gbog wrote: post #122
gbog wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "demonizing people creates demons" I had exactly the same impression with racism a couple decades ago in France: I met a few young guys saying on purpose a lot of racist clichés. I do not think they were really racists, just fed up with the hardcore demonization we had then. By for some topics such as racism, I'm under the impression that the demonizing pressure is a bit lower than before, at least in France. So th…

Also, “Google memo” threads seem to be buried very quickly on HN, which is the only place I imagine where this discussion can be held between consenting adults, how come?

The flamewar detector and flags from people who are fed up with the constant barrage of threads about the same topic. The threads about widespread sexism at Uber were treated similarly.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#125

Post by kybernetikos »

imron wrote: post #90
kybernetikos wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 li…

> means 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. Do you have any studies or statistics to back you up or is this just what you believe? Also, how does it account for males that come from a poo…

> Do you have any studies or statistics to back you up or is this just what you believe?

I wasn't clear enough. There are some situations where smaller subgroups are overrepresented at the top of the field compared to their starting position, startups being one. This is something that can be observed as an empirical fact. The reason for it is perhaps a matter for debate as working out reasons is harder to study and I don't know of any that do in this case, but the most likely seeming reason to me is what I said - that in a field where the predominate culture has a preference, those who don't meet that preference will have to be better just to pass the bar for entry.

Here's a similar article on female CEO performance: http://fortune.com/2015/03/03/women-led-companies-perform-th... guessing at the same underlying reason as I did.

> As a corollary to your point though, how many women founders are there in unicorns?

I actually don't know, since it's difficult to find stats and there is a relatively small population of unicorns (meaning that any conclusion would have to be caveated), but I know of these unicorns with women on their founding teams: Ant Financial, Alibaba, GrabTaxi, Houzz, SunRun, Gilt Groupe, renaissance learning, lynda.com, cloudflare, kabam, 23andMe, fanduel, nextdoor, medallia, eventbrite, and there are a few unicorns that were spun out of other companies with women taking a lead role in that process.

FirstRound.com has an interesting article:

> companies with a female founder performed 63% better than our investments with all-male founding teams. And, if you look at First Round's top 10 investments of all time based on value created for investors, three of those teams have at least one female founder — far outpacing the percentage of female tech founders in general.

http://10years.firstround.com/#one

> So you think that there is difference in ability based on gender?

I didn't mean to make any statement on that topic. I was trying to say that if you assume that your applicants (not the population in general) have ability normally distributed regardless of gender, then you're probably wrong.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#126

Post by jamesrcole »

shadowmint wrote: post #78
kobeya wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it is critically important what he said. He got fired, very publicly, from Google for what he said, or at least an interpretation of what he said. This probably killed his career in tech, if not generally, assuming he doesn't win a wrongful termination settlement. I think it matters a LOT if the reason he got fired was for a hysterical mob justice over a misinterpretation of something he didn't actually say. That…

> He got fired, very publicly, from Google for what he said, or at least an interpretation of what he said. I don't care. I don't know the dude. Lifes tough, people get fired. /shrug. > That is in fact the core issue over outrage -- that someone can get fired over making what is an objectively true mathematical argument. Ah... so what you care about it freedom of speech and expression, nothing to do with diversity? W…

> I don't care. I don't know the dude

You literally don't care about people unless you personally know them?

Or if you do care about them, what's the reason you don't care about this person, nor any the effects of this situation on other people you don't know?

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#127

Post by yahna »

Aloha wrote: post #68
hackpert wrote: post #54

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.

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 bo…

The author also wanted to get rid of diversity programs. Those have the number of women at Google increasing. So why get rid of them?

What's the failing exactly?

I can really only think of 2. Inefficiency, which is possible. The program is increasing the number fo women in tech roles, so optimizing seems better than getting rid of it.

Or reason number 2, it's "lowering the bar".

The problem with reason number 2 is that you are implicitly stating that some number of your female coworkers don't deserve to work at google.

The authors "scientific argument" also seems pretty lame to me.

overall I found it slanted, incomplete, and with a heavy implication that women at google don't deserve to be there.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#128

Post by yahna »

tajen wrote: post #102
someguydave wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's intellectually stifling, and I'm no longer interested in enabling people who use that kind of rhetoric. Not only is it stifling, it is tearing our society apart. If a person believes one of these "forbidden hypotheses" they sudden find themselves to be the target of irrational hatred and hostile actions. Everyone must understand that demonizing people creates demons who may one day seek violent revenge.

> violent revenge If not violent, we're creating the next generation of bigots. The current people identifying with James Damore (=men who were promised they would be selected on skills) are as young as 15 years old. Do we expect them to be inclusive during the remaining 45 years before their retirement? I don't even understand how I should adapt my expectations for career. If competence isn't the criteria anymore, w…

How far does a person have to go before we can call them out as a racist?

If they go right up to the line, but don't cross it, and I call them out am I now responsible if they cross it later?

If I see a few guys in sheets pouring gas on a cross and I call them racists, is it my fault if they light it?

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#129

Post by yahna »

mc32 wrote: post #29

I previously mentioned that in a previous life, I worked myself thru school --somewhat blue collar jobs. People, predominantly older black and white, under-educated, had quite a few views people who go beyond high school might consider offensive or ignorant and stereotyping: about race, aptitude, gender, sexuality, weight, promiscuity, prowess, etc. You know what --people worked, they joked, occasionally scuffled --a…

You must work at a really uptight place now.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#130

Post by vanderreeah »

thinkfurther wrote: post #85
vanderreeah wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> sexist ideas like the one in your second paragraph Calling something sexist and leaving it at that isn't a rebuttal, and the more people agree with something empty, the more they have to answer for, it doesn't give a gram of weight to the thing. But you're not wrong since evolution doesn't exclude regression.

I agree my quick post was not a rebuttal, but I didn't claim it was.

Edit: to say that in the light of Aloha's response, I guess my post was a rebuttal. But not a refutation... Sorry, I'm just quibbling now.

Post reply on HN