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

141–150 of 194 posts

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#141

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#142

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

vanderreeah wrote: post #64
Aloha wrote: 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.

You do have to admit though that women have some unique problem solving skills in the field of gestating and nursing.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#143

Post by notacoward »

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…

What I find frustrating is that so few people on either side of that one point seem able to separate that from the rest of the memo. There only seem to be two camps here.

(1) The biological-differences part is wrong, therefore everything else based on that is invalid.

(2) The biological-differences part is right, therefore everything else in the memo is also right.

Why do so many people who condemn (1) as unscientific then resort to (2) which is illogical? Conflating one part of Damore's argument with the whole is fallacious, and just as stifling as anything being done on the other side.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#144

Post by needlessly2 »

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?

for liberals, it reinforces preconceived notion in tech.

and also because the media has lots of power.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#145

Post by notacoward »

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.

> they sudden find themselves to be the target of irrational hatred and hostile actions.

So who exactly is being doxxed and threatened over this? Who is doing the doxxing and threatening? Yes, the debate is being stifled by hatred and hostile actions. We should all oppose that, but some seem to be withholding their condemnation because the results suit them.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#146

Post by TheAdamAndChe »

maehwasu wrote: post #25
MattRix wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

1. The goalposts for how much systemic biases have been "fixed" are moved constantly and predictably. 2. Much of the argument for the existence of systemic biases comes from willful, repeated ignoring of the already extant evidence for nature/nurture. 3. When ignoring evidence no longer suffices, proponents of the systemic bias theory move immediately to unpersoning their opponents as racist/sexist bigots.

> Much of the argument for the existence of systemic biases comes from willful, repeated ignoring of the already extant evidence for nature/nurture.

I feel it is important to point out that this is an important consideration with regards to sex, not race. There is evidence of sexual dimorphism and hormonal differences between the sexes worldwide, but as far as I know there are no such trends between races. From what I understand, genetic diversity differs more within the races than between them.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#147

Post by TheAdamAndChe »

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…

I think part of the issue is that the pendulum may be swinging too far. Sexist sentiment against men and racist sentiment against whites is growing massively at a time when whites are soon to be a minority in the country.

You say "we are... a generation from a time when not hiring black people or women for jobs... was [standard]..." If this is the case and we truly aren't in a time when this isn't standard anymore, then why should we maintain practices that are discriminatory against whites and men?

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#148

Post by TheAdamAndChe »

vanderreeah wrote: post #130
thinkfurther wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It's an issue with your previous post. If everyone here was simply commenting "you're wrong," "no, you're wrong" with no explanations, then the conversation wouldn't go anywhere and the conversation would be pointless. If you comment saying someone is wrong, please explain so others may learn from your viewpoint.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#149

Post by TheAdamAndChe »

mercer wrote: post #133
ryan-allen wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I suppose it would be? But I'm not entirely sure I understand how your comment relates to mine though. Could you elaborate?

From how I'm interpreting it, ryan-allen is saying "If there are quantified differences between the sexes, and even with the biological differences taken into consideration we still see a gap, should we do something about it?" which is a fantastic question made more difficult by the fact that it won't ever be quantifiable.

There may be legitimate biological factors affecting career preference, but how do we determine when that stops and cultural suppression begins?

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#150

Post by slindz »

honestoHeminway wrote: post #136
tajen wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Accomplished Diplomacy is the skill of choice. If you can manipulate all those political warriors and fanatics to support propelling you on - against there own interests, you may have a career still. Think of it, less like a race of skilled people- and more, like rising through the ranks of a political party.

But I chose computers because I like clear cut solutions and the lack of bullshit......
Post reply on HN