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

Google cancels meeting on gender controversy due to employee fears of harassment

recode.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 71 posts

Re: Google cancels meeting on gender controversy due to employee fears of harassment

#61

Post by IshKebab »

throwaway12124 wrote: post #46
parenthephobia wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only a fallacy if it isn't true. Is it not true that a supporter of freedom of speech would support other people's freedom to disagree with him without being doxxed by his supporters? It seems to me that it is true, at least if the supporter's conception of freedom of speech includes freedom from harassment after speaking, which Damore certainly appears to be believe to be true. Having said that, although I thin…

Actually, rhetorical forms are fallacies if they are not universally true. That they may be true in particular instances is not important.

That's not what a fallacy is.

Re: Google cancels meeting on gender controversy due to employee fears of harassment

#62

Post by jwilk »

problems wrote: post #57
RickJWag wrote: post #12

I quit reading after a few of the inflammatory exaggerations. Obvious bias one way or the other turns me off.

Unfortunately other, less biased submissions are getting flagged as dupes.

Links?

Re: Google cancels meeting on gender controversy due to employee fears of harassment

#64

Post by snerbles »

jwilk wrote: post #62
problems wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately other, less biased submissions are getting flagged as dupes.

Links?

Flagged: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14989835

Dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14985094

Are the ones I've seen.

Re: Google cancels meeting on gender controversy due to employee fears of harassment

#65

Post by foolrush »

Smutte wrote: post #60
foolrush wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the author of the paper (implicitly) cited disagrees with the claims. http://www.wired.co.uk/article/google-fires-engineer-over-an...

From the Wired article (comment from the scientist): "And I believe there is good evidence of both sexism (including sex stereotypes) and real psychological sex differences (some of which may be evolved) to be causes of the gender gaps across occupations," From the start of the memo: "Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don't have 50% representation of women in tech…

There is at least a sense that the scientist in question disagrees with the application of their research as it stands.

Further, more recent research cited here, Brian Nosek (PhD Psychology):

“My takeaways: Some observed effects are easy to attribute to culture and hard to attribute to biology in the simplistic dichotomy. Active discrimination occurs and is dramatic, but effects of culture seem more commonly subtle shaping of preferences and desires. And, its a really hard problem. Still room for bio, culture, and bioXculture interactions in ultimate accounts.”

https://twitter.com/BrianNosek/status/895410735412543492

And finally, perhaps one of the more well qualified individuals, Suzanne Sadedin (PhD Evolutionary Biology, BA Psychology, and BSc Zoology):

“Yes, men and women are biologically different — which doesn’t mean what the author thinks it does. The article perniciously misrepresents the nature and significance of known sex differences to advance what appears to be a covert alt-right agenda.”

https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-bio...

TL;DR: The “facts” that many insist on, aren't quite as genuinely legible as the screed attempts to make them out to be. Ms. Sadedin’s commentary on the internal memo seems most critical of the interpretation.

Re: Google cancels meeting on gender controversy due to employee fears of harassment

#66

Post by jshevek »

wonderwonder wrote: post #58

I think Google is starting to realize that they jumped the gun on their initial actions. Instead of taking a few moments to get a lay of the land they panicked, flew back their CEO and fired Damore and publicly humiliated him and his opinions. They then scheduled a town hall where I assume the plan was to further demonize him while telling everyone that they still value a free exchange of ideas as long as those ideas…

I agree with everything you are saying.

It does not look like Google's management reacted fairly, nor rationally.

I believe it is vital to the health of our society, our culture, for us to look carefully at why one of the worlds most powerful companies (which historically had a culture valuing data, evidence, and science) would behave in such an irrational, reactionary manner. The answer is surely multifaceted, but I believe that some parts of that answer overlap with other recent events. (Trump's election, Evergreen University, violent attacks by antifa, etc)

Re: Google cancels meeting on gender controversy due to employee fears of harassment

#67

Post by jshevek »

Firebrand wrote: post #6

You know, when you're wrongly accused of being sexist, attempting to clear your name by having an hour-long, preening conversation with Stefan "The evil that women do is generally invisible to society which is why there’s so much violence in society" Molyneux doesn't seem like the best option.

I think that was a terrible choice, which I believe reflects some of the naivete which informs several aspects of how he has handled this overall situation.

Guilt by association is an irrational and awful way to defame someone, and he leaves himself open to it.

Re: Google cancels meeting on gender controversy due to employee fears of harassment

#68

Post by jshevek »

problems wrote: post #57
RickJWag wrote: post #12

I quit reading after a few of the inflammatory exaggerations. Obvious bias one way or the other turns me off.

Unfortunately other, less biased submissions are getting flagged as dupes.

There is an obvious flag brigade with an agenda.

Re: Google cancels meeting on gender controversy due to employee fears of harassment

#69

Post by Smutte »

foolrush wrote: post #65
Smutte wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the Wired article (comment from the scientist): "And I believe there is good evidence of both sexism (including sex stereotypes) and real psychological sex differences (some of which may be evolved) to be causes of the gender gaps across occupations," From the start of the memo: "Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don't have 50% representation of women in tech…

There is at least a sense that the scientist in question disagrees with the application of their research as it stands. Further, more recent research cited here, Brian Nosek (PhD Psychology): “My takeaways: Some observed effects are easy to attribute to culture and hard to attribute to biology in the simplistic dichotomy. Active discrimination occurs and is dramatic, but effects of culture seem more commonly subtle s…

Yes there are other links/comments from other people that give a better criticism. That is not what was discussed but although it is not as obvious, I think the same agenda shines through in your links.

First quote doesn't say anything concrete. Someone thinks it is "easier" to attribute to culture without really linking it to the nature of Google recruiting from a small part of the population. The statement can be true without the memo being wrong. I understand the quote sounds like its critical of the memo, but really what does it say? That its hard to tell and that culture might (or even is) be a bigger factor? That would not be contrary to anything in the memo

The second comment is the "least bad" critique that I have seen. However, to me its quite obviously written with an agenda. Read the comments under her post. Especially the ones from Jeremy Arnold. Note particularly his tone compared to hers and how he even points out her quite obvious agenda. Also notice how the conversation shifts to Julie Taylor and how the climate of discussion changed. My point is that I am not competent enough and dont have enough time to read through and understand all sources, find my own sources to balance her agenda etcetc. Lets hope more honest and competent people, who have the ability to see both sides, jump into the debate.

Re: Google cancels meeting on gender controversy due to employee fears of harassment

#70

Post by Smutte »

foolrush wrote: post #65
Smutte wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the Wired article (comment from the scientist): "And I believe there is good evidence of both sexism (including sex stereotypes) and real psychological sex differences (some of which may be evolved) to be causes of the gender gaps across occupations," From the start of the memo: "Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don't have 50% representation of women in tech…

There is at least a sense that the scientist in question disagrees with the application of their research as it stands. Further, more recent research cited here, Brian Nosek (PhD Psychology): “My takeaways: Some observed effects are easy to attribute to culture and hard to attribute to biology in the simplistic dichotomy. Active discrimination occurs and is dramatic, but effects of culture seem more commonly subtle s…

Here is a good example and again consider the tone. It is central in this whole drama. When you dont know all the facts in every detail, a good tool is to just try to understand wheteher the person who is sharing information is after the truth or not.

Clearly the people representing your links are not (according to me). Here is a good example from a pretty well known individual:

http://www.nydailynews.com/amp/opinion/google-wrong-article-...

The tone and way of reasoning is like from another world compared to Sadedin.

Post reply on HN