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

Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

backreaction.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

861–870 of 872 posts

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#861

Post by xster »

calvinbhai wrote: post #798
jernfrost wrote: post #400

Great perspective. As a Northern European having dealt with American company ownership I don't think the main problem in Google's case was political correctness but rather a general American problem with how free speech is defined in the US. Freedom in America is always about government NOT doing something, while in Europe government is defined as a protector of these freedoms. This shows up clearly with respect to s…

I agree with you. I'm from India, living in the US, for quite some time I thoroughly enjoyed the FoS and FoE concepts exercised in the public (IMO, India is nowhere close to such freedom), but the levels of political correctness among peers seems to be a little too suffocating, which is exactly the thing I miss from my Indian experience. It's like the moment you try to have a conversation about some serious topic, yo…

The cynic in me feels like it's an engineered phenomenon to promote effective political apathy in the population while Balkanizing the exhausted general public with elite-approved wedge issues to make them feel like they're engaging politically even though actual political topics like war, class inequality, education etc are out of bound and the incumbent political elite and media conglomerates are beneficiaries.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#862

Post by mirimir »

PeanutCurry wrote: post #823
mirimir wrote: post #821

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, "institutional" isn't limited to a particular institution. Here, it's extremely pervasive, reflected in virtually all institutions of virtually all known cultures, going back millennia. Based on archeological evidence, it's possible that gender roles and constraints were weaker maybe 20-30 kyr ago.

But that definition isn't particularly helpful unless I'm missing something you're getting at. Sure, a lot of ancient societies had men as hunters and women/meak as gatherers. None of the major world powers are hunter/gatherer societies though. And similar statements could be made about medieval homestead configurations. This is why I was pointing out that most modern institutions aren't a millennia old. Sure, thousa…

Cultures come and go, but sexism seems to stay the same. It could be biological. I suspect that it's mainly a game theoretical implication of the biology of human sexual reproduction. It's all about whether men want to know which kids are theirs, or not. And if they do, what systems get set up to make that possible. So there are two attractors aka stable states. One is what's typical historically: Men dominate women, manage access of other men to them, and so on. The other is where men don't care about knowing paternity. So women don't need to be controlled so much. Maybe some form of polyandry. Or maybe just less emphasis on family vs larger social group.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#863

Post by vasilipupkin »

tchaffee wrote: post #858
vasilipupkin wrote: post #847

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are missing the fact that private workplace is not a free speech forum. It's just a private place of business. You can do what you want but employment is at will. By all means, you should be free to discuss whatever you like, but a company is perfectly free to fire you so you have more time to continue your discussions elsewhere

> You are missing the fact that private workplace is not a free speech forum I am? I never claimed any such thing. My question is clear, no? Is there any practical difference between employers (supposedly) not being able to restrict your speech at work, but being able to fire you for whatever they want?

They can't restrict your speech in general,but at work they can and should do whatever they want. Practically, there is a difference. Unless they are willing to fire you, they can't stop you - get the difference ? For example, if you are so valuable that they are not willing to fire you, then they can't stop you. And if you are not, perhaps you should concentrate on work at work

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#864

Post by PeanutCurry »

mirimir wrote: post #862
PeanutCurry wrote: post #823

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that definition isn't particularly helpful unless I'm missing something you're getting at. Sure, a lot of ancient societies had men as hunters and women/meak as gatherers. None of the major world powers are hunter/gatherer societies though. And similar statements could be made about medieval homestead configurations. This is why I was pointing out that most modern institutions aren't a millennia old. Sure, thousa…

Cultures come and go, but sexism seems to stay the same. It could be biological. I suspect that it's mainly a game theoretical implication of the biology of human sexual reproduction. It's all about whether men want to know which kids are theirs, or not. And if they do, what systems get set up to make that possible. So there are two attractors aka stable states. One is what's typical historically: Men dominate women,…

But those cultures come and go alongside there systems. And those systems that come and go each had unique points of equality and inequality. Just because modern American/European society produces sexist outcomes doesn't mean that the legal systems which govern those societies are fundamentally sexist in the way that ancient Rome could be considered sexist for example. I realize there's a certain amount of pedantry in my rebuttal but, at the same time, your argument reads to me like you feel as though equality hasn't progressed at all since in ancient times. Of course it hasn't progressed at all since ancient times if you're using such a broad, bordering on boolean, definition of sexist.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#865

Post by ttkeil »

_b8r0 wrote: post #183
Const-me wrote: post #113

IMO the best comment from there: Giulio Prisco said... The results of this incident are easy to predict. Now everyone at Google (and everyone in large tech companies, and everyone in academy) knows that they can be fired for expressing opinions that dissent from the party line. Of course they'll shut up for fear of losing their job and the means to support their family. But they won't change their position. If anythi…

I made the grave mistake of trying to express that point on Twitter. Twitter seems to be a poor vehicle for nuanced debate at the best of time, but it's a dumpster fire right now full of raging people who don't understand what you've just said. I was in SV last year for a couple of months during the election, and everyone I met were all paid up members of the church of political correctness up front, but when you spo…

So, what are the odds that Damore read this thread and immediately turned around and wrote his essay? Note the Chomsky quote and use of "heresy".

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-fired-google-195400805.ht... (Non-paywall version)

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#866

Post by tchaffee »

vasilipupkin wrote: post #863
tchaffee wrote: post #858

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are missing the fact that private workplace is not a free speech forum I am? I never claimed any such thing. My question is clear, no? Is there any practical difference between employers (supposedly) not being able to restrict your speech at work, but being able to fire you for whatever they want?

They can't restrict your speech in general,but at work they can and should do whatever they want. Practically, there is a difference. Unless they are willing to fire you, they can't stop you - get the difference ? For example, if you are so valuable that they are not willing to fire you, then they can't stop you. And if you are not, perhaps you should concentrate on work at work

I get your point now. Thanks. I was thinking about this in terms of the average employee. If the boss says you shouldn't talk about something and you want to keep your job, most people will begrudgingly do what they think they need to.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#867

Post by zimpenfish »

depressedpanda wrote: post #675
zimpenfish wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, throwaway257157, if I thought you were posting in good faith, I'd certainly engage with you but using a newly created account means you aren't.

The point the throwaway raises is valid, though. Where is the contradiction?

If you can't see it already, I doubt anything I could say to you would help that.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#868

Post by pink_duck »

nd7287z wrote: post #294
pink_duck wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have just joined the workforce after uni, and it has never been more clear to me that what you're saying about communication and "people skills" is correct. Almost all of the issues that the company that I work for have are based on lack of communication skills, lack of empathy, too much ego etc. It reminds me of what a coed wrote to me once about the difference between a good developer, and two ok ones. "2 Basical…

This claim is entirely unsubstantiated. In fact it is pretty much the opposite of the theses in Fred Brooks' "Mythical man month". I'm not saying Brooks is 100% correct, but his observations are close to what I am seeing in the field.

I wouldn't consider my claim any more unsubstantiated than other observations made by a developer, for instance you. I haven't read the book that you refer to, but it seems like Brooks's law (which according to Wikipedia is the central theme of the book) is talking about already late projects. For those, or any already ongoing project, I agree that adding more people will require ramp up time, but I am not talking about late projects alone. I think that for development in general, using something like pair programming instead of the lone, rock star developer, will lead to better code in the end (https://collaboration.csc.ncsu.edu/laurie/Papers/XPSardinia....).

Further, his second point about communication issues is to some extent proving my, and michaelchisari's point. Communication is a skill that is essential, but not stressed enough. If people were better at "communicate complex ideas in accessible ways", as michaelchisari originally put it, then I think it's likely that Brooks' wouldn't have the second argument to support his law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks%27s_law).

Essentially, I think it comes down to where we work, what we assume about a project, and how the issues in these projects are best tackled.

At my work, better communication would have lead to less work in the long run. This because team leads couldn't clearly state their requirements, the different parties thought they agreed, and work was made that wasn't originally intended by team leads. Moreover, no one that holds a senior position is willing to acknowledge that these communication issues often are two way streets and that they are equally responsible for the miscommunications that happen. They also talk badly about others and have a serious case of hubris, which means that other peoples opinions are looked down upon or sometimes not even listened to. Basically lacking a lot of the skills that michaelchisari originally listed.

I hope that this clears out any "unsubstantiated" parts of my original rant for you.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#869

Post by nailer »

yorwba wrote: post #471
nailer wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First and more important things: nobody is suggesting judging individuals by their gender. Damore's post was explicitly about not doing that. Of course an individual's suitability for a job should not be affected by anything irrelevant. However individual choices may be relevant: for example, you might not be suitable to work in the fitness industry if you're shy about showing your body. Hence distinguishing choices…

It seems my point was a bit muddled by trying to keep it opinion-symmetric. Maybe using a veiled analogy helps? After reading this woman's opinion on Google's programs to increase their share of politically conservative workers, I realized that political bias, although indubitably present, might not fully explain the observed distribution of political alignments. To evaluate "affirmative action" efforts, the effect o…

I understand what you're trying to say, I just don't agree that the analogy works for the reasons I've mentioned. Saying you believe they're plenty interchangable is fine, but that doesn't really respond or advance the conversation.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#870

Post by marrs »

UncleMeat wrote: post #726
marrs wrote: post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's no greater than the leap required to attribute gender disparity to internalised misogyny.

Except we do have direct evidence that gender bias leads to worse callback rates, worse initial evaluation of qualifications, worse promotion results, greater punishment for negotiating salaries, and expectations that are outside of job requirements.

But we also have direct evidence that the distribution of genders across the disciplines increases as opportunities between the genders become more equal. That strongly implies that biology does have an affect on life choices.

It also has to be said that not all evidence is equal.

I was reading an article about this just today, as it happens, complete with citations: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/wh...

Post reply on HN