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

181–190 of 194 posts

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#181

Post by honestoHeminway »

slindz wrote: post #150
honestoHeminway wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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......

The fundamental problem is- you where to succesfull. Society moved into your flat, and with society came the priest-caste and the various lords of various thiefdoms.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#182

Post by vanderreeah »

Aloha wrote: post #176
vanderreeah wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally agree - but in my opinion, and in the knowledge that this will receive a lot of downvotes, such statements don't require refuting, only rebutting. In my opinion, again, only statements which bear at least a nugget of rationality require the expenditure of one's own rationality in the effort to refute them.

I can argue my statements (and the underlying memo) do have a nugget of rationality - we can debate on that. Also, I'm pleased to see you didnt take downvotes either.

Your civility is making it hard for me to pigeon-hole you as an unreasonable reactionary. Please desist.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#183

Post by acjohnson55 »

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.

If society is being torn apart, then the era of peak togetherness was vanishingly small. I mean, we had our first non-white male president less than a decade ago. That's a really hyperbolic sentiment when a lot of sizable minorities have never or only very recently felt resonably included in society.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#184

Post by acjohnson55 »

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…

> Many of those hypotheses, however, are shouted down as "racist", "sexist", or some other "ist" when they come up, and all of their possible costs are then listed in a litany, with all possible benefits ignored.

The research he alludes to isn't crazy. The policy changes he advocates for aren't crazy (although I disagree with many of them). What's nefarious is that they exist in the same document. Connecting the dots would indeed be sexist. So he doesn't, and leaves it as an exercise for the reader.

Let's not pretend that "just having the conversation" is a neutral thing. It's not. He doesn't bring up these gender differences for fun..

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#185

Post by someguydave »

acjohnson55 wrote: post #183
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.

If society is being torn apart, then the era of peak togetherness was vanishingly small. I mean, we had our first non-white male president less than a decade ago. That's a really hyperbolic sentiment when a lot of sizable minorities have never or only very recently felt resonably included in society.

What does any of that have to do with the demonization of people who summarize empirical evidence about psychology and human behavior?

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#186

Post by thinkfurther »

throwawaymanbot wrote: post #172
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…

IF he was worried about his job, why did he circulate a memo with highly controversial views around the company? Hes a little entitled to think that people cared to not only hear his controversial view, but also read his memo about his controversial thoughts on this controversial subject within a private company. What outcome was he expecting from doing this? Blaming google? Seriously?

If she was worried about being raped, why did she wear a mini skirt in the bad part of town? What outcome did she expect? Blame the rapist? Seriously?

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#187

Post by thinkfurther »

shadowmint wrote: post #180
jamesrcole wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Things happen to people all the time, should I care about every single person who gets fired for doing something stupid at work? Do you care that Bob down the road got fired for swearing at his boss? I bet you don't. Why is this guy special?

> Do you care that Bob down the road got fired for swearing at his boss? I bet you don't.

That's hardly a fitting analogy.

And yes, I for one do care about people including strangers, at least in the sense that I don't like hearing of bad things befalling others. Until they signal good reasons for ceasing to care about them like you are doing, in those cases I restrict my empathy to recognize their lack of empathy.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#188

Post by someguydave »

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…

> Maybe because the "deep american society" remains much more sexist than in Europe, thus justifying a much stronger defense from feminists?

No my theory is that the USA is the home of these hyperleftist utopians. The US installed these uptopians as rulers in Europe after WWII.

The host always has the most immunity to the disease. The strongest critics and detractors of the uptopians also live in the US, and they are more visible as TV and movie villians in US media.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#189

Post by shadowmint »

thinkfurther wrote: post #187
shadowmint wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Things happen to people all the time, should I care about every single person who gets fired for doing something stupid at work? Do you care that Bob down the road got fired for swearing at his boss? I bet you don't. Why is this guy special?

> Do you care that Bob down the road got fired for swearing at his boss? I bet you don't. That's hardly a fitting analogy. And yes, I for one do care about people including strangers, at least in the sense that I don't like hearing of bad things befalling others. Until they signal good reasons for ceasing to care about them like you are doing, in those cases I restrict my empathy to recognize their lack of empathy.

> That's hardly a fitting analogy.

From my perspective, it's absolutely no different.

...but you know, reading your comment history, I see there's little point in arguing about it with you.

Let's just settle for: we disagree. ...and, that's totally ok.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#190

Post by AstralStorm »

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #149
mercer wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Easily enough. Ethnography is the main source of help there. Check other cultures with different set of biases.

Failing that, attempt to experimentally manufacture a different culture in a small scale experiment.

Post reply on HN