Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo • Hacker News Board

Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

#361

Post by mpweiher » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 9:12 PM UTC

dguaraglia wrote: post #254

gavanwoolery wrote: post #152

Interesting thoughts - I think the biggest misunderstanding thus far involves generalizations. You can accurately make generalizations about a group of people, without implying that a given individual necessarily falls under that generalization. For example you could say "80 percent of males are into action movies" - but you should not go up to an individual male and state "you are into action movies" if you care abo…

I'll just refer to the women in the article: > Assuming that it’s true that women on average are more likely to have trait X, why should any woman have to overcome the additional barrier of proving that she’s not like other women, or that if she IS like other women, that the trait has no bearing on her job performance?

(a) Because you're in an environment that has already selected for "not trait X"

(b) Because you don't have to prove anything to anyone, especially about trait X. All you have to do is your job.

(c) Everyone has something like that.

Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

#362

Post by mpweiher » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 9:13 PM UTC

suzzer99 wrote: post #299

The Economist really nails it imo. Pointing to some random stats that support your hypothesis, ignoring others, and speculating the significance of said stats is not science - it's motivated reasoning. https://www.economist.com/news/21726276-last-week-paper-said...

He did a much more balanced job than 99% of his critics, including The Economist.

Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

#363

Post by chc » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 9:14 PM UTC

exergy wrote: post #267

jake-low wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is addressed in TFA. > [W]hen I go to work, I go to work, and not to a debate club. Some people at Google reacted by saying “well if he’s so wrong, then why not refute him,” but that requires spending a significant amount of time building an argument against the claims in his document. On the other hand, if I remain silent, that silence could be mistaken for agreement. I should not be forced into that kind of de…

I sympathise with the woman saying she'd much rather just focus on code rather than social justice debates. But, as flippant as it is for a guy to say it, it's their cross to bear isnt it? Women in tech. Because, if they don't speak up, then what? Where does that leave us? Should the "other side" also not speak up? Just focus on code? Should they suppress real emotions that they're feeling? I'm not flaming, just wond…

This seems roughly cognate to "There are people who want to do their jobs, and there are people who want to poke the people in Group A with sticks. Should an employer constrain Group B from poking the people in Group A altogether just because Group A doesn't want to participate?" I think most people would easily answer, "Yes, we should prevent people from going around poking unwilling coworkers with sticks, and they should also be prevented from getting around the rule by throwing sticks around and just 'happening' to hit those coworkers, because it's not useful to have people doing that in your workplace and it disrupts Group A." I don't think anybody would really say, "Getting poked with sticks is just Group A's cross to bear."

Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

#364

Post by alexandercrohde » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 9:14 PM UTC

Spivak wrote: post #330

alexandercrohde wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PC and popular are not at all the same. A vocal minority gets to define PC, and that minority happens to be on the left. If the right were as aggressive as the left were about PC, they'd say "Talking about baby-murder [abortion] makes me feel unsafe as a mother and therefore if it is mentioned at work creates a hostile work environment"

I will absolutely agree that there's a minority a very vocal people, but they themselves could not maintain a PC atmosphere. If they were truly in the minority they would be easily dismissed as overly sensitive. It's the large body of moderate people, who in general agree with the idea, that provide the muscle for enforcing a PC atmosphere.

I think a vocal minority (10%) has bullied the silent majority into a position of "If you're not on our side you're hurting us and should be fired." They did this by controlling the language, by getting to define who's a victim, who's a minority, what's "offensive," what's a "safe-space."

We're seeing the backlash now, because people are finally admitting it's gone too far.

Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

#365

Post by Method-X » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 9:14 PM UTC

rpiguy wrote: post #6

I really enjoyed the well reasoned discussion. I think a lot more constructive dialog is happening now that people have calmed down. Of all the sentiments expressed in the article, I mainly disagree with the comment that Damore did the company harm. He posted his thoughts on an internal discussion board and someone else leaked this internal document to the press. The leaker did harm to Google not Damore. In fact, I t…

> He posted his thoughts on an internal discussion board

An internal discussion board intended for controversial discussion no less!

Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

#366

Post by tracker1 » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 9:14 PM UTC

nodamage wrote: post #200

joe_the_user wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd actually say just the opposite - the memo seemed to be written as well and in as conciliatory manner as it could be written and the memo made good (or at least plausible) point and bad points. But the bad points were so bad that it was appropriate and necessary to fire Damore. Essentially, as analogy, there's no way for a person to say "Black people are inferior and shouldn't be hired", as a message broadcast thr…

"Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems." This is conciliatory to you? Implying that the opposing side is blind to the truth and such blindness is preventing them from actually solving problems? Because to me this comes across as hostile and…

So, you're saying that all differences are either "socially constructed or due to discrimination?"

Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

#367

Post by 9j9j9j9ju » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 9:14 PM UTC

kristianc wrote: post #102

> I disagree completely and utterly that the (yes, real) average differences between men and women map to being better or worse at certain jobs. Interest in certain jobs, certainly. And we know – and many of us have experienced – that interest levels are also heavily influenced by social and cultural factors. This is the key point. Even if you accept that there are average genetic differences, they are far outweighed…

>> Even if you accept that there are average genetic differences, they are far outweighed by socio-cultural factors. Reducing people to their genes is lazy psuedo-science

If you are a man I dare you to use that argument to get yourself appointment at gynaecologist's :)

Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

#368

Post by jorgemf » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 9:14 PM UTC

sidlls wrote: post #128

jorgemf wrote: post #111

> I disagree with his use of science and data to convert opinions into facts. Funny. So if you backed your opinions with science that is not right? It was hard to keep reading after that statement.

"Applied science incorrectly to confirm a bias or advance an opinion incorrectly" and "applied science to form an opinion" are different things. Damore did the former.

He wrote the article as a research article. So every time he put an statement he referenced it with a research article which supports that statement. I don't understand why this is wrong. All research papers are written this way.

Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

#369

Post by alexandercrohde » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 9:15 PM UTC

xigency wrote: post #207

alexandercrohde wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand it he was raising on an internal issue that was generally accepted as open for discussion (hiring and quotas). I think likening it to "mailing a manifesto out" is a deliberate mischaracterization.

This article is the first I've seen on this memo and by the spread of it inside and outside the company that's what it appeared to be. I'm not trying to mischaracterize the issue. In fact, I don't have all of the information.

That's fair

Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

#370

Post by semi-extrinsic » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 9:15 PM UTC

grey-area wrote: post #89

hedgew wrote: post #21

Many of the more reasonable criticisms of the memo say that it wasn't written well enough; it could've been more considerate, it should have used better language, or better presentation. In this particular link, Scott Alexander is used as an example of better writing, and he certainly is one of the best and most persuasive modern writers I've found. However, I can not imagine ever matching his talent and output, even…

Instead we should try to understand them as human beings, and interpret them with generosity and kindness. Advice Damore would have done well to heed when writing his essay. You should also note there are serious questions about its validity - this is not just a matter of tone or style. https://www.wired.com/story/the-pernicious-science-of-james-...

So I read that, and it's not so much "serious questions about validity" as "overall weak agreement disguised as rebuttal". The main takeaway in the form of disagreement is that social science findings are mostly untrustworthy/not usable?