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

Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 1001 posts

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

#531

Post by thinkfurther »

kristianc wrote: post #122
annexrichmond wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. He mentioned in an interview[1] that he was looking to be proven wrong which is what led him to share it with the Skeptics group at Google, which is when the document propagated. He had actually wrote the document weeks prior but was unsatisfied with the lack of discussion on his document. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU

That seems an odd approach tbh. Many 'Skeptics' groups (Skeptic / Rationalist YouTube) online at least would agree with his reasoning. It strikes me as odd that he was seeking to take down an ideological echo chamber but published it initially in the echo chamber most likely to agree with him.

> That seems an odd approach tbh.

If that's odd, then what is firing just to prove him right?

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

#532

Post by stickfigure »

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…

I think this is what you're looking for:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

I've always assumed this was an official rule of Hacker News commentary, but now that I look for it, I don't see it explicitly mentioned in the guidelines. Yet it somehow seems to be woven into the fabric here.

The opposite is to paint your opposition as despicable as possible to show that you are righteous and just. I feel like I've been getting way too much of this from Facebook in the last couple weeks.

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

#533

Post by moduspol »

So at the top of the article, just before the interview starts, there's this:

> There’s been a lot of anger on both sides, but I haven’t seen many constructive discussions between people who disagree on these issues. I and all the women who have contributed in this post feel that there’s forward progress to be made by finding common ground and discussing different viewpoints without yelling. I hope this will be a good forum for that.

Do you feel like this article does this?

To me, it looks like three people (two of whom openly identify as having left-wing political views) mostly agreeing. That's still useful, but falls way short of "constructive discussion between people who disagree on these issues."

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

#534

Post by thinkfurther »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #509
xienze wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Be honest here -- do you _really_ think there's a way to present the argument that --gasp-- men and women might be different in their abilities that _wouldn't_ trigger a meltdown? I think this memo really highlights the fact that there are Some Things You Just Can't Talk About.

No, you can't, because there isn't evidence that biological differences cause people to choose different careers. Why would put forth a theory that is opposed to a company's values of equality if you don't have proof? Most evidence points to socialized factors, not biological ones. If Damore really cares about this issue, he should study biology and make his case there. He will do more to move the debate forward from…

> because there isn't evidence that biological differences cause people to choose different careers.

Oh? What about basketball players or jockeys?

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

#535

Post by reitanqild »

9j9j9j9ju wrote: post #476
kristianc wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well done for proving I can't get pregnant. What else you got? Edit: But while we're at it, there are male gynaecologists too, largely because while they're studying, they develop an affinity for gynaecology.

That wasn't the point. I think that Americans in particular are too obsessed with their "American dream", their belief that "you can be whoever you want if you work hard enough" that they cannot even accept basic facts from their own biology. There's a reason why all sports, including non-physical ones, like chess, have separate competition for women - and when there is mixed competition women get places below 100th.…

There's a reason why all sports, including non-physical ones, like chess, have separate competition for women

Women compete fine in competitive shooting. That requires some swrious mental skills. Source: I like to watch the national championships.

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

#536

Post by wan23 »

jdoliner wrote: post #392
wan23 wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Though if you read the memo carefully, Damore doesn't actually make the claim that Google lowers the bar for women in the sense that they hire women who are less capable. His complaint is that Google lowers the bar in the sense of reducing the number of "false negative" rejections of diversity candidates by paying more attention to those applications. He was calling for an end to this practice not because it was allo…

The devil's in the details on this stuff, and unfortunately we don't have the details so it's hard to say exactly how much devil there is in them. How do they lower the false negative rate? A sibling comment mentioned Google's practice of giving diversity candidates a second interview if they fail the first. This would mean if you have a false negative rate of `n` your false negative rate would become `n^2` (which is…

That's not really moving the bar though - false positives are undesired errors. Also, at Google hiring decisions are made by committees using feedback collected from the interviewers. Presumably they don't discard the first interviews, but instead consider all of them.

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

#537

Post by turtleofdeath »

and0 wrote: post #139
mizzack wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From your quote: > When I walk into my job at a tech company, how do I know which of my colleagues thinks I’m an outlier among women versus someone who was hired because I’m female that doesn’t deserve the job they have? Your perspective is that this is harmful because the memo caused self doubt, so the memo was the problem. From Damore's perspective, if there were no quota/diversity hiring programs at that place of…

The author of that quote clearly wasn't describing her fears that she had been hired only because of affirmative action, but the claims about her innate inabilities, however slight.

Yes, but this raises the issue of affirmative action causing bias about innate abilities, and that's absolutely true.

If you knew there were a lower bar for people who had red hair, for example, because there's a pay gap and their population ratio isn't represented equally, every time you'd have someone on your team with red hair, you'd wonder if they were there because of the exception made for them or if they got there on pure merit. Thus, affirmative action causes people to question that merit (bias).

Worse, the redhead who got in never knows if they got accepted based on merit or based on some quota, which contributes heavily Impostor syndrome, negative self image and confirmation bias based on that negative self image.

You combine these two things over time and there is absolutely an impact.

Damore's ultimate points were: let's discuss this and, by the way, please don't ignore me just because my opinion is unpopular.

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

#538

Post by dguaraglia »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #475
tiles wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google's stance, as stated in the article, is that they divert more energy in to finding minority candidates. That's not the same as a lower bar. Abilities are expected to be distributed equally still.

> Google's stance, as stated in the article, is that they divert more energy in to finding minority candidates. That's not the same as a lower bar. Abilities are expected to be distributed equally still. That has a very pernicious effect across the industry though. Think about what that policy does to other companies . The other companies won't have as many high quality women because Google scouted and hired them alr…

But isn't that true of any hiring practice? Should people start lowering their standards just so other companies can get better candidates too?

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

#539

Post by taysic »

rayiner wrote: post #481
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…

> I do not think that anyone's ability to write should disbar them from discussion. We can not expect perfection from others. Instead we should try to understand them as human beings, and interpret them with generosity and kindness. I'm a huge proponent of the principle of charity, but I found it impossible to apply to the Google Memo. Not because I'm deeply mired in political correctness (I have a range of views peo…

Well said. I thought the memo was well written with poor reasoning as to causation. Though the memo said there were influences outside of biology, it spent no time exploring them.

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

#540

Post by gnicholas »

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…

One interesting point that hasn't attracted much attention is that the author self-identifies as being on the autism spectrum [1]. If this fact were better-known, would accessibility advocates defend his memo — and possibly even attack its detractors for not being sensitive to his neurological differences?

1: https://www.reddit.com/r/JamesDamore/comments/6thcy3/im_jame...

Post reply on HN