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

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

#821

Post by dguaraglia » Wed, Aug 16, 2017, 3:35 AM UTC

shitRabbits wrote: post #774

dguaraglia wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your perspective is that this is harmful because the memo caused self doubt, so the memo was the problem. It's not about self-doubt, it's about creating a stereotype by which other people (managers, peers) will prejudge you even before you write the first line of code. This prejudice already exists as is, Damore's memo doesn't do anything to help it. If improving women's opportunities at Google was his objective, h…

I don't think the memo does that. I've not been convinced by anything I've read trying to indicate that it does. I am convinced that people saying it does seem to read more into it and are upset by perceived implications. If I felt the memo implied or created that stereotype I'd denounce it as well.

Let me put it in a different way:

It is widely acknowledged that there are social factors that might affect the number of women entering the field. He could've made as valid an argument about the hiring practices affecting diversity, without bringing up the supposed "biological" factor altogether. Not bringing it up would have probably put him in the right side of the Code of Conduct.

At best, it was poor judgement for him to bring it up when it didn't add anything to the conversation. At worst, it betrays a certain level of misogyny. Those of us who tend to assume the worst, might be more inclined to believe the latter, but I wouldn't blame people for believing the former.

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

#822

Post by ljcrabs » Wed, Aug 16, 2017, 3:47 AM UTC

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…

The memo attempts to use references to what the author sees as well accepted science. If you have a disagreement with the science, you can disagree. However, the method the author to used construct the memo, i.e. referencing studies, is the correct method. At worst you could attempt to call it bad science mixed with ignorance.

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

#823

Post by Cogito » Wed, Aug 16, 2017, 3:48 AM UTC

PrimHelios wrote: post #820

zaroth wrote: post #797

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything you said that's wrong with the interactions you have with male engineers, I'm not sure that James Damore would disagree with any of it, or claim that it doesn't happen, or say that we shouldn't be trying hard to change it. What James argued is that the efforts Google is making and the way they are doing it are in some ways contributing to and making all of those bad experiences you listed worse .

James also argued that women are biologically inferior for STEM fields, which is objectively and demonstrably incorrect. With that, I think he'd disagree with absolutely all of it. He clearly has a confirmation bias, and is actively cherry picking articles (from fucking Wikipedia I might add) and misrepresenting their contents to make women seem inferior.

I keep hearing people say this but didn't read it in the memo.

Can you point to the bit where he says they are biologically inferior, or the sources he links to that say it?

The best I can come up with is the bit where he says Google lowers the bar by reducing the false-negative rate, meaning that a greater percentage of qualified men are rejected than qualified women.

[Edit] Reading through again to see more about biology claims in the memo, this is the one that sticks out the most:

I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.

This sticks out because it mentions abilities - and is indeed the only place where ability is mentioned at all. The wording doesn't say that women are "biologically inferior for STEM fields", but I can see how it might be read that way. I don't read it that way, but I can understand how others might. The surrounding context is pretty much all about the preferences that people have as well, so "women are biologically inferior" doesn't seem like a point that is trying to be made at all.

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

#824

Post by rayiner » Wed, Aug 16, 2017, 3:55 AM UTC

tshadley wrote: post #678

rayiner wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Damore points to studies showing that, e.g. women are more agreeable and more people-oriented. From that, he concludes women on average are less likely to prefer programming. That's Diekman 2010: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20631322 "Although women have nearly attained equality with men in several formerly male-dominated fields, they remain underrepresented in the fields of science, technology, engineering,…

That study doesn't support either of Damore's premises. It doesn't address biological tendencies--it was conducted on adult women. Nor does it address traits actually linked to professions. It focuses on perception. That's an important distinction. In the age of the internet, software is much more about fulfilling communal goals--e.g. helping people communicate with family and friends--than many women-dominated professions like accounting. To the extent women perceive the opposite to be true, a strong argument can be made that it is the result of a male-dominated profession characterizing itself as such, rather than anything inherent about the profession.

Peoples' perceptions of various professions are the result of socialization. For example, my mom grew up in a society where teaching was a male profession--it was characterized as being about instilling wisdom and discipline in children. She found it very upsetting that teachers in the US were overwhelmingly women.

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

#825

Post by ltrcola » Wed, Aug 16, 2017, 3:57 AM UTC

ATsch wrote: post #331

I think it's interesting how the Edith stated Damore had said women were worse at their job, while one of the other women explicitly said he didn't, and the other only mentioned interest in programming. This is similar to the divide I've seen in the media. I have not read the memo in it's entirety, but since the impression I got from reading a few news stories was that Damore had only made his controversial statement…

By gender, she's referring to gender identity which is certainly not binary. There is a pretty high correlation between someone's chromosomes, "equipment", and gender identity but it's not 100% and any of those can vary on a spectrum.

I've been doing some reading on transgender individuals, and the current knowledge is that gender identity has some kind of durable biological basis, we just don't know quite what it is yet. It's not simply a delusion and a refusal to accept your "real biological gender" based on your chromosomes, etc. Some people don't identify as either gender.

And like the other poster mentioned, there are genetic outliers like XXY chromosomes (intersex), and other things that can happen such as Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (XY females due to lack of response to testosterone).

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

#826

Post by ljcrabs » Wed, Aug 16, 2017, 4:05 AM UTC

oconnor663 wrote: post #225

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…

> in as conciliatory manner as it could be written Strongly disagree. I think emphasis is a really big deal here. Here's a key line from the memo: > Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story. This runs right into the Jon Snow line, "everything before the word 'but' is horse____." It comes across that the author d…

I think that you are projecting emphasis into that sentence.

The disclaimer before the 'but' reads quite clearly to me.

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

#827

Post by syrrim » Wed, Aug 16, 2017, 4:05 AM UTC

>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?

Damore never said he thought this way; this is merely an implication of something he did say.

What he did say was that he believes that - even though there are 4 times as many men as women at Google - the men who are there deserve to be there as much as the women. This implies that, were you to utilize quotas to achieve gender parity, then this same equality would not be true - men would now "deserve" their jobs more than women.

Conversely, if you think that gender parity through quotas would bring about equality of the sexes, then that implies that you think men employed right now are less capable then women. Men around you should then ask themselves the inverse question: how do they know which colleagues think they were hired purely because they are a man?

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

#828

Post by occultist_throw » Wed, Aug 16, 2017, 4:14 AM UTC

gutnor wrote: post #494

nicolashahn wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then the correct way to handle it is to drop another refutational evidence bomb attacking his primary points instead of picking the low hanging fruit of claiming it's "too confrontational," "poorly written," "naive," or whatever other secondary problems exist (this is aside from wilfully misrepresenting his claims, which is definitely a bigger problem). Plenty of far more aggressive articles and essays have been writ…

> Then the correct way to handle it is to drop another refutational evidence bomb attacking ... Well from a strategic perspective, that's a losing attitude though. You start in a defensive position in a debate you didn't call. You are stuck in the specific frame the author has decided to limit his own argument. He also restrict the time you have to prepare such a refutal piece as every minute he spend with his argume…

well, the easiest way to refute is to call him racist, sexist, and ageist, all the while beating the "FIRE HIM NOW" drum.

it works rather effectively.

(seriously, the dh0 "u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!!!" is a terrifying force, when seen and used as in a group or mob.)

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

#829

Post by djsumdog » Wed, Aug 16, 2017, 4:14 AM UTC

nicolashahn wrote: post #124

ryanbrunner wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think one thing that struck me from the linked article was the point that the memo wasn't structured to invite discussion. It wasn't "let's have a chat", it was "here's an evidence bomb of how you're all wrong". I think advancing points is fine, but if you're after productive discussion rather than an adversarial debate, you need to proactively invite discussion. And if an adversarial debate was what he was after,…

Then the correct way to handle it is to drop another refutational evidence bomb attacking his primary points instead of picking the low hanging fruit of claiming it's "too confrontational," "poorly written," "naive," or whatever other secondary problems exist (this is aside from wilfully misrepresenting his claims, which is definitely a bigger problem). Plenty of far more aggressive articles and essays have been writ…

> I did not get any aggressive tone from his paper. I thought he was as polite as he needed to be and made the necessary caveats.

I agree with this too. There were issues of perception since the Gizmodo version had no sources, links or charts. Later leaked version had the charts and a full version was put up on diversitymemo.com (which no redirects to Damore's official website).

So a lot of people didn't get the full version, even if they read the whole thing. Overall I thought we was pretty tactful and did his best to express what he knew would be an unpopular viewpoint.

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

#830

Post by averagewall » Wed, Aug 16, 2017, 4:21 AM UTC

If saying that female applicants are given preferential treatment is harmful to female employees, then surely the people doing the preferential treatment (HR?) are the ones who are actually guilty, not the messenger? Why is there no complaints against those practices? Are they not real?

He shouldn't be criticized for raising concerns about discriminatory hiring because, right or wrong, he had a legally protected right to do that without suffering retaliation. If people don't like those ideas being mentioned, they should try to get the law changed because this is one of the very few things Californians can't be fired for yet it seems to be the main point of complaints against Damore.