Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge • Hacker News Board

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#321

Post by manfredo » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 2:00 AM UTC

ncallaway wrote: post #296

manfredo wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The memo did not claim that women were less intelligent. It claimed that women _prefer_ to work in fields other than tech. This is a statement of women's choices, not their ability. It also claimed higher variance, but not overall differences. In other words that there are more men on both sides of the extreme.

> This is a statement of women's choices, not their ability That's simply not true. The memo (as the other comment chain litigates) absolutely makes reference to both preference and ability.

Please identify where the memo claims they women have lower average ability than men. As a hint:

> 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 statement references distributions, not averages. E.g men may be more prevalent at the top of the scale but also at the bottom. This is entirely in line with what I wrote about the memo referring to variance.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#322

Post by leereeves » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 2:00 AM UTC

spinlock wrote: post #285

leereeves wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMHO, the Advice Memo's conclusion is summarized by this sentence: > Damore's statements about immutable traits linked to sex — such as women’s heightened neuroticism and men’s prevalence at the top of the IQ distribution — were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, notwithstanding his effort to cloak his comments with “scientific” references and analysis and notwithstanding “not all women” disclaimers. I…

His assertions were bullshit. I thought Google should have fired him for bad science. He wasn't posting the analysis of a study he had done. He wasn't sharing data that he collected and wanted to analyze. He posted his opinions without any evidence backing them up.

His original memo did include references to scientific studies backing up his assertions, but several outside parties distributed the memo without these references.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#323

Post by rayiner » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 2:02 AM UTC

dejawu wrote: post #210

The way this whole thing played out makes me sad, because the guy did bring up a good point - current-day social justice leaves little avenue for well-meaning but unaware (perhaps through privilege) people to start conversations and learn about the reasons and motivations for certain efforts such as affirmative action and changes in vocabulary. Damore was indeed punished for speaking out, just as he feared. Then he s…

That’s an untenable charitable reading of Damore’s memo. You don’t “start conversations” and “learn” by drawing conclusions, such as the lack of women in tech can be explained by genetic predispositions. And he wasn’t talking about “changes in vocabulary.” He was attacking core assumptions about what a fair society should look like. If you want to learn, you ask questions. You try to understand the other point of view until you can explain it and address it on its own terms. Damore never tried to do that.

To use a technical analogy: it’s like a C++ programmer writing a rant about how JS dynamic typing must be for people too dumb to learn C++, and the ending it with “but I’d love to ‘learn’ more about JS!” Nobody is going to assume good faith.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#324

Post by skywhopper » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 2:04 AM UTC

dejawu wrote: post #210

The way this whole thing played out makes me sad, because the guy did bring up a good point - current-day social justice leaves little avenue for well-meaning but unaware (perhaps through privilege) people to start conversations and learn about the reasons and motivations for certain efforts such as affirmative action and changes in vocabulary. Damore was indeed punished for speaking out, just as he feared. Then he s…

If he had stuck to the point about how ignorant-but-well-meaning people can trip over rapidly changing "acceptable" discourse, then none of this would have escalated as it did. That's an argument that can be made, and there's definitely things Google and other companies could do to address that problem.

He went much further, though, basically asserting that women engineers didn't belong at Google, and that in fact the job of software engineer is (and should be) designed to exclude women's typical strengths and preferences (as if general traits of the biological sexes have anything to do with individuals' aptitude and preferences). By so doing, he created a hostile workplace for women at Google. If that type of talk is tolerated within the company, what woman would feel comfortable working in a technical role?

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#325

Post by ThomPete » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 2:05 AM UTC

InclinedPlane wrote: post #314

dejawu wrote: post #210

The way this whole thing played out makes me sad, because the guy did bring up a good point - current-day social justice leaves little avenue for well-meaning but unaware (perhaps through privilege) people to start conversations and learn about the reasons and motivations for certain efforts such as affirmative action and changes in vocabulary. Damore was indeed punished for speaking out, just as he feared. Then he s…

We're not talking about children, we're talking about adults. Literate, tech savvy, affluent, college graduates. How would you imagine those folks educate themselves? Easily, by relying on the abundant resources available to them. The internet, books, youtube, etc. There's a ton of material out there, if you actually care, if you think it's important to educate yourself the resources are available. He did not do that…

His agenda was to make Google aware of some of the consequence of their diversity politics, something they themselves had asked for feedback on.

He didn't ask whether women deserved to be equals and just the fact that you think that shows just how ignorant many commentators are in this case.

If you actually are interested in hearing his version of the story, not just your own wrongly informed and biased one here is a good interview to provide you with some of the proper contexts. Then tell me what exactly it is that he has done wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NOSD0XK0r8

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#326

Post by leereeves » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 2:05 AM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #312

leereeves wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once again I'm not positing a right to "science-based discussion". I'm saying the right to discuss workplace issues, granted by the NLRA, should include science-based discussion of these issues.

It does. So far, about 4 people have explained this across many threads, and you still don't seem to acknowledge it. Edit because rate limited: The problem is not what was said, necessarily, but the way in which it was said. Hence citing the Honda ruling. This is at least my, not-a-lawyer interpretation. That is, just because you are saying something to discuss workplace issues does not give you the right to say lite…

Several people have claimed that. I dispute that claim because that's not what I see in the memo.

> the statements regarding biological differences between the sexes were so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be unprotected.

Notice the reason the NLRB gave in this statement for why they are unprotected: not because they are unrelated to the discussion of workplace issues, but because they are offensive.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#327

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 2:05 AM UTC

manfredo wrote: post #321

ncallaway wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a statement of women's choices, not their ability That's simply not true. The memo (as the other comment chain litigates) absolutely makes reference to both preference and ability.

Please identify where the memo claims they women have lower average ability than men. As a hint: > 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 statement references distributions, not averages. E.g men may be more prevalent…

> Please identify where the memo claims they women have lower average ability than men

The claims about their average tolerance for high-status jobs is a direct statement about average ability for certain job roles. You can perhaps argue that it accurately reflects the psychological research (which is a different discussion), but it absolutely is directly a statement about ability.

He also specifically says women generally have “a harder time...leading”, which is a direct statement of reduced average ability in all roles involving leadership.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#328

Post by berberous » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 2:06 AM UTC

bduerst wrote: post #257

manfredo wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my original comment in this chain: > ...also claimed higher variance, but not overall differences. In other words that there are more men on both sides of the extreme. This is in reference to what the memo says about abilities. The memo does claim higher or lower overall averages, too, but those are in terms of preferences. Let me lay this out point by point if I phrased this poorly before: * The memo claims tha…

Also from your original comment: >This is a statement of women's choices, not their ability. Edit: Rather than reply, you now edited your comment to split hairs on distribution vs averages. That doesn't change the facts about Damore's argument about biological ability to be in tech is unfounded.

The difference between distribution vs. averages is important. See the image linked to below. Damore is arguing the top half of the image. Many people mistakenly believe he is arguing the bottom half. Perhaps you believe the top half is unfounded too, but it's an important distinction.

https://heterodoxacademy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Damo...

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#329

Post by alexandercrohde » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 2:06 AM UTC

jrcii wrote: post #47

Only liberals are allowed to work at Google, and only liberals are allowed to express their political opinions on HN. The liberal-tech crowd groupthink enforcement is real.

I'm on Damore's side (if I had to pick a side) and yet I've been able to express myself fairly freely here on HN. I've also seen posts downvoted/killed consistently from both sides, and it's almost always well-deserved in my opinion.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#330

Post by ThomPete » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 2:06 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #323

dejawu wrote: post #210

The way this whole thing played out makes me sad, because the guy did bring up a good point - current-day social justice leaves little avenue for well-meaning but unaware (perhaps through privilege) people to start conversations and learn about the reasons and motivations for certain efforts such as affirmative action and changes in vocabulary. Damore was indeed punished for speaking out, just as he feared. Then he s…

That’s an untenable charitable reading of Damore’s memo. You don’t “start conversations” and “learn” by drawing conclusions, such as the lack of women in tech can be explained by genetic predispositions. And he wasn’t talking about “changes in vocabulary.” He was attacking core assumptions about what a fair society should look like. If you want to learn, you ask questions. You try to understand the other point of vie…

What core assumptions was he attacking specifically? Can you point to specific in his memo?