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

Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 863 posts

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#361

Post by stcredzero »

ncallaway wrote: post #283
stcredzero wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > 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 find this disturbing. I find this very disturbing as well. The only way that even the most ardent opponents of Damore's memo can come to a "discriminatory" and "harassment" interpretation, is to disregard a literal, f…

> How is that not "thought-crime?" Given that there's nothing criminal in any of the allegations, I don't see how _crime_ is even applicable in your label. Maybe a better question might be how is that not "thought-firing?" Your questions and concerns would be alarming and frightening to me if Damore had received a criminal indictment. He didn't, so I'm much less concerned about the case.

Your questions and concerns would be alarming and frightening to me if Damore had received a criminal indictment. He didn't, so I'm much less concerned about the case.

That's the old canard about how, "it isn't the government." Google isn't the government, but they have incredibly broad power over modern media. Speech isn't free if it becomes open season on you by powerful entities for exercising it. The fact that Google and YouTube are such extreme ideological echo chambers calls to question their stewardship of so much power in our society.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#362

Post by refulgentis »

Natsu wrote: post #339
ThomPete wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He never stated that anywhere.

There was a confusingly-written part that I've seen a lot of people misinterpret in that particular way. My understanding of what he was trying to argue was this: Imagine you have a skill-based RPG, where you gain skill in some task only by doing it and men and women are completely identical in every single way. Now imagine that more women enjoy alchemy, but more men prefer to spend their time mining. In this game, b…

From a statistics point of view, this statement is dispositive: "...decrease the false negative rate, not increase the false positive rate."

The interaction between type I and type II errors virtually always have an inverse relationship. You cannot decrease one without increasing the other. It is, for example, one of the difficulties in making good medical diagnostic tests.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#363

Post by hinkley »

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…

I think one has to factor in the fact that we are in an industry that lionizes people who spend every waking moment concentrating on their field of expertise and nothing else.

Doubly so for Google.

Not because “how can you find the time” is an excuse, but because it’s a symptom of the problem. We have an industry that enables people with no sense of perspective. It’s not just the outliers that need to ‘wake uo’. It’s on all of us.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#364

Post by said »

refulgentis wrote: post #356
Consultant32452 wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you point out that specific passage? As I read it he specifically went out of his way to say that all of the women he worked with were qualified.

He literally says that those hiring practices can lower the bar. Sure, maybe he's saying that the bar for white/Asian men is higher than intended rather than that the bar for women and minorities is lower than intended, but you can't honestly argue that he isn't saying that women and minorities could be clearing a lower bar than white/Asian men.

I urge you read the memo yourself.

He said Google lowers the false negative rate for women.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#366

Post by ThomPete »

skywhopper wrote: post #350
ThomPete wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you point to where he says any of what you claim? I have read that memo quite a few time and see no such claims anywhere.

Here's a couple: Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people- oriented certain roles at Google can be and we shouldn't deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing th…

How does pointing out difference in interest and a pretty well-established fact that women on average are more cooperative by any metrics prove that he should have claimed that women do not belong on google?

In fact, his point is that technology is not even for most men which he has made clear in other interviews.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#367

Post by Clanan »

> The Charging Party’s use of stereotypes based on purported biological differences between women and men should not be treated differently than the types of conduct the Board found unprotected in these cases.

This Advice Memo establishes the precedent that discussing biological differences between men and women constitutes sexual harassment, even if those differences are supported by scientific research.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#368

Post by andrewprock »

leereeves wrote: post #326
joshuamorton wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

It matters little what you see in the memo. Google and the NLRB saw enough to terminate his employment, and to uphold that termination. This is generally how at-will employment works.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#369

Post by shadowmint »

leereeves wrote: post #332
shadowmint wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you considered the reason you keep getting the same response to all of your posts in this thread is perhaps because you keep making the same assertions in slightly different ways? Calm down dude; we get it. You don't have to post the same comment over and over again to make your point. You'll have a make more meaningful conversation if you stick to one thread and actually engage rather than just copy/paste your…

When more than one person makes the same provably false claim, such as "There is no such “legal right” to discuss things in the workplace", isn't it worth correcting more than once?

Unfortunately posting more or less the same comment in many threads just makes other people do exactly the same thing in frustration and destroys the entire comment thread with copy-paste wars.

It's bad forum etiquette everywhere, not just on HN, and it ruins the conversation for everyone.

> When more than one person makes the same provably false claim

/shrug

Right or wrong regarding the content, you're not a one-person-army out there to single handedly defeat all the wrong-doers on HN.

If you're just here to tell people they're flat out wrong, rather than actually have a conversation, you're just spamming the thread.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#370

Post by jules »

refulgentis wrote: post #356
Consultant32452 wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you point out that specific passage? As I read it he specifically went out of his way to say that all of the women he worked with were qualified.

He literally says that those hiring practices can lower the bar. Sure, maybe he's saying that the bar for white/Asian men is higher than intended rather than that the bar for women and minorities is lower than intended, but you can't honestly argue that he isn't saying that women and minorities could be clearing a lower bar than white/Asian men.

If the hiring practices do in fact lower the bar, should he still be prohibited from saying that?
Post reply on HN