Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge • Hacker News Board

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#421

Post by mistersquid » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 3:23 AM UTC

jeffmould wrote: post #177

tptacek wrote: post #2

The first thing everyone needs to know about this is what the case was about, because it implicates one of the most powerful and least known rights tech company employees have. According to Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA, employees can't generally be disciplined for exercising the rights provided under Section 7 of the NLRA. These rights are commonly understood to be about unionizing (ie, you can't be fired for trying r…

The NLRB has a vast reach that many employees are completely unaware of. Several years ago I was the lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit against an employer. About 6 months after I filed the lawsuit my employer fired me for fabricated "disciplinary" reasons (not unexpectedly on my behalf, it did take them longer to react than I had thought). Of course, my attorneys immediately sunk their teeth in this terminatio…

If you don't mind my asking and if you are at liberty to say, what was the basis of the original class action suit?

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#422

Post by tptacek » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 3:23 AM UTC

alexandercrohde wrote: post #405

tptacek wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These kinds of objections will draw approving nods from people who already agree with you, but to everyone else, the implication that differences in IQ variance between men and women lead the "top of the curve" to be naturally overpopulated with men is exactly what it sounds like: a claim for the intellectual superiority of men. Sure, there are dumb men; maybe they're even dumber than the dumbest women! But if you're…

Wait, what? Damore's memo doesn't mention intelligence or IQ at all [1], not even in the abstract or as distributions or as averages. -- Using the version of the memo cited on the wikipedia page https://web.archive.org/web/20170809220001/https://diversity...

I'm not interested in rereading the version of the memo that was published publicly. I'm working from the direct quotes in the NLRB Advice Memo. I believe that what you read was not what was circulated inside Google, but Damore is not at pains to tell you that.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#423

Post by ThrowAwayFSp » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 3:24 AM UTC

bduerst wrote: post #407

whataretensors wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a despicable thing to destroy someone over an idea, despite the contents of that idea. I think tech workers are easy targets. For instance, we've all heard about the need for diversity in tech, but never hear about accredited investors being < 6 % female and < 1 % black.

I think what this Advice memo is about isn't the idea itself, but how he poorly he handled the idea. The disruptive way he handled the idea is not protected from being fired in an at-will employment company. Google even worded that in the termination: >Your post advanced and relied on offensive gender stereotypes to suggest that women cannot be successful in the same kinds of jobs at Google as men. I want to make cle…

so saying "women cannot be successful in the same kinds of jobs at Google as men" is Heretic now?

How about "women cannot be successful as chess masters at the same level than men"

also heretic?

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#424

Post by tptacek » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 3:26 AM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #418

tptacek wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These kinds of objections will draw approving nods from people who already agree with you, but to everyone else, the implication that differences in IQ variance between men and women lead the "top of the curve" to be naturally overpopulated with men is exactly what it sounds like: a claim for the intellectual superiority of men. Sure, there are dumb men; maybe they're even dumber than the dumbest women! But if you're…

but to everyone else, the implication that differences in IQ variance between men and women lead the "top of the curve" to be naturally overpopulated with men is exactly what it sounds like: a claim for the intellectual superiority of men. Sure, there are dumb men; maybe they're even dumber than the dumbest women! But if you're looking for the best, that logic says, you're going to end up mostly with men. The claim i…

Gender and age diversity improved with work sample testing (but we never had to scale it to a point where we challenged our candidate pipeline, which was drawn pretty conventionally from commercial programmers, so, like everyone else, our candidate pipeline was male-dominated).

We tried to do a company premised on scaling it up, so that we could place enough candidates to service a truly large funnel. I looked forward to seeing what that would do for our parity numbers. But we did that startup wrong, and so I haven't found out how it will work out yet.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#425

Post by rayiner » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 3:27 AM UTC

said wrote: post #395

rayiner wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You strike me as reasonable. I would appreciate if you could answer a couple of questions. 1. If there are indeed biological differences between sexes that could help explain different aptitudes/predispositions for different intellectual pursuits, should it be firable to say so? 2. If boys and men are discriminated against in order to pursue equal outcomes, should they be allowed to voice opposition? I won't challeng…

> 1. If there are indeed biological differences between sexes that could help explain different aptitudes/predispositions for different intellectual pursuits, should it be firable to say so?

You need to unpack this into a few different things:

1) Are there cognitive differences between the sexes? Probably true--but we don't have a great idea of what they are.

2) Do those cognitive differences explain different aptitudes for different intellectual pursuits? No evidence for this in the context of computer programming. Which is why Damore's memo was so intellectually weak. The reasoning was basically "studies show women are people oriented" --> ??? --> "men are biologically predisposed to prefer programming."

3) Is it okay to fire people for saying things that are true? Businesses aren't free speech zones. Actions that jeopardize team cohesion, recruiting goals, company image, etc., are and should be fireable offenses. If someone at Google prepared and circulate a memo on how advertising is evil and destroying America, they should be fired, truth of the matter aside.

4) Everyone is entitled to an opinion, to speak on their own behalf, on their own time. People don't have to associate with you if they don't like your opinion. If you make a lot of money and send your kids to private school, you don't tell a room full of democrats "who cares about public education, let's cut the top tax rate." And if you do and people get salty, you don't say "but don't I have a right to speak on behalf of my own interests?"

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#426

Post by tdg » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 3:28 AM UTC

alexandercrohde wrote: post #405

tptacek wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These kinds of objections will draw approving nods from people who already agree with you, but to everyone else, the implication that differences in IQ variance between men and women lead the "top of the curve" to be naturally overpopulated with men is exactly what it sounds like: a claim for the intellectual superiority of men. Sure, there are dumb men; maybe they're even dumber than the dumbest women! But if you're…

Wait, what? Damore's memo doesn't mention intelligence or IQ at all [1], not even in the abstract or as distributions or as averages. -- Using the version of the memo cited on the wikipedia page https://web.archive.org/web/20170809220001/https://diversity...

It definitely mentions it. Here (section "Why we are blind"):

"[...] the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ and sex differences)"

I don't know how else to read that other than "men are smarter". Is there any other reading?

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#427

Post by TheCoelacanth » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 3:29 AM UTC

sidlls wrote: post #74

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People organizing with other employees who share conservative views to engage in concerted action to improve their working conditions is a protected class, though, because people organizing with other employees to engage in concerted action to improve their working conditions is a protected class no matter what other descriptors you add.

"their" means employees', not just a subset of them. Suppose some people thought it'd improve their working conditions by freedom to share KKK rally times and places or organize porn watching parties at the workplace. The law isn't some robotic computer of legal rules. Context often matters.

They certainly don't need to be seeking improvements that benefit every single employee. For example, employees seeking to get paid maternity leave would be a protected activity even though it doesn't benefit all employees.

The KKK or porn examples would be an exception because it would create a hostile work environment for some employees to even suggest that, not because it would only benefit certain employees.

If Damore had only been trying to organize action to get improved work conditions for conservative employees, that would be protected activity and the NRLB opinion says as much. Google was careful to make clear that they were only disciplining him for parts of his memo that were likely to create a hostile work environment for other employees, that is something that they are not only allowed, but possibly required, to discipline employees for.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#428

Post by Consultant32452 » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 3:30 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #408

Consultant32452 wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but some random nobody at Google having some wrong ideas about diversity policy does not deserve to be national front page news. James Damore is about as meek and mild as it gets. He's not some David Duke monster. None of us should have ever heard his name. This was a public assassination of a powerless nobody for cheap political points. That's the part that I have a problem with. I have no problem at all…

> I'm sorry, but some random nobody at Google having some wrong ideas about diversity policy does not deserve to be national front page news. Claims of anti-white-male discrimination in tech are man-bites-dog stories, and naturally get more attention for that reason, plus, Damore immediately sought out media with political biases to maximally promote that kind of story. It becoming national front page news and gettin…

>Damore immediately sought out media with political biases to maximally promote that kind of story

Was this before or after he'd already made national headlines for having written an "anti-diversity manifesto?"

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#429

Post by ThrowAwayFSp » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 3:31 AM UTC

Consultant32452 wrote: post #401

dragonwriter wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can we differentiate between firing Damore and participating in a nation-wide metaphorical public hanging? Yes. Starting with the first is a thing that actually happened, and the second is not, so it's not worth talking about.

I'm sorry, but some random nobody at Google having some wrong ideas about diversity policy does not deserve to be national front page news. James Damore is about as meek and mild as it gets. He's not some David Duke monster. None of us should have ever heard his name. This was a public assassination of a powerless nobody for cheap political points. That's the part that I have a problem with. I have no problem at all…

Anyone daring to oppose the current sacred beliefs makes the news. Part of it is how SJWs react. The memo was rational, the response: emotional. The same thing happened with J.B.Peterson, but he has tenure, and that's what tenure is for, to be able to be heretic.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#430

Post by stcredzero » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 3:31 AM UTC

ubernostrum wrote: post #415

stcredzero wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this chilling? Because he wasn't actually saying anything particularly bad. Instead, he was terminated on the emotional reaction to what others imputed he was saying. This reveals a breathtaking level of authoritarian ideological adherence within Google.

Because he wasn't actually saying anything particularly bad. Careful there. What you mean is he wasn't saying anything you personally consider particularly bad. This is not the same thing as "objectively not bad". This is not the same thing as "something no reasonable person could object to". And jumping from your personal opinion that it wasn't bad straight to "a breathtaking level of authoritarian ideological adher…

This is not the same thing as "objectively not bad".

Anything that requires an imputational and emotional interpretation (which can't be supported by particular facts) to be "bad" is "objectively not bad."

if we assume he had some purpose in mind that he thought was important

Here, you're basically admitting that the reading required to support your position is an imputational and emotional interpretation which can't be supported by particular facts.

then try to figure out "what important thing is he arguing in support of here", well, there aren't a lot of possible conclusions to end up at.

There are lots of possible alternative conclusions. Here's one: https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=16398682 (Overwhelming persistent effects of human cultural capital.)

It's entirely possible that a best-effort fair society with perfect equality of opportunity would still result in other than a 50-50 distribution in a given field for any number of complex, ever changing reasons, in much the same way that it would be impossible to have a vast liquid ocean with no waves. Or are you effectively making the questioning the validity of "equality of outcome" a thought-crime in and of itself? There are plenty of reasons to question "equality of outcome" without ever having to invoke the superiority of anyone.