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

441–450 of 863 posts

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#441

Post by asterius »

maroonblazer wrote: post #384
tclancy wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He has no agency? He chose to speak up and then he chose to go down the path he did. It is an impressive feat of mental gymnastics to both kinda sorta acknowledge the alt-right might not be a great group of guys but then also claim Damore had no choice but to pull into that port in a storm of his own making. Allow me to pour out a beaker of Soylent for the poor, downtrodden white man.

I think it's plausible that had the memo not been leaked externally he'd still have his job. In that respect he truly didn't have agency.

That memo was never intended to remain private correspondance. And I'd hope that Google would have terminated his employment in any case.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#442

Post by tdg »

ThomPete wrote: post #440
tdg wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, of course, there is. The correct reading is that there is biological difference both between the sexes and inside each of the sexes. This is a reference to the identity politics you see especially in 2ndwave/3rd wave feminism which claims that almost everything is a social construct. He isn't talking about who is better just that there are differences.

My reply is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16398806

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#443

Post by eridius »

simonebrunozzi wrote: post #287
eridius wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but he did lose his livelihood, had his professional reputation destroyed, and only a limited time to cash out. Why are you writing this in the passive, as if this is an unfortunate thing that happened to him? He did all of that to himself. That memo created a hostile workplace and Google had no choice but to fire him. The outcome here isn't terrible, it's exactly what should have happened.

Nope. 100% disagree with you. Nobody should be fired for speaking out and/or starting a meaningful conversation. The opposite is censorship.

Creating a hostile workplace is not “meaningful conversation”. The memo constituted pretty blatant harassment of all his female colleagues. You don’t have the right to say whatever you want. People absolutely should be fired for harassing and discriminating against their colleagues (which is effectively what the memo was). It’s toxic and incredibly hurtful and cannot be tolerated.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#444

Post by ThomPete »

tdg wrote: post #436
ThomPete wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, of course, there are. The correct reading is that there is biological difference both between the sexes and inside each of the sexes. This is a reference to the identity politics you see especially in 2ndwave/3rd wave feminism which claims that almost everything is a social construct.

I don't get it. He says there are IQ differences between people. Who are these "people" if not men and women? He either means men are smarter or he just randomly went on a tangent. Let me ask you, when he says there are IQ differences between people, which groups of people do you think he means?

What is it you don't get?

He is referencing the people who claim there is no biological differences and that almost everything is social constructs.

If you want to understand what he is talking about here is an example

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/16/how-fluid-i...

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#445

Post by ThomPete »

tdg wrote: post #442
ThomPete wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, of course, there is. The correct reading is that there is biological difference both between the sexes and inside each of the sexes. This is a reference to the identity politics you see especially in 2ndwave/3rd wave feminism which claims that almost everything is a social construct. He isn't talking about who is better just that there are differences.

My reply is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16398806

And mine is here

What is it you don't get? He is referencing the people (mostly feminists on the left) who claim there are no biological differences and that almost everything is social constructs.

If you want to understand what he is talking about here is an example https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/16/how-fluid-i...

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#446

Post by dfasdfasdfasdf »

leereeves wrote: post #351
rendall wrote: post #103

Did the NLRB memo specify exactly which statements in Damore's memo were discriminatory and hostile? Is there a copy available?

The two statements they mentioned specifically were: > Women are more prone to “neuroticism,” resulting in women experiencing higher anxiety and exhibiting lower tolerance for stress, which “may contribute to . . . the lower number of women in high stress jobs”; > Men demonstrate greater variance in IQ than women, such that there are more men at both the top and bottom of the distribution. Thus, posited, the Employer…

he qualified the neuroticism term in like two whole paragraphs. You should not be allowed to vote if you read all that and still found the term offensive. The second is an empirical statement based on fact.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#447

Post by asterius »

simonebrunozzi wrote: post #287
eridius wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but he did lose his livelihood, had his professional reputation destroyed, and only a limited time to cash out. Why are you writing this in the passive, as if this is an unfortunate thing that happened to him? He did all of that to himself. That memo created a hostile workplace and Google had no choice but to fire him. The outcome here isn't terrible, it's exactly what should have happened.

Nope. 100% disagree with you. Nobody should be fired for speaking out and/or starting a meaningful conversation. The opposite is censorship.

You really think the memo was "starting a meaningful conversation"? Did you even read it?

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#448

Post by bduerst »

manfredo wrote: post #294
bduerst wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hacker news wasn't letting me reply, so I put the classification in an edit. It didn't change the content of what I wrote, just added a clearer (I hope) phrasing. I have not once mentioned biology in this comment chain. I made my original comment to dispel the myth that Damore claimed that women have, on average, less intelligence than men. Whether you agree or disagree with the other claims made about biology is ort…

You're right, you tried to reclassify what Damore said with this:

>This is a statement of women's choices, not their ability.

When his argument was about biological ability. Damore's paper is orthogonal from you're claiming it to be.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#449

Post by ncallaway »

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…

Referencing a distribution of abilities is making a reference to abilities.

Your statement was categorical. "This is a statement of women's choices, not their ability". Yet it was a statement about distributions of ability.

That's a statement that references ability.

You didn't say "the memo refers to variance of abilities". You stated that it did not reference ability.

That statement is simply not true.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#450

Post by dragonwriter »

tdg wrote: post #433
ThomPete wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you point to anywhere in his memo where he claims that men and women's cognitive level is different? Again I have read this quite a few times and I don't see it. So can you point me to exactly where he claims that?

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?

It's just possible to read it as a poorly written attempt to say that the Left ignores science on biological IQ differences (perhaps, as is quite popular to point to on the Right, those associated with race) and also biological sex differences, rather than it being intended to refer to biological, sex-linked, IQ differences.
Post reply on HN