Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge • Hacker News Board

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#451

Post by acdha » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 3:46 AM UTC

gowld wrote: post #195

throwaway5752 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is silencing any research, unless you think broadly circulating a memo at a tech company constitutes "research". It is legal to research pornography, but try to view it at a lot of companies in the office. Context is important. He sent it out at work, not to arxiv.org.

It's not silencing research, but silencing talking about research is a chilling effect. This research isn't off-topic pornography, it was research specifically on the topic of who works in the office.

But it wasn’t research. It was a sloppy regurgitation of some cherrypicked sources which made some sweeping claims, and oh by the way management was wrong and should let him tell them how to do it.

Consider the alternative: say his goal had actually been to learn what most scientists believe or to see how it applied to Google. That would be things like a representative literature survey, lots of questions about how you could measure effects, what the implications those effects would have, etc. Rather than just assuming current staffing was the optimal outcome, you’d ask how you’d even measure such a thing, etc.

Remember, before he joined Google he has experience working in a real research lab. There’s no way he doesn’t know what scientific discussion looks like – it just wasn’t as important as trying to portray his personal political beliefs as objective truth.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#452

Post by bri3d » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 3:47 AM UTC

whataretensors wrote: post #345

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.

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.

If you mean the well-understood definition of "accredited investor" in the US, this is an objective measure with an objective barrier to entry (expected income and assets), and we DO hear about the need for diversity in this regard every time we hear about women and people of color making less money and advancing more slowly in their careers. On the other hand, software hiring and "tech diversity" is a subjective process with very, very subjective barriers to entry and so we hear about changing this process through human measures. This isn't a very good comparison.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#453

Post by berberous » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 3:47 AM UTC

bduerst wrote: post #389

berberous wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Right. And what many have said is that there is not enough evidence in his to support the top half on his claim of biological abilities. Preferences, sure, but that can also be attributed to social constructs which he specifically tries to rule out. It's splitting hairs to make it about distribution when there isn't sufficient evidence to support a distribution in the first place.

Here is an article from Heterdox academy that attempted to do a metanalysis of studies to determine if Damore was correct in saying there are certain traits that men display a wider distribution on. They conclude he was.

I have not personally looked at any of this data, nor vouch for it or Damore's or their conclusion. It could be wrong, either because the current best science is wrong or because the summary is unfair or inaccurate. My only point is that it appears to be a statement with some scientific support, not something that can easily be dismissed as false.

http://heterodoxacademy.org/the-greater-male-variability-hyp...

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#454

Post by moduspol » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 3:47 AM UTC

bduerst wrote: post #438

moduspol wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody is saying this isn't in context to hiring policies - that's your straw man. You're evaluating the statement that way. That's not a straw man--it's removal of original context. > Damore was arguing that women were not in engineering and leadership positions because of preferences and biological abilities (in support of his memo's argument about hiring policies). Yet another example of the suspiciously common…

If you have to insert your own comments to read between the lines of Damore's memo, then that is the definition of selective interpretation.

If you have to quote statements out of context and attack your own misintrepetations of them, you’re not being intellectually honest.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#455

Post by andylei » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 3:48 AM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #333

tptacek wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What broad power are you referring to? Without the NLRB, Damore would have no recourse under "protected concerted action". He was an at-will employee. It's Google, it seems to me, that has the broad power --- and that's a situation conservatives brought about.

What broad power are you referring to? It seems like HR and "diversity officers" have effectively become the "political officers" of the 21st century left of collectivist grievance politics. Employers are required to have certain policies, and the NLRB can conveniently "defer" to them when they are effectively supporting the NLRB's power. The problem is that many of the nouns involved in this kind of regulation are f…

> Employers are required to have certain policies

there are no anti discrimination policies required by the NRLB. you're probably thinking of the EEOC.

> the NLRB can conveniently "defer" to them when they are effectively supporting the NLRB's power

what power are you talking about?

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#456

Post by stcredzero » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 3:49 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #424

stcredzero wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 forwar…

so, like everyone else, our candidate pipeline was male-dominated

Doesn't a situation where the candidate pipeline is so skewed call to question the desirability of "equality of outcomes?" It would also make me question ideological doubling-down, and mob psychology behaviors like ridiculing managers who hadn't met quotas yet. Such behaviors in such a context, like that of the Google which James Damore described, strike me as every but as illogical and mean-spirited as the parody motivational sign, "the beating will continue until morale improves."

Google has enacted diversity policies which are directed towards the front end of the pipeline -- like directly recruiting at Howard University -- and those are supposed to be backed up by hard numbers showing results.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#457

Post by andylei » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 3:50 AM UTC

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.

> Maybe a better question might be how is that not "thought-firing?"

thought firings are legitimate in the united states. under at will employment, you can be fired for almost anything (except a few specific things).

if you like cats better than dogs, you can be fired for that in the united states.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#458

Post by ncallaway » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 3:53 AM UTC

whataretensors wrote: post #345

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.

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.

> It's a despicable thing to destroy someone over an idea, despite the contents of that idea.

Well, if I find out anyone holds nazi ideologies I'm happy to socially "destroy" them over those ideas. I agree that the government shouldn't punish them for those ideas, but I think individual citizens and entities have every right to disassociate and socially punish someone for those ideas.

Now, I'm not saying that Damore's ideas are that extreme. However, it puts an upper bound for me on how much I can agree with your statement. There are ideas that I'm fine imposing social punishments on people for believing.

I agree that Damore probably shouldn't be "destroyed" for his ideas (for whatever a definition of "destroyed" is that obviously isn't literal destruction), but I don't see why being fired is problematic for the way he shared those ideas in the workplace.

Edit: This post previously had a typo that stated: "I agree that Damore probably should be 'destroyed' for his ideas". That was not the original intent, and I've corrected "should" to read "shouldn't"

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#459

Post by ncallaway » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 3:55 AM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #361

ncallaway wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Go…

Google (at least in this case) wasn't acting in their capacity as a power-broker over wider internet speech and discourse.

They were acting in their capacity as an employer. Their power over society as an employer is much more limited and doesn't concern me.

If you want to have a conversation over whether twitter and Google as companies have enough power that their actions should be judged in a 1A context that's fine. We can have that conversation. But it's not the one that's being had in this thread or this discussion.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#460

Post by fareesh » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 3:56 AM UTC

rexpop wrote: post #432

fareesh wrote: post #396

This is one of the few subjects where much of the HN crowd is either experiencing some shared hallucination, or is relying heavily on poor journalism. There are many comments that classify his memo as anti-diversity (it is pro diversity), and there are many that seem to suggest that the memo claimed women are less suited for these jobs, which again is patently false to anyone who gives it a reasonable and full read.…

Witch-hunts were authoritarian campaigns of gendercide. A gross, systematic slaughtering of thousands upon thousands of women. It's egregiously callous for you to misuse the term in this way. Perhaps you men "snark-hunt".

It's not misuse, it's intentional.

Men were not the target of witch hunts because they were the "incorrect" sex.

Today, in cases where merit seemingly takes a backseat to diversity, men are the "incorrect" sex for some opportunities, like say if you want to speak at a node.js conference, or attend some special mentoring workshop. The opposite is not true, if you are not a man, there are no instances that I am aware of where you are openly denied or discouraged from pursuing an opportunity for that reason alone.