Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge • Hacker News Board

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#521

Post by ThomPete » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 4:39 AM UTC

yongjik wrote: post #511

stcredzero wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is Milo not espousing alt right views? He's an active and vocal critic of the Alt-Right. He devoted an entire chapter of his book to criticism of the Alt-Right. Just what views of his would you cite as "Alt-Right?" Can you back those up with quotes? As far as I can tell, he's an amoral opportunist who will stoop to saying vile things, but he's not Alt-Right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blJfibQnTgU He was empl…

I just find it amusing that in a thread about someone who stated maybe all women are genetically less suited to engineering, we are supposed to understand the differences among four or five distinct fringe right-wing ideologies, and refrain from general remarks based on the behaviors of one group or another.

Can you please point to anywhere in the memo where he claimed that? I am not asking about your interpretation but where he actually claims that women are genentically less suited for engineering.

I hope you realize how important it is to be precise here. The man lost his job for providing feedback as encouraged by HR after he did a diversity course.

Just making claims that isn't backed up about by what he is actually saying isn't very helpful.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#522

Post by rayiner » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 4:39 AM UTC

fzeroracer wrote: post #468

The problem with Damore's theory he posited (that the difference in traits and abilities between men and women is why you see a certain imbalance in tech) ignores the history of computer science, where in the early days of CS you had a large amount of women entering into software followed by a sharp dropoff in the 80s [1]. The 'biological differences' argument falls flat because it implies that somehow women changed…

It's not just the history of computer science. Damore's essay was based on time-tested pseudo-scientific reasoning, the sort that has been invoked to exclude women in many different fields. When law firms offered Sandra Day O'Connor a secretarial job after she graduated third in her class at Stanford, do you think they said "we just don't like women?" Of course not. They couched their bias in appeals to the differences between men and women, and how those differences supposedly were relevant to the practice of law.

Damore is more of the same. Take, for example, his invocation of studies showing that women are more prone to be "neurotic." Aside from the fact that "neurotic" covers an immense range of personality traits--Damore leaves it as an exercise for the reader why that would be a bad thing. Among other things, "neurotic" encompasses "obsessive compulsive" or "anxious." Why isn't that a good trait in a programmer--someone who needs to be constantly on the lookout for the errant buffer overflow? He also invokes the idea that women are less able to handle "stressful" situations. Which explains why nurses--who are literally dealing with life and death every day--are mostly women? It's not that there isn't evidence of differences in personality traits between men and women, it's that all the inferences after "infant boys prefer trucks" is complete handwaving.

Back in the day, people would, with the pretense of science, invoke differences in cranial measurements to explain the economic plight of African Americans. Damore's is just the latest in a long line of pseudo-scientific gibberish. And it blows my mind that so many in the tech community are falling for it. You actually have to be bad at logical reasoning to find Damore's points compelling.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#523

Post by adrianmonk » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 4:39 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…

> punished for speaking out

It wasn't merely that he spoke out. It's not just what you say, it's how you say it. Saying "women, on average, have more neuroticism" is not how you start a dialog. It's how you start an argument.

Let's not debate whether it was a factual statement, but suffice it to say that "what I said was factual so there's nothing wrong with it!" isn't a defense. There are a million statements that are factual that you don't write down and distribute throughout the whole company.

Secondary goals aside, Google's main purpose is to build internet services and make money. If I were Google's management, I'd feel justified in firing him for having the poor judgment to approach things in a way that embroiled the whole company in a fight. The lost productivity alone from the distraction must have been costly to the company.

It's possible he was just trying to help, but you don't hire/employ people for good intentions; you do it so they'll be a functioning gear in a bigger machine. If they can't do that, they aren't fulfilling their purpose at the company.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#524

Post by UncleMeat » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 4:40 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #450

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?

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.

If we charitably assume that the entire thing is poorly written then it can mean anything we want!

If you write something that people interpret as sexist due to your poor language and then spend no effort to correct that error.... that's still bad.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#525

Post by Consultant32452 » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 4:40 AM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #437

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…

This was a public assassination of a powerless nobody for cheap political points. That's the part that I have a problem with. This willingness to "un-person" someone for reasons of ideological fervor -- this is precisely why I, as a liberal, feel so alienated from so much of the far-left politics going around nowadays. I've personally been a target of such things. (I can't discuss it, but I can say that it was not ge…

As a conservative I share your feeling of alienation, because look at how the right has responded. It's given us Trump which is really gross. I fear we're in a very precarious position both culturally and politically and I wish I had some insight into how to move back towards a place where we can have rational intelligent discussions again. For the meantime I think we'll all be relegated to the "intellectual dark web," a phrase coined by I believe Eric Weinstein, the left-leaning professor who had to resign out of fear for his life after refusing to stay home during "no whites" day at Evergreen college.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#526

Post by stcredzero » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 4:40 AM UTC

brian-armstrong wrote: post #227

ThomPete wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Less inclined (which was what he said) can be tested factually are you saying that it's ok to be fired to state something factually correct?

Some of the bits in his memo were pseudoscientific bunk, no better than phrenology. Making a lot of noise about 'facts' doesn't help here, in fact it does the opposite. So it seems your stand here is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Some of the bits in his memo were pseudoscientific bunk, no better than phrenology.

One of the cited studies from the Damore memo was done across 55 countries, and effectively has a P value which is eyebrow-raisingly high. (They used another stats test.) It's definitely an important result, and is acknowledged as such by a big swathe of Psychology academia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Ge...

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#527

Post by reader5000 » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 4:41 AM UTC

fzeroracer wrote: post #468

The problem with Damore's theory he posited (that the difference in traits and abilities between men and women is why you see a certain imbalance in tech) ignores the history of computer science, where in the early days of CS you had a large amount of women entering into software followed by a sharp dropoff in the 80s [1]. The 'biological differences' argument falls flat because it implies that somehow women changed…

>The 'biological differences' argument falls flat because it implies that somehow women changed on a biological level between 1984 and today.

Alternatively, that the nature of software work changed.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#528

Post by ralusek » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 4:41 AM UTC

throwestawayer wrote: post #513

Real question: having seen that many good engineers are hesitant to work at a company with very limited diversity, we have endeavored to increase diversity by hiring qualified junior engineers from less represented groups. Is this acceptable? These are completely qualified folks, for the job of junior engineer. We purposely, from the category of all qualified junior applicants, hired those that also were from less re…

If they are completely qualified, they should and would be hired by a system that completely ignores gender and race. While the morality of your system is up for debate, what is not up for debate is that your system is mathematically disadvantaged in terms of hiring the best engineers...because your system ignores the vast majority of the hiring pool (presumably white/Indian/east asian [straight?] men). A blind system favors/ignores nobody.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#529

Post by alexandercrohde » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 4:42 AM UTC

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?

He's arguing "the left" would never say group A has a higher average IQ than group B, regardless of the groups.

That tidbit is a paranthetical in a sentence about the psychology of left vs right. His thrust is an illustration of how ideology and science are conflated.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#530

Post by UncleMeat » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 4:42 AM UTC

freedomben wrote: post #355

hypersoar wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Damore was really concerned about a lack of ability to "start conversations", then he should've approached his memo with a shred of humility. He decries Google's diversity efforts but does little to suggest he's done much research into that topic itself. In fact, he barely mentions their specific programs at all. Here [1], by the way, is an interesting overview of diversity programs. It mentions that voluntary div…

> He decries Google's diversity efforts but does little to suggest he's done much research into that topic itself. I take it you either didn't read the memo, or read the version of the memo with all the references removed (Gizmodo, Buzzfeed, and surely others)

"that topic itself" refers to the diversity program, not his Google scholar searches.