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

561–570 of 863 posts

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#561

Post by ThomPete »

chiaro wrote: post #541
ThomPete wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One suggestion. Listen to an interview with him and here he present his opinions. He is provocative but mostly just an annoying showman. His harshest stance is on islam which given he is gay seems fairly understandable. Joe Rogan has a good interview with him (which is the one that got him fired from Breibart.)

I've already seen that interview. How people behave behind closed doors is a more trustworthy guide to their sympathies.

But you don't know how they behave behind closed doors as you only have access to very little and out of context.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#562

Post by stryk »

curyous wrote: post #559
adrianmonk wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 a…

"women, on average, have more neuroticism" is provably true. It's been measured. It's a shame that we can't start a discussion with the truth

source? (not trying to be snide or anything, I'm actually curious if there's a source for that)

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#563

Post by ncallaway »

monkeywork wrote: post #487
ncallaway wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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'…

That serves to do is cause those who have been destroyed to seek out others like themselves and create an echo chamber where they get more extreme, alternatively it gets others to simply go dark in regards to their thoughts -- they still have them (possibly even more re-enforced because now you have given them an enemy) and they will toe the line until they can get into a position to push back. You stamp this out ins…

Right. I agree that social media shame parties can overreact to things and create social punishments that I would agree aren't "proportional" (again, for some arbitrary definition of proportional).

My general views on this are derived largely from Popper and the paradox of tolerance (though, to be honest, I've more read about his writing that his work itself; it's next on my reading list). I don't think, as a society, we should tolerate intolerant behavior.

Which means, again as a society†, I think we should aggressively refuse and reject those with nazi ideologies. As an extension of that, I think we should mildly reject and refuse those with mildly intolerant ideologies. In my utopia, those social consequences would be proportional to the degree of intolerance, and I think you're right and fair to note that social shaming can quickly out-escalate the level of intolerance.

†not as a government; all consequences and punishments I'm speaking of should be social consequences and punishments. I'm fairly absolutist when it comes to 1A protections from the government

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#564

Post by sangnoir »

curyous wrote: post #559
adrianmonk wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 a…

"women, on average, have more neuroticism" is provably true. It's been measured. It's a shame that we can't start a discussion with the truth

> "women, on average, have more neuroticism" is provably true.

What does that have to do with anything? It does not support (let alone prove) the idea that they are less capable engineers because of this. Where is the science linking this to ability? I might as well state "men, on average, are more violent", or have narrower hips - this is provably true, but it would equally uncorrelated to suitability to the life of a software engineer.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#565

Post by cma »

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…

He says:

>that these differences may [emphasis added] explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership

And he says one of the differences is a higher drive for status. That is one way it could change without the 80's thing being counter-evidence, if the status of practitioners and/or leadership in the field changed for some reason (maybe Bill Gates becoming the richest man in the world).

I'm not saying that I agree with him, or that the status drive difference is true, or that it would actually be an explanation for the difference from the 80s to now (Bill Gates might have lowered the status of the field for being socially awkward). I'm only saying that your counter argument may not work because he couched his statement in "may" and he talks about meta-level factors around the field.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#566

Post by tptacek »

stcredzero wrote: post #262
tptacek wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think? the answer is that it probably doesn't much matter. The Advice Memo states explicitly that the NLRB gives deference to employers on this matter, because they're required by state and federal EEO laws to suppress discrimination of protected classes. So where this might become a material question is if you were an employer who was receptive to the "scientific" arguments for superior male aptitude, and you had…

So, what if you were an employer who was receptive to the "scientific" arguments for completely equivalent aptitude between males and females, and you had employees that shared that view, and your employees organized to promote that view organically. Then someone dissented from that view and a large number of those employees demanded the head of the dissenter? In that case, the NLRB has your back! But in general it s…

I assume you write this knowing (a) that I do not at all agree with your conclusions about "science" and (b) do not really care, because science is not the issue here. Google has an anti-harassment policy. Damore violated it. The NLRB defers to employers in the enforcement of anti-harassment policies. Damore cannot use the NLRA to "overturn" Google's anti-harassment policies. This part of Damore's game is over.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#567

Post by ncallaway »

shard972 wrote: post #533
ncallaway wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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'…

Lets make a distinction in socially destroy. If you found a nazi that worked for someone who knew he was a nazi and was fine with it, his wife was fine with it and all his friends were fine. In this case how would you socially destroy them beyond pointing out to those around them what they have been hiding?

In my post, I hinted that I don't really have a definition for "socially destroy". I don't really know what it means or how the OP intended by it.

If I knew someone was a nazi, I would inform those around them. If their employer—for example—refused to terminate their employment, I would move "up the chain", and attempt to apply social consequences to that employer. How that works quickly becomes context dependent, but it expresses in things like boycotts, and other refusals to engage economically with those groups.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#568

Post by ncallaway »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #490
ncallaway wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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'…

>I agree that Damore probably should 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. I'm the OP whose comment started this mini-firestorm of a discussion and I think you and I are probably very closely aligned. I'll try to state plainly how I feel abou…

Right. I agree that social media shame parties can overreact to things and create social punishments that I would agree aren't "proportional" (again, for some arbitrary definition of proportional). My general views on this are derived largely from Popper and the paradox of tolerance (though, to be honest, I've more read about his writing that his work itself; it's next on my reading list). I don't think, as a society, we should tolerate intolerant behavior.

Which means, again as a society†, I think we should aggressively refuse and reject those with nazi ideologies. As an extension of that, I think we should mildly reject and refuse those with mildly intolerant ideologies. In my utopia, those social consequences would be proportional to the degree of intolerance, and I think you're right and fair to note that social shaming can quickly out-escalate the level of intolerance.

†not as a government; all consequences and punishments I'm speaking of should be social consequences and punishments. I'm fairly absolutist when it comes to 1A protections from the government

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#569

Post by wslack »

stcredzero wrote: post #536
UncleMeat wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But he wasn't asking questions. The document wasn't an invitation to explain where he was mistaken. By all accounts he was given feedback on his ideas before the final memo went out. In the very text he says that opposition to these ideas demonstrates bias and he therefore dismisses the very idea of being wrong. This wasn't some intellectual debate.

But he wasn't asking questions. The document wasn't an invitation to explain where he was mistaken. It was precisely that. By all accounts he was given feedback on his ideas before the final memo went out. By his own account. In the very text he says that opposition to these ideas demonstrates bias and he therefore dismisses the very idea of being wrong. Quote, please. This wasn't some intellectual debate. No, the re…

The reactions that were most amplified likely included some namecalling, but I saw a lot of well-reasoned and detailed takedowns of the pseudoscience in the memo.

My guess is that both sides look at the worst of the other to justify themselves.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#570

Post by ncallaway »

leereeves wrote: post #557
ncallaway wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and the specific details of this case are not protected by the NLRA. Also according to the NLRB.

Yes, we all agree that's what the NLRB said. We're discussing how they came to this conclusion. The lawyer who wrote this memo argued that Damore's statements would normally be deserving of protection, if they weren't so offensive.

They didn't say that. The lawyer who wrote this memo argued that Google had wide latitude in determining what qualified as sexual-harassment.

They had a policy that pre-dated this incident such that those statements qualified. The NLRB didn't determine that the statements were offensive. They determined that Google was operating in a reasonable manner when Google decided that those statements were offensive.

Post reply on HN