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

601–610 of 863 posts

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#601

Post by golemiprague »

rayiner wrote: post #338
ThomPete wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What core assumptions was he attacking specifically? Can you point to specific in his memo?

It’s a core assumption that when it comes to employment, men and women are generally similar at a cognitive level and equally well suited to different white-collar professions. We adopted that presumption as a protective mechanism, when we came out of a long period of invoking pseudo-scientific ideas about differences between men and women to justify sexism.

You might have this core assumption, I and many others don't and since it is only an assumption I don't see any problem in questioning it. I find women and men very different in their cognitive ability, in terms of creativity and in terms of temperament. I am just not stupid enough like this Google guy to admit it in public because I don't want the backlash but I got no problem saying it anonymously. That's how you wake up one day with Trump as your president.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#602

Post by imron »

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.

This article has an alternative explanation as for why:

http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagger...

Without implying there was any biological change at all - rather that other fields that were shut off to women (medicine, law etc) become more open.

It's a long read, but provides some interesting food for thought.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#603

Post by oceanghost »

jacksmith21006 wrote: post #109
oceanghost wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is a toxic work environment. He was fired for pointing that out.

Yet been the top place to work six years in a row. Nobody else done it even two years in a row. How can they be both? http://fortune.com/best-companies/google/ Google: #1 on 100 Best Companies to Work For in 2017 | Fortune

You know they buy these awards right? Usually with ad sales.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#604

Post by reader5000 »

rayiner wrote: post #522
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 differenc…

There are more male programmers than female. Please explain how invoking genetic differences explanations is pseudo scientific, whereas invoking systematic discrimination explanations is not pseudo-scientific.

Consider: There are more male rapists than female rapists. Is this because female rapists are systematically discriminated against? Does our society shamefully teach children that raping is only for boys? Or are males simply genetically more predisposed to rape relative to females?

If males are genetically more likely to rape, should we lock them all up at birth? I guess not?

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#605

Post by tptacek »

ThomPete wrote: post #595
tptacek wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Law. Medicine. Accounting. And yes, our entire profession is clownish. We produce shitty, unreliable software using ad-hoc methods no two teams agree about, our management processes are folkloric, our hiring procedures random. At the very peak of our profession, on teams building the most important and widely used software, we are at best working around those problems.

Neither law nor accounting are better than the tech industry when you put everything together. Medicine might be as good and is already having record level of females.

You're wrong.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#606

Post by sangnoir »

psyc wrote: post #578
sangnoir wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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 o…

In the context of the memo, he followed the neuroticism claim with a suggestion to "make tech and leadership less stressful", in order to help make the workplace more inclusive to women. You appear to assume that the whole thrust of the memo was to argue that women aren't suitable. The stated aim of the memo was to explore ways of reducing the gender gap, other than quotas. People are mad because about 4 statements o…

> In the context of the memo, he followed the neuroticism claim with a suggestion to "make tech and leadership less stressful", in order to help make the workplace more inclusive to women

While appearing to be very scientific, the memo offers no science to backup the underlying assumption with that line of thought("The reason there is a gender gap is because women can't deal with the high-stress environments of tech/leadership"). This is a massive leap from neuroticism. If anyone has the science to back that assumption, I'll be happy to read it.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#607

Post by fjsolwmv »

cma wrote: post #565
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).…

This is well researched in the feminist sociology literature. When a "women's job" (like teaching or nursing) becomes more respected, pay goes up, and... The industry gets an influx of men working in it.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#608

Post by fjsolwmv »

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…

Damore was the first Doxxing victim here. He didn't publish the memo publicly.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#609

Post by imron »

sangnoir wrote: post #564
curyous wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 o…

> It does not support (let alone prove) the idea that they are less capable engineers because of this

So you agree with what James Damore was saying then.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#610

Post by ThomPete »

tptacek wrote: post #605
ThomPete wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither law nor accounting are better than the tech industry when you put everything together. Medicine might be as good and is already having record level of females.

You're wrong.

Ok, about what?

If you compare working hours, salaries, opportunity, benefits, freedom, vacation, maternity leave etc. I have a hard time seeing law or accounting being better and even with medicine I would claim that tech is still better for women on every step.

Whether your company doesn't live up to this is another question but most other places I have been or worked with in the tech industry are extremely open to both women and minorities.

Post reply on HN