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

681–690 of 863 posts

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#681

Post by iovrthoughtthis »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #677
iovrthoughtthis wrote: post #675

This is the ultimate HN bikeshedding topic. It's a proxy for the nature / nurture debate. I put my vote token in the nature side. Women can do what ever men can and persisting the ideas that they can't sucks. That is my opinion and I am unwilling to change it.

I agree it is bikeshedding. But I think it is bikeshedding with a constructive purpose of serving as a safe sandbox in which people can practice talking about difficult subjects without it blowing up in their face. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16399006

I'm not convinced that is the case.

Members seems to be expressing views that are intrinsic to their identities. To that end, no one has an open mind on the subject.

Even I genuinely don't have an open mind on the subject!

These discussions and disagreements will only serve to cement the existing views of members.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#683

Post by DoreenMichele »

iovrthoughtthis wrote: post #681
DoreenMichele wrote: post #677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree it is bikeshedding. But I think it is bikeshedding with a constructive purpose of serving as a safe sandbox in which people can practice talking about difficult subjects without it blowing up in their face. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16399006

I'm not convinced that is the case. Members seems to be expressing views that are intrinsic to their identities. To that end, no one has an open mind on the subject. Even I genuinely don't have an open mind on the subject! These discussions and disagreements will only serve to cement the existing views of members.

Practicing the basics of diplomatic discussion is not about changing minds.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#684

Post by rmc »

pokemongoaway wrote: post #642
rayiner wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that we have a theory of causation and evidence that the causal factors exist. We can point to studies showing that identical resumes with female names are half as likely to get called back, and we have a workable theory of how things like that affect gender ratio. These theories are backed by a real-world social experiment: when we eliminated many explicit forms of discrimination that existed in pa…

The memo itself debunks most of what you're saying here - and the insane thing here is that people like you are opposing other's rights to even state an opposing theory. You're not arguing against the memo so much as you are arguing against this technical employee's right to make what he deemed a technical argument.

There's nothing wrong with stating pseudo-science. It's just that people won't take you seriously.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#685

Post by rmc »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #635
reader5000 wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ar…

Many jurisdictions define rape in a manner that requires that the person assaulted be penetrated. Under this definition, it is literally impossible for a woman to rape a man, except in cases where that definition would include anal penetration with an object other than a penis. In most jurisdictions, this would be defined as sodomy, not rape. I don't have stats on sexual assault handy. But I can tell you that, yes, o…

I think you'll find that many feminists and activsts are not happy with most juristictions rape laws.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#686

Post by DoreenMichele »

rmc wrote: post #685
DoreenMichele wrote: post #635

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many jurisdictions define rape in a manner that requires that the person assaulted be penetrated. Under this definition, it is literally impossible for a woman to rape a man, except in cases where that definition would include anal penetration with an object other than a penis. In most jurisdictions, this would be defined as sodomy, not rape. I don't have stats on sexual assault handy. But I can tell you that, yes, o…

I think you'll find that many feminists and activsts are not happy with most juristictions rape laws.

I have zero idea why you feel the need to point that out to me.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#687

Post by tome »

tptacek wrote: post #390
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?

These kinds of objections will draw approving nods from people who already agree with you, 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…

> But put that aside and just try to engage with the simultaneously naive and arrogant assumption that the people Google hires --- people, we assume, like Damore --- must somehow represent the top of that curve. Because what they do is just so demanding.

This is fallacious reasoning. The claim that the IQ of men has higher variance implies (given a Gaussian distribution) that there is some IQ threshold beyond which there are many more men having an IQ greater than the threshold than there are women. It doesn't imply anything about whether this threshold is above or below the average IQ of Google employees. In fact, if indeed the claim is correct, the threshold may well be not very much higher than the average IQ of the general population.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#688

Post by pokemongoaway »

rmc wrote: post #684
pokemongoaway wrote: post #642

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The memo itself debunks most of what you're saying here - and the insane thing here is that people like you are opposing other's rights to even state an opposing theory. You're not arguing against the memo so much as you are arguing against this technical employee's right to make what he deemed a technical argument.

There's nothing wrong with stating pseudo-science. It's just that people won't take you seriously.

More very disingenuous arguments. People took him so seriously he got fired!

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#689

Post by mseebach »

bjourne wrote: post #261
mseebach wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth keeping in mind that Europe certainly isn't one place when it comes to labour regulations. Some places you barely fire people at all (prevalent in the South, apparently getting reformed in France) and in some places it is significantly easier (several countries in the North), if not quite at will. The "easiness" generally has to do with the burden attached to showing insufficient performance.

Indeed, the laws are different. But in this case it doesn't matter much because the example is extreme. Even if the employer could show that the manifesto caused a toxic work environment (hard), and that that was also Demore's intent (even harder), the employer would also need to show that they had tried to resolve the situation with other means. For example, by asking Demore not to publish similar manifestos in the…

That's the point. Under some of the more liberal legislations in eg. Denmark, you can fire people for "cooperation difficulties". The bar is higher than at-will, but it's not very difficult to meet. The employer just have to show that it has tried and failed to remedy the "difficulties" first (so you can't just fire people the next day). It's unclear that the statements found to constitute sexual discrimination could reasonably be meaningfully "remediated" (especially if the employer isn't in fact committed to it, it just have to show that it tried).

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#690

Post by ggggtez »

ameister14 wrote: post #117
ggggtez wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>he said, "What separates this is its derisiveness and stereotypical characterization of one gender." Maybe not exactly, but the above quote pretty clearly outlines that the NLRB agrees that the memo was supporting a sexist viewpoint.

It wasn't that it was sexist, it was that it stereotypically characterized a gender in an effort to get Google to stop being so proactive in their compliance with EEOE laws. I don't think it said anything about innate superiority - as I recall, it was mostly about innate interests and bell curves, and posited that the reason there were less women in tech than men was because there were less women interested in things…

I guess some people think that you can't be sexist so long as you put a p value. Must be a weird world to live in.
Post reply on HN