Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge • Hacker News Board

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#701

Post by YeGoblynQueenne » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 2:07 PM UTC

bduerst wrote: post #275

moduspol wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Abilities follow from preferences at the level being discussed (potential hiring pool at Google). I am not good at being a nurse because I chose to become a software developer. I chose to become a software developer because I prefer working with computers over people. My preference in adolescence resulted in my being more capable as a software developer for a company like Google. That this one statement keeps getting…

>That this one statement keeps getting taken out of context and misinterpreted Wrong again. When you look at the full context, Damore specifically says that it's not socially constructed like you're describing. Damore isn't arguing that women lack the ability for tech or leadership because they prefer to be nurses, his argument stems from biological differences: >> On average, men and women biologically differ in man…

>> Wrong again.

Ow. I agree with you, but can you please not preface your comments with "wrong", "false", "no" etc? You're going on to argue (pretty convincingly) that the parent is wrong anyway, what's the point of cranking up the disagreement volume a notch, like that?

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#702

Post by Chris2048 » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 2:07 PM UTC

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #700

stcredzero wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the ruling says that the specific arguments you bring into play may still be in violation of company policy, and such arguments are not automatically protected by virtue of being connected to a working conditions complaint. In effect, the ruling ratifies a particular squishy, ideological interpretation of science.

Actually, it flags Damore's interpretation of science as squishy and ideological. Which, let's be fair, it totally is, because he's no scientist and he has a very limited understanding of the sources he quotes in support of his views. Scientific debate doesn't take place in Google forums through Google memos, any more than it happens in HN comments, so what was Damore's point of providing references to back his posit…

Same could be said of internal trainings that reference, e.g writings about implicit bias.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#703

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 2:17 PM UTC

PricelessValue wrote: post #614

jakelazaroff wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that Breitbart, Stephen Molynieux, etc, all basically support the least charitable interpretation of the memo (that women are genetically less predisposed to engineering), his active association with them makes the claim that the memo was a good-faith attempt to improve diversity rather hard to swallow. Examples: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/14/haidt-google-memo-c... http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern…

> Given that Breitbart, Stephen Molynieux, etc, all basically support the least charitable interpretation of the memo (that women are genetically less predisposed to engineering) So? Are you saying you disagree? Then state your case. > his active association with them makes the claim that the memo was a good-faith attempt to improve diversity rather hard to swallow. Why does it make it hard to swallow? What does damo…

[deleted]

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#704

Post by evrydayhustling » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 2:27 PM UTC

Consultant32452 wrote: post #583

evrydayhustling wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The letter does bother me and I would have fired him, but I share some sympathy for having this blow up on a world stage. Is there any good timeline on how that happened? I'm pretty sure the leak (not the firing) is what made it national news... Do we know yet how that happened or how it circulated internally before that?

I think the thing that makes me more sympathetic is that the memo was written in response to him being asked his opinion on the diversity hire training he'd just received. Rightly or wrongly he clearly felt the diversity training was bigoted against him. I feel it's unfair to go out of your way to ask someone's opinion and then fire them for having the "wrong" one. I'm willing to grant someone a lot of leeway if they…

Yeah, once this got out to the news, it was pretty much guaranteed that this memo was the first thing anyone would know about this guy. I agree that's not "fair" in an objective sense -- everyone should get to learn from their mistakes, especially if they were made in a "safe" space where feedback was encouraged.

That's why I'm very curious exactly how this got distributed early on. Did someone take private feedback and socialize it? Or was feedback always a public bulletin board, where there's some shared responsibility on both readers and writers to think about the context? Or did Damore socialize it independently to prove support for his ideas?

If feedback was private, I think HR could take a firm line about what policies and principles Damore needs to adopt (at least at the workplace) to participate in his employment community, without helping his name get published with this memo (and possibly even without firing him). But the moment it got published changed the stakes for everyone involved, and not just due to PR. It's fair to ask: "can I require my female and minority employees to work with someone who has asserted that biological differences make them less likely to succeed?"

As far as the media goes, they've done what they're paid to do and socialize the most extreme opinions (most rejecting but some supporting Damore). I think that sucks for society but is a much bigger problem than this case.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#705

Post by aianus » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 2:30 PM UTC

bduerst wrote: post #414

aianus wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That says nothing about the abilities of his female coworkers who are already working at Google and who are already in the minority there. He's saying that going full steam ahead trying anything and everything to get to 50/50 may be impossible without lowering the bar for women which is bad for everyone.

So which is it then? You're going from "He didn't say that about women" to "He said that about women but he didn't mean that about his women coworkers" - i.e. no true scotsman. Even so, Damore did not specifically say that about "non-coworker women", he said it about women.

If :

A) For every woman in the general population who is qualified and wants to work at Google, there are two men (for whatever reasons)

B) the observed ratio at Google is two men per woman

Then, together, A and B are consistent with a belief that the women that currently work at Google are just as qualified and interested as the men.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#706

Post by aianus » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 2:34 PM UTC

bduerst wrote: post #431

aianus wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is entirely uncontroversial and well-supported to say that there are many more extremely stupid, or criminal, or violent, or genetically ill men than women at the bottom of the bell curve. Why is it so unbelievable that there are more men at the other end with extremely high ability? Just the fact that we have two different chromosomes X and Y is enough to increase our genetic variance (because if a gene on the X…

It's not so much as unbelievable as in the burden of proof is not met for causation. Observational correlation does not mean causation. It's analogous to how a racist would argue that because there are more african american men in U.S. prisons, they are there because they are biologically inferior - when in reality, socioeconomic factors are demonstrably one of the largest causes and there aren't links to genetics. T…

> It's not so much as unbelievable as in the burden of proof is not met for causation.

I agree that the burden of proof has not been met. From the studies cited on this Wikipedia page[0] it appears some studies have found this effect but it's not an accepted conclusion.

> Forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't you also the HN user that tried to argue for taking away reproductive rights from poor people?

Link? I don't recall posting that and I do not support reproductive coercion of any kind. Although I do believe that poor people having children are setting themselves and their children up for suffering and maybe I said they shouldn't do so?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesis

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#707

Post by stryk » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 3:05 PM UTC

stryk wrote: post #664

imron wrote: post #640

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair to Buzzfeed it turns out I remembered it wrong and it was Gizmodo who originally published the memo, I've corrected that in my comment, but we do know that they stripped it on purpose, stating in the article: "The text of the post is reproduced in full below, with some minor formatting modifications. Two charts and several hyperlinks are also omitted."

Wow I've only just seen this part (i was only familiar with the headlines of this story I never bothered to look into it until now) Whatever anyone's feelings on the issue one way or another, Gizmodo totally fucked this Damore over and I have to think it was deliberate, it doesn't make sense otherwise. I just browsed the original paper and there are citations all over the place - to strip those out is a deliberate mo…

Wowwieee, I have to stop reading about this, it's depressing. This is a school bus fire. It sounds (according to Mr. Damore, and I'm not finding any disputes of this fact) like he posted this paper internally @ Google a long time before any of the hubbub and only when it became public did anyone have a problem with it. He claims to have gotten responses both positive and negative internally, which I can believe -- that sounds normal regardless of the issue at hand.

This is all PR bullshit. Is this what we've become?? If you can't have a reasonable, adult, calm discussion or debate on a topic then all hope is lost, almost everything else is moot at that point because the entire bedrock of modern society is crumbling. He presented a reasonable argument, and did it the right way (IMO). He wasn't spewing hate speech or name-calling or anything of the sort. He laid out his argument, cited sources from reputable studies in a professional manner, and asked for input/rebuttal. Only because he's asking questions some people may not be comfortable with did this go down the way it did. This is very, very sad, if we continue down this road it is not going to end well. for anybody.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#708

Post by verylittlemeat » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 3:18 PM UTC

gdix wrote: post #552

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…

I'm skeptical of the "early days of CS" narrative. Could it be that there were lots of women working with computers because it was seen as "secretarial" work. In other words, was it just bosses placing their female employees in computer-related roles as companies added those positions? If so, could it be that that "dropoff" in the 80s could be just reflective of the demographics of people who were choosing that profe…

Doesn't your narrative just confirm then that "working with computers" has always been related to social norms? Women were placed there and performed as well as any later man(hence many notable women in early computer science).

When ceos started realizing the potential social and economic power of the magic typing box it was no longer socially taboo for men to operate them. Of course, no self respecting business elite man would use one, only dirty hippie social rejects.

That's what makes the whole thing extra sad. For the longest time silicon valley types had to deal with being social outcasts in the business world. Rather than learn from that to be more inclusive they just took up the mantle of the business elite they replaced and perpetuated the same system of prejudice. In fact now that I think about it part of excluding women from the profession might have been an attempt at self preservation. Early tech people knew they were already looked down upon, if they didn't amp up the sexism to make it clear they were real men they would look even weaker to their east coast elite superiors.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#709

Post by verylittlemeat » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 3:34 PM UTC

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

The "constructive purpose" of the discussion for a man is to practice talking about difficult subjects. The real world implication of discussing it is suggesting that the potential of women in tech is up for debate.

Just talking about some things is enough to imply unintended conclusions. That's how it works in the real world no matter how hard you want to play Mr. Logic. To believe otherwise is extremely naive and puts you in serious danger, as Damore found out.

Opinions based around differences in human biology have a really bad historical track record. Groups and institutions have built up a natural vomit reflex for when they show up. Many might argue that this is a suppression of the truth but they also have to appreciate that that suppression might be in service of a greater good.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#710

Post by walshemj » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 3:52 PM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #173

tptacek wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was terminated at Google's discretion under at-will employment, the same standard that might allow you to be fired for coming to work with blue hair. He sought relief under an exception to at-will, the NLRA, which protects concerted action to improve working conditions. The NLRB determined that because the substance of his action involved requests that Google might reasonably determine would be problematic under E…

IMHO, the Advice Memo's conclusion is summarized by this sentence: > Damore's statements about immutable traits linked to sex — such as women’s heightened neuroticism and men’s prevalence at the top of the IQ distribution — 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…

using the quotes "scientific" is the polite lawyer way of saying its total bolocks