Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge • Hacker News Board

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#721

Post by pokemongoaway » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 5:01 PM UTC

bencalam wrote: post #654

fareesh wrote: post #396

This is one of the few subjects where much of the HN crowd is either experiencing some shared hallucination, or is relying heavily on poor journalism. There are many comments that classify his memo as anti-diversity (it is pro diversity), and there are many that seem to suggest that the memo claimed women are less suited for these jobs, which again is patently false to anyone who gives it a reasonable and full read.…

The shared hallucination is the one experienced by the people agreeing with the memo, and the ones who feel needlessly 'victimized' and 'persecuted' now that times are changing. Of course, this is expected since the first ones to complain about growing equality are the ones who prospered disproportionately under inequality.

How is it that you feel so correct that you don't need to cite anything in reply to such a thorough analysis of events? "Prospered under inequality"? What was the name of this inequality law? Or was it "systemic" so I can't possibly understand it with my biased white male brain? The inequality we're under is the huge push to hire minorities and women. For example, as an Asian to get into Harvard, you need to have higher grades than a Black. How is this liberal policy not racist?

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#722

Post by swat535 » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 5:13 PM UTC

When this discussion was initially ignited a while back, I had wondered whether I should seek the opinion of my girlfriend regarding this topic.

She is a brilliant software engineer who switched out of CS into another major, despite having top grades.

I finally caved and asked her to read the original memo.

Whilst she found the memo interesting, she mentioned this is the view of a single person and found it ridiculous that it caused such an outcry.

She is all for diversity in tech (and for all industries for that matter) and pointed out that the hypersensitivity nature of CS causes much harm than good.

While we are busy doing roundabout discussions regarding a memo, personal data of millions of people are being leaked, privacy and security of people are in jeopardy because we fail to make high quality software.

It truly sadden both of us that the brilliant minds in our Industry are focused on what should/should not be written in a personal memo, than actually pushing the boundaries of software.

When a thought provoking community such as HN calls for arms every time this topic comes up and turns into a battlefield, I do wonder whether we have already lost the fight for TRUE diversity.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#723

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 5:14 PM UTC

titanix2 wrote: post #650

eridius wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Creating a hostile workplace is not “meaningful conversation”. The memo constituted pretty blatant harassment of all his female colleagues. You don’t have the right to say whatever you want. People absolutely should be fired for harassing and discriminating against their colleagues (which is effectively what the memo was). It’s toxic and incredibly hurtful and cannot be tolerated.

An hostile workplace is one firing an employee for the mere act of sharing an opinion. As the memo was not directly addressed to any female and did not insult them it is clearly not harassment. Questioning the hiring policy is not like attacking people directly. This is sad to see how much everything got conflated in an angry prêt-à-penser ideology that justify every of its excesses against the non believers.

[deleted]

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#724

Post by jakelazaroff » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 5:23 PM UTC

pokemongoaway wrote: post #717

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…

So regardless of the facts here, you're on the bandwagon of "guilt by association." That is, "we caught you being friends with communists so we're going to take your job away"?

I can't edit my original comment anymore, but I'd like to clarify that I mistook the claim of the comment to which I was replying as "association doesn't imply Damore espoused a genetic predisposition between men and women with regard to engineering", which is something other commenters are making in this thread.

I'm not on the bandwagon of "guilt by association"; Damore's claims are ridiculous on their face.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#725

Post by gdix » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 5:27 PM UTC

verylittlemeat wrote: post #708

gdix wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 elit…

> Doesn't your narrative just confirm then that "working with computers" has always been related to social norms?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. It doesn't matter how well they "performed". What matters is: would they have chosen that profession if they weren't placed there? Could it be that men preferred computer-related careers more than women did? If so, then the fact that many women were placed in those careers initially is completely irrelevant to the question of why there aren't a lot of women in those careers now.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#726

Post by avs733 » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 5:32 PM UTC

didgeoridoo wrote: post #38

avs733 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simplified: He actively advocated for discrimination against a protected class (women). There was no way the NLRB was going to find that to be protected action. The ramifications if they had would be that if someone creates a discriminatory workplace a company could be sued by both the victim and the violator. Under such a rule, both people's rights would be 'violated'. The point of rights is to protect you, its not…

> He actively advocated for discrimination against a protected class (women). Can you pull out a specific line from the memo that "actively advocates for discrimination"? I've read it a few times, and I just see him presenting an alternate explanation for the gender gap in tech beyond "sexism". He then goes on to argue that, in light of this alternate explanation, current approaches to narrow the gap may be ineffecti…

Oh Lord...

The NLRB did it for me, and Ars even pulled out the specific lines from both the NLRB and Google's letter to Damore.

And further, lets not play like that wasn't his underlying intent. You aren't dumb and this effort to play dumb is just intellectual dishonesty.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#727

Post by Consultant32452 » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 5:34 PM UTC

deanCommie wrote: post #666

SiVal wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, maybe you have insider knowledge about how much he actually disagrees with those on the left at Google--or maybe you don't. But either way, those who are fully in the alt-left camp at Google seem to consider themselves completely free to make anyone who disagrees with them uncomfortable and to go far beyond that: to force them to undergo indoctrination "training", or to be fired outright to make examples of the…

Only when it comes to things that the right is is indisputably on the wrong side of history and hasn't figured it out yet (gay rights, gender rights, etc). Its not like the alt left yet to preach about communism or unions or taxation with the same privileged safety. Subjects like this get a lot of reasonable discussion from both sides at left leaning companies. But when it comes to things like diversity? And you are…

>Only when it comes to things that the right is is indisputably on the wrong side of history and hasn't figured it out yet (gay rights, gender rights, etc).

Except that's not how it works the other direction. You mentioned communism. The left is indisputably on the wrong side of history here and hasn't figured it out yet. And yet somehow the right is still willing to engage in reasonable discussion.

A person could take a generous reading of Damore's memo and find plenty of common ground. It doesn't matter if he's right about the differences between genders being biological vs environmental. Survey after survey suggests that part of the reason why women avoid/leave tech is long hours and inflexible schedules. Since men are more willing to accept long hours and inflexible schedules (again, could be socially constructed) then Google is currently set up to maximally benefit men (patriarchy). To help with this situation Damore suggests some new policies like creating more part time positions and offering more telecommute opportunities.

But instead of trying to find common ground and move forward with some policies which might create an environment maximally beneficial to everyone, the ENTIRE NATION needed to stop what we were doing so this socially awkward nobody with no power could be publicly flogged over some potentially incorrect ideas about diversity policy.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#728

Post by fjsolwmv » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 5:35 PM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #284

tclancy wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He has no agency? He chose to speak up and then he chose to go down the path he did. It is an impressive feat of mental gymnastics to both kinda sorta acknowledge the alt-right might not be a great group of guys but then also claim Damore had no choice but to pull into that port in a storm of his own making. Allow me to pour out a beaker of Soylent for the poor, downtrodden white man.

It is an impressive feat of mental gymnastics to both kinda sorta acknowledge the alt-right might not be a great group of guys but then also claim Damore had no choice but to pull into that port It's an impressive feat of mental gymnastics to put people like Dave Rubin, Gad Saad, and Steven Pinker into the category of "Alt-Right." (The first two being an openly gay man in a gay marriage, and a Lebanese jew.) There is…

Not judging these people at all, but being Gay or Jewish is no way incompatible with being racist.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#729

Post by fjsolwmv » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 5:39 PM UTC

moduspol wrote: post #292

bduerst wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

That's not the full context, though. The full context is that he's writing this memo in the first place to propose alternatives to a hiring policy. That is: the relevant group is the hiring pool for Google. By the time men and women reach the point where Google's hiring policy is relevant toward their outcomes, the distribution of their abilities is already quite different. That's not even really questionable: It's w…

You are arguing against your own claims. Damore claimed that women are not underrepresented at Google hiring, after considering the explanatory factors. You explained why the affirmative action diversity hiring policy is unnecessary.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#730

Post by fjsolwmv » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 5:41 PM UTC

bduerst wrote: post #358

moduspol wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the full context, though. The full context is that he's writing this memo in the first place to propose alternatives to a hiring policy. That is: the relevant group is the hiring pool for Google. By the time men and women reach the point where Google's hiring policy is relevant toward their outcomes, the distribution of their abilities is already quite different. That's not even really questionable: It's w…

Except what you said about social constructs in your comment isn't argued in the memo, hence you're now projecting about "selective interpretation." Nobody is saying this isn't in context to hiring policies - that's your straw man. Damore was arguing that women were not in engineering and leadership positions because of preferences and biological abilities (in support of his memo's argument about hiring policies). Th…

No evidence? The number of women who leave their career to become full-time childcare givers far out number men, even among women in high level career tracks.