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

761–770 of 863 posts

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#761

Post by tptacek »

stcredzero wrote: post #755
ncallaway wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google (at least in this case) wasn't acting in their capacity as a power-broker over wider internet speech and discourse. They were acting in their capacity as an employer. Their power over society as an employer is much more limited and doesn't concern me. If you want to have a conversation over whether twitter and Google as companies have enough power that their actions should be judged in a 1A context that's fine…

The fact that so many of Google's employees could demonstrate the degree of ideological hysteria which they demonstrated greatly concerns me, and has a direct bearing on the 1A context.

What 1A context? 1A says absolutely nothing whatsoever about your right to work for Google, or for Hobby Lobby.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#762

Post by bduerst »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #701
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…

>> 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?

Good point. It's hard to get through confirmation bias, even when the person accuses you of being intellectually dishonest, but I agree the tone is a bit much.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#763

Post by bduerst »

Majora320 wrote: post #600
bduerst wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what this Advice memo is about isn't the idea itself, but how he poorly he handled the idea. The disruptive way he handled the idea is not protected from being fired in an at-will employment company. Google even worded that in the termination: >Your post advanced and relied on offensive gender stereotypes to suggest that women cannot be successful in the same kinds of jobs at Google as men. I want to make cle…

Gender stereotypes are sometimes supported by fact (even if they may primarily came into being by anecdote or plain ____ism). When they are, it is not fair to dismiss someone as "advancing gender stereotypes" whenever they make an "on average"-type claim (based on evidence) that happens to align with a gender stereotype; the problem comes when you forget the "on average" part of it (which he did not seem to).

Again, it's not about the validity of the idea, but how Damore handled himself with it.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#764

Post by ncallaway »

stcredzero wrote: post #755
ncallaway wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google (at least in this case) wasn't acting in their capacity as a power-broker over wider internet speech and discourse. They were acting in their capacity as an employer. Their power over society as an employer is much more limited and doesn't concern me. If you want to have a conversation over whether twitter and Google as companies have enough power that their actions should be judged in a 1A context that's fine…

The fact that so many of Google's employees could demonstrate the degree of ideological hysteria which they demonstrated greatly concerns me, and has a direct bearing on the 1A context.

It does not, because there's no 1A issue as the first amendment does not grant you any protections from your employer.

Now, as I said before, if you want to have a discussion about whether Twitter and Google and other modern media companies should have some 1A responsibilities in their role as gatekeepers to online speech, that's a discussion that's entirely separate† from Twitter and Google's responsibilities to their employees.

†I would still argue that, despite their relative power over online discussions, Twitter and Google as private entities are not bound by the first amendment in any capacity—nor should they be.

Privates entities aren't required to provide you a soapbox.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#765

Post by ThomPete »

walshemj wrote: post #741
ThomPete wrote: post #720

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can fire people for more or less anything we are talking about whether its fair. Not sure how you get to total breakdown of trust.

sorry I should have said it is a fair reason to dismiss.

First, you have to establish that it was a total breakdown which I think you will have a hard time establishing in any meaningful way. But by all means. Let's hear the argument.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#766

Post by Chris2048 »

eridius wrote: post #760
Chris2048 wrote: post #758

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The memo was leaked, and its (willful?) misrepresentation created a "hostile" environment. Google did have a choice.

What do you mean, leaked? He sent it to the company. Whether or not it was released outside of the company has no bearing on whether it created a hostile environment. In fact, it was "leaked" precisely because it was so offensive. And what misrepresentation? You're deluding yourself. The memo as written is what created the hostile work environment, not any "misrepresentation".

It was leaked company-wide (outside a forum dedicated to the subject) before publically.

Few people apparently read the memo.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#767

Post by PrimHelios »

dejawu wrote: post #210

The way this whole thing played out makes me sad, because the guy did bring up a good point - current-day social justice leaves little avenue for well-meaning but unaware (perhaps through privilege) people to start conversations and learn about the reasons and motivations for certain efforts such as affirmative action and changes in vocabulary. Damore was indeed punished for speaking out, just as he feared. Then he s…

>well-meaning

Damore cherry-picked Wikipedia articles to claim women are biologically inferior with the intent of causing an uproar, that's not at all "well-meaning".

Buried deep, deep down, he had somewhat of a point, but it wasn't at all the point he was trying to argue for.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#768

Post by walshemj »

ThomPete wrote: post #765
walshemj wrote: post #741

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sorry I should have said it is a fair reason to dismiss.

First, you have to establish that it was a total breakdown which I think you will have a hard time establishing in any meaningful way. But by all means. Let's hear the argument.

The Boss says I can not trust this person again nor can their coworkers for x y z reasons (And I Am afraid Mr Danmore has done this) and the employee is toast.

This is a civil matter so its on the balance of probabilities this isn't a criminal court.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#769

Post by DoreenMichele »

iovrthoughtthis wrote: post #756
DoreenMichele wrote: post #752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was married for a lot of years. My marriage was a case of opposites attract. We argued incessantly about everything but personal belief. It took us a lot of years to get to the point where we could go furniture shopping and communicate constructively in order to agree on a purchase instead of fighting about who would win this one. We often were focused on entirely different attributes in our decision making process…

I just published a post about effective communication actually. https://medium.com/@ioverthoughtthis/how-to-have-an-effectiv... > Society benefits when people can find a safe sandbox to begin that communication process. Totally agree. I would love some feedback from you given your stance on discussion!

You have a lot of good points about techniques that are useful.

I would add that a debate does not need to be a battle. I am usually not looking to argue and win. I am usually looking to converse.

Also, minds and feelings change slowly. Expecting them to change this hour because you used pretty words and had great technique is unrealistic. My goal is to be heard, to be allowed to speak my mind. People can contemplate my words at leisure and draw conclusions later. I don't need acknowledgement that I "won" this round right this minute.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#770

Post by wolf550e »

tome wrote: post #687
tptacek wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

When the Damore memo came out, people have calculated that to explain the only 20% women working for google, the average IQ of google engineers needs to be 160. That is laughable.
Post reply on HN