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

801–810 of 863 posts

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#801

Post by rendall »

on_and_off wrote: post #208
rendall wrote: post #103

Did the NLRB memo specify exactly which statements in Damore's memo were discriminatory and hostile? Is there a copy available?

yes : https://www.nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-205351 you can also find the full damore memo online.

Thanks.

I checked Damore's Twitter account, and he has not yet made a statement on this, perhaps wisely following his lawyer's advice.

from the NLRB Memo: "[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 comments with “scientific” references and analysis, and notwithstanding “not all women” disclaimers."

Interesting. The Board completely dismissed the scientific arguments, even going so far as to put quotes around "scientific". They didn't accept that he was making scientific statements at all! It's not clear whether they understood that Damore used "neuroticism" as a specific and uncontroversial psychological term, and not in the folk meaning of "crazy". I'm going to suppose no, since their qualifiers "heightened neuroticism" and "more prone to neuroticism" don't come from Damore's memo, and imply the "crazy" connotation.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#802

Post by stcredzero »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #788
stcredzero wrote: post #784

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it is not and I take umbrage at the offensive undertone of your comment ("parroting"? Really?). Psychology is not climate science, it's currently going through a widely publicised reproducibility crisis and in any case, the reliance on p-values has been criticised widely by experts in fields as varied as economics, medicine and of course the humanities. The big-5 model itself has been the subject of much cr…

He's citing "legitimate scientific sources" but he doesn't understand them, so his citations are meaningless. Where am I claiming that "the whole field isn't valid"? I said there's a reproducibility crisis and that the reliance on p-values has been criticised in various fields. I made no claim that his interpretations are "wrong". I said that his interpretations are most likely wrong because he's not a psychologist a…

He's citing "legitimate scientific sources" but he doesn't understand them, so his citations are meaningless.

You seemingly refuse to substantiate this.

I made no claim that his interpretations are "wrong". I said that his interpretations are most likely wrong because he's not a psychologist

What would you say if a prominent and widely cited academic and clinical Psychologist corroborated his interpretations?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU

I think your response would be to again be intellectually dishonest and tar him by association. However, in doing so, you abandon your former position.

You keep insulting me.

No, what you are doing semantically parallels what climate science deniers do. You are using the same techniques and tactics, seemingly counting on the audience to be too lazy to read the actual sources for themselves. My comparison is functional. If you wish to prevent me from making that point, then please start substantive responses, using facts, reasoning, and references. Otherwise you are just using the climate denier tactic of repeated assertion.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#803

Post by stcredzero »

tptacek wrote: post #791
stcredzero wrote: post #787

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's open season on everyone in virtually every American workplace. Why won't you acknowledge this? Oh, but I do acknowledge this. I would like to call attention to it. I thank you for your support. What's happening here isn't a shift. In the old days, one could cite such studies. The reactions and the consequences are indeed a shift in society. An outrageously authoritarian shift. What you're demanding is a new spec…

You understand that, in much of the country, you can be fired simply for being a Democrat or a Republican, right? The law recognizes the rights of the owners and managers of companies to organize them out of like-minded people. If that's problematic for you, you should lobby for employment laws to change. It's arguably not the NLRB's place to come up with new protections; they're an agency largely unaccountable to th…

You understand that, in much of the country, you can be fired simply for being a Democrat or a Republican, right?

I was once pushed out of a job for being perceived as "too leftist." In retrospect, perhaps I should have claimed harassment.

I don't think any but the most ideologically fervent would consider firing someone for simply being a Democrat or a Republican anything but a crappy thing to do. I understand that at-will employment is a beneficial freedom to employers in the same way that free speech and freedom of association are beneficial freedoms to individuals. However, at-will employment was once used to actively discriminate against people on the basis of race, religion, or place of national origin. Society came to recognize that as a problem, and society came around to change "the social compact." The exploitation of ideologues to use at-will employment to implement "thought-crime" is abhorrent, and by your own admission, has come to be a widespread societal phenomenon.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#804

Post by verylittlemeat »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #800
verylittlemeat wrote: post #796

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's your spouse, come on. We're talking about coworkers, people who casually end up in meetings together and talk shit or play politics with zero regard for scorching the earth to get ahead. You have massive incentive not to casually degrade the existence of your spouse. Your example isn't even a different ballpark it's a different game. In my experience most arguments of political nature have nothing to do with f…

You and I are not even discussing the same thing. I am talking about discussions about Damore on the internet generally and on HN in specific. Discussion on HN can develop over hours, days, weeks, months even years. Some people here have known each other for years. In most cases, they can just walk away if things get too harried, regroup, rethink, conclude "that phrasing went super bad" and try something else.

I think your bar for good faith conversation is set unrealistically high. Outside of friends and family most people have no incentive to concede anything in a conversation if they don't want to. Some people don't care at all about burning bridges to "win." For anonymous conversations on the internet this is almost the rule rather than the exception.

Don't get me wrong, I wish most people weren't assholes just as much as you do but it's a race to the bottom. If one person values "being right" they will take your good faith argument and eat you alive in public with no mercy.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#805

Post by DoreenMichele »

verylittlemeat wrote: post #804
DoreenMichele wrote: post #800

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You and I are not even discussing the same thing. I am talking about discussions about Damore on the internet generally and on HN in specific. Discussion on HN can develop over hours, days, weeks, months even years. Some people here have known each other for years. In most cases, they can just walk away if things get too harried, regroup, rethink, conclude "that phrasing went super bad" and try something else.

I think your bar for good faith conversation is set unrealistically high. Outside of friends and family most people have no incentive to concede anything in a conversation if they don't want to. Some people don't care at all about burning bridges to "win." For anonymous conversations on the internet this is almost the rule rather than the exception. Don't get me wrong, I wish most people weren't assholes just as much…

I think my expectations align with HN guidelines and with a fair amount of observable behavior here. Granted, some folks can't be arsed. (shrug)

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#806

Post by verylittlemeat »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #805
verylittlemeat wrote: post #804

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your bar for good faith conversation is set unrealistically high. Outside of friends and family most people have no incentive to concede anything in a conversation if they don't want to. Some people don't care at all about burning bridges to "win." For anonymous conversations on the internet this is almost the rule rather than the exception. Don't get me wrong, I wish most people weren't assholes just as much…

I think my expectations align with HN guidelines and with a fair amount of observable behavior here. Granted, some folks can't be arsed. (shrug)

I guess you and I are reading a different hacker news then. I can hardly go one thread here that doesn't devolve into petty power jabs for internet points. I don't know how you can read the comments in this Damore thread and not agree that's the case.

Of course, that's against the HN guidelines, but it's not exactly hard to follow the letter of the guidelines while breaking the spirit of them.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#807

Post by dragonwriter »

stcredzero wrote: post #797
dragonwriter wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only way that even the most ardent opponents of Damore's memo can come to a "discriminatory" and "harassment" interpretation, is to disregard a literal, face-value reading of the memo and impute motivations to him. Motivation isn't what defines harassment; effect on others is what is relevant to harassment; not only is imputing a motive not necessary to finding harassment in the act of presenting the memo as he…

Motivation isn't what defines harassment; effect on others is what is relevant to harassment So this is why hysterical ideologues have latched onto "harassment." It basically short-circuits due process and the necessity of proof. It also scores huge emotional points. It's the perfect vehicle for moral panics and witch-hunts and mob behaviors. Is it any wonder, then, that it is now exploited for political gain?

> It basically short-circuits due process and the necessity of proof.

No, it doesn't. Like many torts (and a few crimes) the things that have to be proven for harassment may not (there are several different patterns that qualify as harassment) include any particular mental state on the part of the alleged harrasser, but it still requires probing the elements of the offense and isn't any differently situated than other civil wrongs when it comes to due process.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#808

Post by ThomPete »

dragonwriter wrote: post #670
stcredzero wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is Milo not espousing alt right views? He's an active and vocal critic of the Alt-Right. He devoted an entire chapter of his book to criticism of the Alt-Right. Just what views of his would you cite as "Alt-Right?" Can you back those up with quotes? As far as I can tell, he's an amoral opportunist who will stoop to saying vile things, but he's not Alt-Right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blJfibQnTgU He was empl…

> He was employed by Breitbart. > He left He resigned under pressure when controversy erupted over his past comments that were viewed as supporting, or at least minimizing the significance of, pedophilia. He didn't leave because he suddenly realized, after years of association, that Breitbart was an alt-right outlet, so the fact that he left is not really germane to what his voluntary association with Breitbart says…

Actually not really and I would challenge you to say exactly what he says that is alt-right.

He is a conservative who knows how to provoke that's about it.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#809

Post by mcphage »

stcredzero wrote: post #797
dragonwriter wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only way that even the most ardent opponents of Damore's memo can come to a "discriminatory" and "harassment" interpretation, is to disregard a literal, face-value reading of the memo and impute motivations to him. Motivation isn't what defines harassment; effect on others is what is relevant to harassment; not only is imputing a motive not necessary to finding harassment in the act of presenting the memo as he…

Motivation isn't what defines harassment; effect on others is what is relevant to harassment So this is why hysterical ideologues have latched onto "harassment." It basically short-circuits due process and the necessity of proof. It also scores huge emotional points. It's the perfect vehicle for moral panics and witch-hunts and mob behaviors. Is it any wonder, then, that it is now exploited for political gain?

> So this is why hysterical ideologues have latched onto "harassment."

Another reason: because the effect you have on other people is hugely relevant in how people come together as a culture or society (or don’t!), and trying to ignore it leads to pathological behavior.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#810

Post by stcredzero »

ubernostrum wrote: post #789
stcredzero wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Seen a huge observed gender gap Like the ones favoring women in medicine in some countries? Like nursing? 4. Outcomes drastically changed once those simple measures were adopted, in a way which clearly and beyond reasonable doubt put the lie to the explanations claimed in (2). But only up to a point. Google and YouTube execs are on the record saying that they basically got to parity with the available candidate po…

Like nursing? So do something about it, if it bothers you. Each person is free to choose how to prioritize their time and efforts, and is not required to solve every other problem (or even every other similar problem) in every other field in every other country on earth as a prerequisite. But we both know that, and we both know that you're running off a script of sound bites. Actually, for a time "programmer" was ske…

So do something about it, if it bothers you.

I've personally engaged in education programs for high school women in tech.

Though of course we have literally zero cases in all of recorded human history of men rigging a system to favor themselves over women...Oh. Wait.

But the typical intellectual dishonesty here comes in the form of citing this history, then asserting that the current day must be the same, with zero proof. That is exactly what you just did.

According to the Google and YouTube execs, there are factors in the job which may skew employment according to preference, and perhaps the job should be changed to take preferences into account. This is exactly what James Damore proposed in his memo, and furthermore what Google and Youtube execs said in public:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrOp8ewzJDc

Furthermore, they also state that employment at Google is at parity with the STEM/tech education pipeline -- about 2 in 5 women. Where is your evidence of "rigging" given the existing anti-discrimination laws and Google's extraordinary efforts to work against that? Or are you just pointing to it having happened in the past, then point to a non 50/50 distribution as "proof." Sorry, but that's circular logic. Can you justify the 50/50 distribution with other than circular logic? Aren't you just taking that as an unexamined axiom?

Post reply on HN