Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

James Damore and three others end Google suit

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 1001 posts

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#111

Post by magic5227 »

manigandham wrote: post #87
magic5227 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She's not wrong. He shared a manifesto about gender differences in the workplace. In it, he calls women neurotic. Whether people's read on the manifesto is reductive of his overall argument isn't the point. He showed a serious lack of judgement writing and posting that in his workplace. He should not have played the part of expert gender/psychology expert. A researcher he cites specifically disagrees with his takeawa…

Google has always had a very open culture with lots of political discussion and encouraged these kinds of internal debates. This was a memo written specifically for a private internal forum that was focused on that specific discussion. The widely shared version was leaked and edited, but never meant for a public audience. Saying that men and women tend to have different preferences doesn't make a statement about thei…

The research the post cites strongly implies women would be better qualified for other roles. That suggestion was (and is) both inaccurate and inappropriate to send in a workplace.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#112

Post by magic5227 »

manigandham wrote: post #83
ergothus wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As someone who actually read what he wrote, I just had to bite my tongue. That's not what he said at all, As someone that also read it, those arent the words he used, but that is very much what he was saying. A facade of misrepresented psuedoscience doesnt change the intent, motivation, or reality.

No, the summary is that men and women have different interests (in average across billions) which creates a tendency to choose different professions. This division is even more pronounced in the most egalitarian and free societies. Lack of interest in a subject does not mean a lack of capability.

If a society tells a woman she's not likely as interested in something, guess what profession she is more likely to choose? Not the one she's being told she won't be happy with.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#113

Post by ergothus »

manigandham wrote: post #108
ergothus wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Focusing on the idea that women are biologically "less interested" (but don't worry, we aren't talking about the good ones you may know, they are just statistical outliers) and trying to twist up scientific "proof" for that does not lead me to trust him or his motives. Being blind to the widespread dismissive, discriminatory, and derogatory behavior that routinely drives women from the industry does not inspire confi…

Men and women (biologically and socially) have different interests. This is different than capabilities. Countries with the most free choices see the most division between sexes in different professions. Nobody seems to have a problem when it comes to auto mechanics, medical sciences, teachers, social services, lawyers, etc. Why are different interests such a controversial thing to accept?

1) I'd argue that you arent paying much attention to those other industries. I certainly see issue commonly raised in a few you mention that are in my circles. Things that still make me double-take.

2) tech is just the latest in a series. Comp sci degree enrollment for women DROPPED for recent decades - that's not a biological lack of interest. This has occurred in many professions - when the profession becomes high profile, the women are driven out.

3) you are proving the problem in the original memo. Instead of looking into any of the research on the topic, you are repeating what feels true. You speak with such confidence on the different interests of different genders, without considering how you know what the actual interests might be. (You're assuming what you see must be the result of interests, and use that to prove a difference of interests is the cause. That's a tautology) You assert that "no one seems to have a problem" with imbalances in other professions, when it is trivial to find people definitely have problems.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#114

Post by jashmatthews »

koheripbal wrote: post #99
magic5227 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She's not wrong. He shared a manifesto about gender differences in the workplace. In it, he calls women neurotic. Whether people's read on the manifesto is reductive of his overall argument isn't the point. He showed a serious lack of judgement writing and posting that in his workplace. He should not have played the part of expert gender/psychology expert. A researcher he cites specifically disagrees with his takeawa…

Calling it a "manifesto" is trying to give reader here some bias against it. Like he was some alt-right madman. He wrote a post. Not a manifesto. "There are productive ways to have these kinds of conversations" Well obviously there aren't when posting a comment in an internal company forum gets you fired.

He skipped over classical liberal and very quickly gave interviews to prominent alt-right figures like Stefan Molyneaux.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#115

Post by amazingman »

magic5227 wrote: post #112
manigandham wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the summary is that men and women have different interests (in average across billions) which creates a tendency to choose different professions. This division is even more pronounced in the most egalitarian and free societies. Lack of interest in a subject does not mean a lack of capability.

If a society tells a woman she's not likely as interested in something, guess what profession she is more likely to choose? Not the one she's being told she won't be happy with.

What an oddly paternalistic point of view.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#116

Post by hckr_news »

jashmatthews wrote: post #114
koheripbal wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling it a "manifesto" is trying to give reader here some bias against it. Like he was some alt-right madman. He wrote a post. Not a manifesto. "There are productive ways to have these kinds of conversations" Well obviously there aren't when posting a comment in an internal company forum gets you fired.

He skipped over classical liberal and very quickly gave interviews to prominent alt-right figures like Stefan Molyneaux.

He also tweeted during the middle of this, "The KKK is horrible and I don't support them in any way, but can we admit that their internal title names are cool, e.g. 'Grand Wizard'?"

So...shrugs

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#117

Post by manigandham »

ergothus wrote: post #113
manigandham wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Men and women (biologically and socially) have different interests. This is different than capabilities. Countries with the most free choices see the most division between sexes in different professions. Nobody seems to have a problem when it comes to auto mechanics, medical sciences, teachers, social services, lawyers, etc. Why are different interests such a controversial thing to accept?

1) I'd argue that you arent paying much attention to those other industries. I certainly see issue commonly raised in a few you mention that are in my circles. Things that still make me double-take. 2) tech is just the latest in a series. Comp sci degree enrollment for women DROPPED for recent decades - that's not a biological lack of interest. This has occurred in many professions - when the profession becomes high…

What other professions? What series? Computer science degrees and jobs are seeing a rise in women, but they're already the majority in biological sciences and other disciplines. Would you claim men are conditioned to not going into those fields?

The research on the topic covers what I state about different countries and societies showing how different interests affect professions. Here are some links:

https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-...

https://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-gir...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/38061313_Men_and_Th...

https://www.nber.org/papers/w22173

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#118

Post by coffeeboy27 »

belltaco wrote: post #94
look_lookatme wrote: post #12

Damore does not fit into the neat ideological right or left classification but it would be impossible for an institution like Bloomberg to have nuance on this issue. Just because some deplorable lifted him up doesn't mean he should be defined specifically on an ideological axis. But, of course, who gives a fuck. The rage machine rages on.

>Damore does not fit into the neat ideological right or left classification Lets see, his lawyer for this suit who is quoted a lot in the article: >Harmeet Kaur Dhillon is an American lawyer and Republican Party official. She is the former vice chairwoman of the California Republican Party, and the National Committeewoman of the Republican National Committee for California. Wonder if it was pro-bono.

Damore hasn't said much of his idealogical beliefs publicly and I think it's unfair to criticize him on his choice of legal counsel because he just wants to be well represented which is his right. Regardless of your political beliefs Dhillon is an accomplished attorney. Other attorneys on the left in California don't want to touch the case because of the pearl-clutchers and public political implications so the enemy of your enemy becomes your friend.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#119

Post by manigandham »

magic5227 wrote: post #112
manigandham wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the summary is that men and women have different interests (in average across billions) which creates a tendency to choose different professions. This division is even more pronounced in the most egalitarian and free societies. Lack of interest in a subject does not mean a lack of capability.

If a society tells a woman she's not likely as interested in something, guess what profession she is more likely to choose? Not the one she's being told she won't be happy with.

Wouldn't that apply to both sexes? Can you really tell someone what their interests are?

"happy with" is not the same as "interested in" however it seems like the last 2 decades have had a lot of focus on letting people follow their passion.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#120

Post by vmception »

magic5227 wrote: post #77
daenz wrote: post #16

I remember at a previous job, a female engineer talking to other engineers when the Damore story broke. She said "I can't believe he said that women can't be good engineers" and indicated he deserved to be fired. As someone who actually read what he wrote, I just had to bite my tongue. That's not what he said at all , but even making the distinction makes you one of "them" and politicizes the workplace. It's just dis…

She's not wrong. He shared a manifesto about gender differences in the workplace. In it, he calls women neurotic. Whether people's read on the manifesto is reductive of his overall argument isn't the point. He showed a serious lack of judgement writing and posting that in his workplace. He should not have played the part of expert gender/psychology expert. A researcher he cites specifically disagrees with his takeawa…

It was a draft. Have the conversation. Address the flaws. Find a common ground, you don't have to be a conservative Manchurian candidate infiltrating the bay area to acknowledge where tech companies are failing on inclusivity goals in ways that stretch the imagination of being out of touch.

Big Tech's contrived and readjusted and out of touch practices have been written about in NY Times, Wapo, even freaking SFGate ad nauseum.

Adding some points that overlap with misogynist communities means address the misogyny in isolation, and also factor in the points.

Post reply on HN