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

141–150 of 1001 posts

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#141

Post by Udik »

Nitramp wrote: post #134
smitty1e wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the lady engineers should put out some great work in reply and refute him.

That's not good. Imagine how you'd feel. Imagine people would generally claim that someone who looks like you is a bad engineer (say, someone with your hair color). And then imagine that people would expect you to constantly disprove that assumption, just because of your hair color. You'd be on the edge all the time. You'd never feel at home in the field. And whenever you interact with someone who doesn't have past w…

But don't you think that the fairer the selection (blind to things such as gender, race or politics) the more confidence you'd have that you deserve to be in the position you are? How does a woman engineer should feel, knowing she was given a boost in the selection process by some kind of affirmative action? Isn't that in itself a source of uncertainty?

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#142

Post by alexpetralia »

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.

Is there any evidence that would convince you that interests can diverge, independent of society (nurture)? Your argument relies on the assumption (yes, an assumption, not evidence) that society exclusively determines our interests. You do not admit a role for biology. There is little scientific evidence that supports this view.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#143

Post by bitcharmer »

Smaug123 wrote: post #140

Would it be too much to ask that we collectively say "The Damore thing is obviously a [scissor statement]( https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/ ), on which otherwise-reasonable people bafflingly manage to hold different views very strongly, and we should stop talking about it forthwith because no good can come of it"? Nothing new can be said on the subject, vanishingly few people can be persua…

I don't think shutting down discourse is a positive thing.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#144

Post by Smaug123 »

bitcharmer wrote: post #143
Smaug123 wrote: post #140

Would it be too much to ask that we collectively say "The Damore thing is obviously a [scissor statement]( https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/ ), on which otherwise-reasonable people bafflingly manage to hold different views very strongly, and we should stop talking about it forthwith because no good can come of it"? Nothing new can be said on the subject, vanishingly few people can be persua…

I don't think shutting down discourse is a positive thing.

This is the problem, though. That discourse is not productive, when held here - witness the dumpster fire of downvotes all over the place.

If the topic needs discussion, it needs long and nuanced discussion where each party is trying hard to understand the other - not rapid-fire three-line comments on a news site.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#145

Post by alexpetralia »

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…

> He calls women neurotic.

Neurotic, as he uses it, is not the same way it is used in everyday parlance.

Neurotic is part of the Big 5 personality traits, for which there is substantial academic evidence. The traits are: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extroversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism.

He is using "neurotic" in the psychological and clinical sense. I believe he specifies as much in his actual paper.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#146

Post by atdrummond »

ergothus wrote: post #56
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…

> 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.

I went to HS with James for a few years and have spoken to him on this topic a few times.

I don’t agree with how he went about pursuing the issue but your assessment does not comport with the views he’s shared with me or our contemporaries who stay in touch with him.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#147

Post by searchableguy »

ergothus wrote: post #107
koheripbal wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's so disappointing to read this. I don't see how his thesis of "everyone needs to be treated by their individual merits because personal variances grossly outweigh any gender bias" can be interpreted as sexist. He was literally preaching for equality. His point was that affirmative action programs do companies a disservice by making minority/women employees seem like they didn't get there through their own merit,…

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…

I would like to see source for your statements. I don't know much about Damore. I did glance through the manifesto and found it alright back then but I still don't understand why anyone needed to bring politics into question or write a manifesto.

You vote with your job. If you don't like things, quit. Either the people working at the company are discriminatory and don't care or you are the problematic one. If you think you are right that a big company discriminates openly, then wouldn't you have to admit that most people at your company don't care about discrimination as much as their paycheck or they are discriminatory themselves. If a company can easily replace employees, then the society doesn't value equality. We should fix that foremost.

If we had UBI, wouldn't discrimination of any kind be detrimental given that workers wouldn't be forced to work for low wages and companies which discriminate based on pseudoscience be at a disadvantage because they won't get talent that other companies can. Is there any reason why this wouldn't work? Why are people not pursuing UBI for gender equality?

As for an opposing view point, check this - https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more... which says fewer women take stem in developed countries than under developed countries. There will always be more differences. We shouldn't do a shut down case for either. It's not yet clear what percentage are affected by it. If it is, mention the source.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#148

Post by axelfontaine »

forgot_again wrote: post #102
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…

But women in general are more neurotic. This is well established. And given that small average differences between Gaussians equal large differences at the tails, the relatively small difference in average male/female neuroticism translates to large differences in gender representation at the tails.

I don't have any beef in this discussion, and am not educated in this field, but out of curiosity I had a quick look at what Wikipedia says, and it seems to at least somewhat agree with this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#149

Post by Udik »

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…

> In it, he calls women neurotic.

No, he says that on average they score higher on "neuroticism", one of the Big Five personality traits. [1] And it is an empirical fact. [2]

If you say "he said women are neurotics" it means you didn't understand neither the language nor the logic of what you were reading, something that should give you pause.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism

[2] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1751-9004....

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#150

Post by _8j50 »

amelius wrote: post #135
look_lookatme wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what he said. He said on average women do not prefer the field, and optimizing to change that observable fact is a fool's errand. I don't have an opinion on whether he's right or wrong but I don't think he shouldn't be able to make that argument...

> He said on average women do not prefer the field, and optimizing to change that observable fact is a fool's errand. Yes, it still leaves open whether the following is true: > when women do prefer the field, they tend to be amazing engineers Hence I'd say there is nothing wrong with the statement.

Not just women but anyone. For any social group,the share of that group may never be at or close to their make up of the population. People come from an insanely diverse set of upbringing and social expectations.

If they think 50% of engineers should be women, I would like to hold them to an even higher standard by requiring that out if that 50% of women,each national origin,ethnicity,political/ideological upbringing and social status (mother,single,divorced,etc...) is also proportionally represented. If this is about making up for historical prejudice then let every women of a wronged group be equally represented. You will soon see the silliness of the pursuit.

It is the cause that needs policing and adjustment (upstream) not the effect.

Post reply on HN