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

221–230 of 1001 posts

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#221

Post by dijit »

searchableguy wrote: post #203
dijit wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Diversity is a desirable trait, especially in things that produce products that are designed to be used by the entire planet. My mother explained diversity to me this way: "We are each of us, unique but equal. Meaning that while you will grow up and be stronger than me, I will be able to produce children. This doesn't make either of us better, both should be respected as equal. There is value but difference in both."…

> This doesn't make either of us better, both should be respected as equal. I think we are agreeing. That's why I highlighted more attractive to [singleton] when you could be more inclusive by avoiding singletons. Why shouldn't a field be attractive to everyone - blind, deaf, disabled etc equally? Imo, focusing on singletons is detrimental because by doing so, you will end up discriminating automatically because ther…

I think we’re weaker for not including someone because of those traits either.

Why focus on women now?

Because there’s a lot of women in the world and they seem to not like this field.

I don’t really have a good answer, I thought Damores memo was pretty good and I thought it might provoke the powers that be to approach the distribution of underrepresented factions a little better.

For instance, if you want to hire blind people (and you should want to hire a few blind people) then offering accessibly tools to them is a no-brainer.

And if you’re not getting any applicants, maybe you should look at why. Maybe your job board can’t be read by blind people. (To keep the analogy going).

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#222

Post by rendall »

spydum wrote: post #212
rendall wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jeff, I work for Google HR. Let's have a chat on Monday morning, please. Edit: It is a joke. I am joking. I don't work for Google HR, and poor Jeff is not up for an HR "chat". Even if the poor fellow were actually in trouble with a spectacularly uptight HR person, I doubt they would contact him through HN.

they haven't replaced you guys with ML yet?

I am also a bot.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#225

Post by mc32 »

spydum wrote: post #212
rendall wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jeff, I work for Google HR. Let's have a chat on Monday morning, please. Edit: It is a joke. I am joking. I don't work for Google HR, and poor Jeff is not up for an HR "chat". Even if the poor fellow were actually in trouble with a spectacularly uptight HR person, I doubt they would contact him through HN.

they haven't replaced you guys with ML yet?

And why do HR use lidotes like “chat” when most likely they have serious business to discuss. It really irks me.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#226

Post by somewhereoutth »

I am shocked that there is even a discussion to be had on this.

In architecture (a somewhat older profession, but also concerning things constructed by people), women previously did have a hard time, and often had to practice under their husbands/partners name.

Mercifully this ended some while ago, and now architecture schools and onwards are more evenly gender balanced. Nobody suggests that women are somehow naturally 'less inclined', and the profession is richer for it.

It would be great if engineering could get to this point.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#227

Post by fastball »

jhedwards wrote: post #172
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?

> Countries with the most free choices see the most division between sexes in different professions I've seen this idea around and I think it's quite problematic. Some countries may have relatively "free choices", but that is just one cultural dimension. A culture is an inconceivably complex phenomenon. A culture also has education strategies, gender roles, specific kinds of toys and games, specific languages and sub…

Have cultural factors not been ruled out?

Affirmative action policies literally make it easier for one group to get a spot in [insert institution here] than another group. And yet we still see discrepancies. We publicly shame and fire anyone who says "maybe biological differences play a role". And yet we still see discrepancies.

If we haven't ruled out cultural factors in the West at this point, I'm not sure how we can.

By effectively every metric, it is easier for a woman to become an engineer in 2020 than a man. There are many, many programs and initiatives which encourage women to get into STEM from an early age – the same do not really exist for men. Women get into (and graduate from) university at a higher rate. There is more funding available specifically to women that are pursuing STEM And yet still you have more men choosing to be engineers than women.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#228

Post by darkerside »

mabbo wrote: post #171
JSavageOne wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but that is very much what he was saying No it's not. Nowhere in the paper did he say that women can't become good engineers. You're literally defaming his work. Either support your accusation with evidence, or don't comment.

> those arent the words he used, but that is very much what he was saying > Nowhere in the paper did he say that You both are saying the same thing- he did not use those exact words. The parent comment is saying that despite not saying "Women can't be engineers", the entire purpose of the paper, in the view of that reader, was to insinuate that women can't be engineers. It's not terribly hard to promote an idea witho…

You're right that they both talked about exact words, but you're indexing too highly on it. Just because they used the same words in places doesn't mean they're saying the same thing. Reading again, I don't know why you start with that statement. It really muddies the rest of your comment.

Please take this idea with an open mind. When you arrive a singular purpose to the paper, it may say more about your views than it does about the author's. He didn't have a thesis that stated directly that he meant to "insinuate that women can't be engineers", so you're literally putting words in his mouth.

And the "don't comment" line explicitly said it was in response to statements that are unfounded, NOT statements that disagree.

Putting that all together, you seem to be having an argument with a ghost of your own making.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#229

Post by jacobmoe »

gameswithgo wrote: post #174

Google has fired a few people, liberal and conservative, for being politically insufferable. Multiple people in the news about this on various places in political spectrum. It doesn’t mean they were wrong.

There's been endless discussion about Damore. In particular podcasts you'd think that the firing of a random engineer at Google ranked alongside 9/11 as a defining event in modern history. If I circulated a memo to my co-workers that not only opposed a new policy from management, but did obvious harm to the expressed intent of that policy, I might be fired. It doesn't matter if the memo I circulated would have gotten a passing grade in a college class. The fact that people use that as an argument tells me that they've never worked a normal job before.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#230

Post by darkerside »

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…

Is it sexist to say men are on average stronger than women?
Post reply on HN