James Damore and three others end Google suit • Hacker News Board

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#401

Post by pdubs1 » Sat, May 09, 2020, 2:48 PM UTC

foldr wrote: post #332

zozbot234 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just architecture, also medicine and law. The whole question is what's different about math, CS, engineering and the physical sciences that makes it so much harder to reach gender balance there? If you look at the commonalities that these fields share, the "things, not people" aspect is the most prominent by far.

How is architecture any less about 'things' than software engineering? The 'things vs people' dichotomy is extremely vague and obviously bullshit. Is Facebook not about people? Airbnb? Uber? It may be that these companies, perhaps inadvertently, choose to hire people who don't focus on the people-related aspects of their roles. But it's obvious that empathy and an interest in people would in fact be very useful at ma…

>"The 'things vs people' dichotomy is extremely vague and obviously bullshit."

Is it? Or have you simply not taken a moment to do a little bit of research?

Here is a study with 500,000 participants, for example:

"Results showed that men prefer working with things and women prefer working with people, producing a large effect size (d = 0.93) on the Things-People dimension.

"Men showed stronger Realistic (d = 0.84) and Investigative (d = 0.26) interests, and women showed stronger Artistic (d = -0.35), Social (d = -0.68), and Conventional (d = -0.33) interests.

"Sex differences favoring men were also found for more specific measures of engineering (d = 1.11), science (d = 0.36), and mathematics (d = 0.34) interests. "

[1] Men and Things, Women and People: A Meta-Analysis of Sex Differences in Interests. Psychological Bulletin 135(6):859-84 · November 2009

Here's another:

"Career choices have been shown to be driven in part by interests, and gender differences in those interests have generally been considered to result from socialization. We explored the contribution of sex hormones to career-related interests, in particular studying whether prenatal androgens affect interests through psychological orientation to Things versus People.

"We examined this question in individuals with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), who have atypical exposure to androgens early in development, and their unaffected siblings (total N = 125 aged 9 to 26 years). Females with CAH had more interest in Things versus People than did unaffected females, and variations among females with CAH reflected variations in their degree of androgen exposure.

"Results provide strong support for hormonal influences on interest in occupations characterized by working with Things versus People."

[2] Gendered Occupational Interests: Prenatal Androgen Effects on Psychological Orientation to Things Versus People. Horm Behav. 2011 Sep; 60(4): 313–317. Published online 2011 Jun 12. doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2011.06.002

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#402

Post by JSavageOne » Sat, May 09, 2020, 2:49 PM UTC

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…

U.S. corporate culture truly has become toxic when one can't even debate anything or exercise freedom of speech.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#403

Post by randallsquared » Sat, May 09, 2020, 2:51 PM UTC

curmudgeont653 wrote: post #320

sacks2k wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wouldn't be that hard to find. "firing the leaker is going to rile them up more." It seems our society has devolved into satisfying the mob rather than doing the right thing these days. I've seen some of the comments from internal Google groups that were since leaked after this incident. Some of the most horrible thoughts and opinions were posted, with actual real names, but nobody got punished or fired. Why? Beca…

Society hasn't devolved; this is how it's always been. Actors with power exercise that power by enforcing their will over those with less. Googlers being mostly neo-left is irrelevant. Were they neo-con, Google would've done the same and appeased them by firing a single employee as a scapegoat. In reality, Google doesn't care about politics because it, like sovereign states, is only mindful of its own self-interest,…

> Google doesn't care about politics because it, like sovereign states, is only mindful of its own self-interest

This is often a useful abstraction for predicting corporate activity in general, but not explaining specific actions by specific people in the company.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#404

Post by roenxi » Sat, May 09, 2020, 2:51 PM UTC

StephenAmar wrote: post #319

pjc50 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

.. so you'd destroy their life instead?

Always assume that what you say could be on the front page of the New York Times.

Engineering is where most of the people go who care more about being right than about what people think of them. There is a reason for that - it usually matters if an approach is right or not in engineering work. Companies like Google need to be able to roll their eyes when engineers start stupid arguments, not sack them. The front-page rule is a technical impediment to people being able to figure out facts. The path to the truth often leads through patches of believing things that are wrong.

Charging into a room trying to start an argument isn't the best way to work out what is true; but there are young engineers who are going to try it because they are under a lot of pressure to be technically correct and not under a lot of pressure to be socially savvy. They're in the process of learning that it isn't politically feasible.

Even a full blown "Engineer holds crackpot opinion!" should never be front page news unless it is a risk of a building fallen down. Let alone "Young Engineer tries to start a Stupid Argument".

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#405

Post by alexpetralia » Sat, May 09, 2020, 2:53 PM UTC

XorNot wrote: post #277

alexpetralia wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is there any evidence (say, the numerous studies on this very topic) that would convince you that the pipeline of many careers has systemic discriminatory effects driving particular genders and races out of those fields?

In fact, quite a bit! I am already convinced. If tribal associations would clarify, then I am more than likely "on your side."

Can you direct me to where I suggested there is no systematic career discrimination towards minorities? If that's how you interpreted my comment, then I apologize for that. There is absolutely substantial structural discrimination; I don't intend to minimize that.

The comment I was replying to did in fact specify as an assumption (the antecedent of the conditional) that "society tells a woman she's not likely as interested in something." This framing excludes the possibility that something else (namely biology) may affect a person's preferences.

I don't think that's a reasonable assumption - again, little scientific evidence supports that view. (Even intuition does not support that view: I don't think most people would argue that men for the most part are "brainwashed" by society to have sexual preferences for women. Likely some of this is biological; in fact, there is a good evolutionary reason for it!)

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#406

Post by pas » Sat, May 09, 2020, 2:54 PM UTC

jpdb wrote: post #393

free_rms wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but if you're talking about Googlers, that's bullshit, they're fine. 200k/yr, 300k/yr+ worth of fine. It's great to have empathy for people in a less fortunate position, and yes we have a lot of problems in our society, but FAANG software engineers are arguably the least oppressed people on the planet.

Is this a class reductionist argument? Are you saying, for example, a black women at Google doesn't deal with adversity and is no longer effected by politics because they make a large amount of money?

Everyone is affected by "everything". Especially politics. People discussing it means they need to acknowledge how policies affect them and how it affects others, and is it good or bad "in general".

Or is that a too naive view of what Googlers are supposed to be capable of?

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#407

Post by wpietri » Sat, May 09, 2020, 2:54 PM UTC

sacks2k wrote: post #292

mabbo wrote: post #184

Damore committed the ultimate sin in the corporate world- he caused a huge PR mess. Let's set aside the content of his memo (I personally don't agree with what he said) and just appreciate that he made a mess. As has been said before, if your CEO learns your name for the same reason he has to end his vacation early, you probably should start polishing up your resume.

He never released anything to the public. Someone who didn't like his political views leaked it to Twitter and the press. If I were him, I would have personally sued the person that leaked the content and continued the fight until they had no money left. They really need to be taught a lesson that it's not okay to do something like this with the intention of destroying a person's life.

Sued them for what, exactly? Quoting a document Damore circulated to thousands of people? Being honest isn't generally a crime.

I'll note that you've just imagined the "intention of destroying a person's life" bit. There were plenty of reasons for releasing that that have nothing to do with Damore. Indeed, why would they have anticipated that it would lead to Damore's firing? If that was obvious, then that would have been obvious to Damore when he wrote it.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#408

Post by JSavageOne » Sat, May 09, 2020, 2:54 PM UTC

It's annoying that Bloomberg refers to the memo as being "political" and expressing "political conservatism". The memo was attempting to explain the underrepresentation of women in tech via biological differences. That has literally nothing to do with politics, and framing it as such misrepresents and discredits the contents of the memo.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#409

Post by tomnipotent » Sat, May 09, 2020, 2:54 PM UTC

DonHopkins wrote: post #360

searchableguy wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly want to meet techbros. I live in some sort of echo chamber where gender is so irrelevant to most participants. I have never seen anyone ask someone's gender on a github issue, I may have missed it but I have seen few issues opened because no inclusivity. No one in any of the programming communities I am in gives two shit about the gender of the participants. Most people have pseudonyms with anime avatars a…

Count your blessings, and read the articles I posted about Evan Spiegel, then you'll feel like you met one of them, then you'll want to take a shower, and then you'll appreciate all your decent open minded friends you're lucky to have. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23124729 And it's not just Tech Bros, it's Frat Bros in general. See: Jared Kushner. https://www.businessinsider.nl/coronavirus-kushner-impact-te..…

Journalist using the words "frat" in an article doesn't make something true. The only place I see this term slung is in the media and HN, or people making up abstract bad guys to vent their anger on.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#410

Post by ashtonkem » Sat, May 09, 2020, 2:56 PM UTC

JSavageOne wrote: post #408

It's annoying that Bloomberg refers to the memo as being "political" and expressing "political conservatism". The memo was attempting to explain the underrepresentation of women in tech via biological differences. That has literally nothing to do with politics, and framing it as such misrepresents and discredits the contents of the memo.

I think that’s extremely short sighted. Gender politics is politics; anything that comes close to the subject is either already political or will become political extremely quickly.