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

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#591

Post by piflon » Sat, May 09, 2020, 4:23 PM UTC

ashtonkem wrote: post #478

JSavageOne wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Gender politics is politics I don't understand how that statement discredits anything I said. Politics is peoples' opinions and is subjective/normative (eg. things "ought" to be this way). Science attempts to explain how nature works (eg. this is why things are this way), and is objective. That memo was not political.

Politics is about how resources should be spent, not how things “ought” to be. Posting a disagreement about policy is inherently political, especially about something as charged as gender, no matter how much science you may cite.

Decisions about resources make no sense except in the context of trying to achieve some effect. Political issues are almost always implicitly about how things "ought" to be; the resource decisions are in service of those goals.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#592

Post by licebmi__at__ » Sat, May 09, 2020, 4:23 PM UTC

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #470

glenda wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, if they are publishing documents about how straight people are less effective at their job then they’re causing unnecessary issues in the workplace.

Bad analogy, because Damore didn’t do that. I don’t know why this falsehood lives on, the paper is public, and it clearly says not that.

You're technically correct, still is not unreasonable to argue that accusing google of quote "Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate" might have a net effect of caste a shadow over certain groups being competent enough or being "diversity hires".

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#593

Post by leetcrew » Sat, May 09, 2020, 4:23 PM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #479

leetcrew wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm inclined to agree; it's never a good idea to discuss stuff like this on work comms. this leads to a bigger question though. why does google encourage this kind of discussion on an internal mailing list in the first place? seems like it can only lead to embarrassing PR moments.

Google allows (allowed?) relatively free socialization on internal mailing lists, and there are serious labor law issues with saying "you can talk about anything you'd like as long as it's not company policies or politically controversial".

most companies don't have to say anything like that. the absence of active encouragement is usually enough. the "default" is not to discuss sensitive topics over company email.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#594

Post by glenda » Sat, May 09, 2020, 4:24 PM UTC

ALittleLight wrote: post #579

glenda wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For example, claiming that “women have higher rates of neuroticism” is debatable. IMO, that kind of discussion is frankly uninteresting and unhelpful.

No, it really isn't debatable. That's the widespread consensus view. Personality traits are judged based on responses to surveys. When you ask large groups of people the same surveys and evaluate them the same way you consistently find women score higher on neuroticism than men. This is a widely repeated finding that is consistent across generations. A paper on neuroticism in older women compared to older men - https…

Thanks for the links, however I think the misrepresentation of information here is women have higher rates of neuroticism, but is that true within sample present at Google? Not every possible women is more neurotic than every possible man.

Additionally, dealing with discrimination can lead to self-esteem issues, which are tied to neuroticism.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#595

Post by renaudg » Sat, May 09, 2020, 4:24 PM UTC

glenda wrote: post #460

xtreme wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If he is making the workplace less comfortable for particular groups of people then I certainly would have no issue firing him. Would you be okay with firing an LGBT person because they "made the workplace less comfortable" for some conservative employees?

Sure, if they are publishing documents about how straight people are less effective at their job then they’re causing unnecessary issues in the workplace.

This is a strawman argument, but I will assume you made it in good faith given how widely Damore's claims have been misrepresented.

From what I recall in the memo, I'm pretty sure he never said that women were less effective at their tech jobs (fortunately, because there isn't any evidence remotely suggesting that !)

What he did is that, when Google asked for feedback on their mandatory diversity training, he challenged the prevailing view being taught in these classes about why less women get into tech than men (basically: not because of inherent lack of interest but because of societal pressure)

He pointed out that the latest science on "interesting in things vs people" disagrees, and he supported his argument with citations.

In a company that prides itself on making data-based decisions, starting a discussion in this way with a reasonable argument (even if later refuted) ideally shouldn't be a firing offense.

Now, was it politically, humanly, emotionally smart for him to say things in this way without consideration for their impact on coworkers ?

Of course not. But still, I can't help feeling somewhat sympathetic to someone with child-like naiveté who spoke the uncomfortable scientific truth (or at least, a very reasonable theory) that adults don't want to hear.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#596

Post by rising-sky » Sat, May 09, 2020, 4:26 PM UTC

ravenstine wrote: post #390

Damore was not offered a chance to receive forgiveness by either the company or the outrage mob, therefore I don't respect what people generally have to say about whether what he did was right or wrong. It's astounding that people are still debating this in this very HN thread. A society of any size that makes virtue claims while simultaneously adding an undue price to being wrong or insensitive deserves to be mocked…

Your initial proposition is one I find hard reconcile > Damore was not offered a chance to receive forgiveness by either the company or the outrage mob, therefore I don't respect what people generally have to say about whether what he did was right or wrong

I'm not sure the onus is on the other party to "offer" a chance to receive forgiveness when they have been offended or wronged? That's generally not how society or even the legal system functions. The accused has to "show" remorse and "ask" for forgiveness, otherwise what's the point of offering something you either don't want or don't deserve?

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#597

Post by lawnchair_larry » Sat, May 09, 2020, 4:26 PM UTC

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #578

If you're looking for a little irony, here is Dr. Louanne Brizendine, Neuroscience PhD (Stanford, Yale, Berkeley) discussing how the female and male brains are different AT GOOGLE and with very warm, positive reception: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu_uGr1ZOn4&t=2s

She has written books on both, and they’re quite interesting.

I suppose she has to be cast to the “Intellectual Dark Web” for daring to suggest the obvious fact that our brains work differently.

The ultimate irony is that someone can deny such differences while simultaneously arguing for the importance of diversity. What a walking contradiction.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#598

Post by ALittleLight » Sat, May 09, 2020, 4:27 PM UTC

UncleMeat wrote: post #542

ALittleLight wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what way is the Damore memo not scientific? It cites academic research, presents evidence, I think the claims it makes are actually the mainstream ones. I realize asking you to debunk the whole memo may be a bit much, so can you just point to the single most consequential unscientific part of it? I read the memo and was horrified by how badly people treated him because of it. To me it seems like a rational and wel…

Citing research is fine. If his memo had been a list of papers with no commentary it would have just been weird and blown over. The problem is when you synthesize ideas from research without expertise. The problem wasn’t his citations. It was the conclusions he drew from the citations and the policy proposals that he made in his document. “It has citations” is not a valid reason to consider something well argued and…

Damore was explicitly asked for his feedback on a subject. He provided it supported by academic research and was fired for it. If Damore had provided an unconnected list of papers that would have been ignored, yes, because nobody would have known what he meant. Instead, he put together a document that connected different research findings with his own suggestions.

A recurring pattern in this debate is that people criticize Damore for a lack of expertise. Which is odd given that Damore, a Harvard Masters Degree holder in Systems Biology, is clearly conversant with the research and the context he is giving advice in. Furthermore, I have yet to see anyone point out a substantive specific error that Damore made, its just general things like "he lacks expertise."

Tell me, what is the most obvious or least controversial example of Damore's lack of expertise in terms of his argument?

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#599

Post by toast0 » Sat, May 09, 2020, 4:28 PM UTC

jacobmoe wrote: post #229

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…

> 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.

Google had fostered a culture were it was expected to respond with to new policies from management that you didn't agree with.

Google wasn't a normal job where whatever management says gos. Although, it's certainly seems to be moving in that direction from the outsiders perspective.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#600

Post by 11thEarlOfMar » Sat, May 09, 2020, 4:28 PM UTC

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #597

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #578

If you're looking for a little irony, here is Dr. Louanne Brizendine, Neuroscience PhD (Stanford, Yale, Berkeley) discussing how the female and male brains are different AT GOOGLE and with very warm, positive reception: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu_uGr1ZOn4&t=2s

She has written books on both, and they’re quite interesting. I suppose she has to be cast to the “Intellectual Dark Web” for daring to suggest the obvious fact that our brains work differently. The ultimate irony is that someone can deny such differences while simultaneously arguing for the importance of diversity. What a walking contradiction.

"We celebrate our diversity, but we cannot talk about what makes us different."