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

731–740 of 1001 posts

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#731

Post by apta »

zozbot234 wrote: post #133
apta wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when the profession becomes high profile, the women are driven out Because of fierce competition, where males (primarily driven by testosterone) have a higher drive to compete. It's biological. This doesn't mean that there aren't going to be women who will compete with said men, just fewer of them.

Law and medicine are very competitive fields, with a higher representation of women. And tech/CS has not always been as competitive as it perhaps is today. Hence Damore's argument is somewhat subtler than this, and focuses on diverging interests that lead to having fewer women in the pipeline to begin with. Some people point to the boom in videogames and home computers throughout the 1970s and 1980s as a reason why t…

You raise a good point. We'll have to anecdotally study why that's the case. For instance, many women in the law and medicine fields end up marrying men in the same fields. So those women can then later on decide to either reduce their work hours or to outright stop when they have children.

It's more difficult to negotiate your hours in tech. How many people do you know who say want to only work 2-3 days a week for 5 hours a each day? The medical/dental field (especially if you have a clinic and don't do procedures or complex operations) tends to be "independent". Meaning, each case you get is a consultation, and your "productivity" is in how many patients you see in a given timeframe. This is much harder with programming.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#732

Post by dijit »

ergothus wrote: post #645
dijit wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Focusing on the idea that women are biologically "less interested" This is the absolute crux of the entire paper, and it's very easy to view it with whatever politicising lens you want. So lets try to flippantly and dispassionately break down how he constructed the statement 1) Women in absolute aggregate seem to not like CompSci. 2) We want more women in CompSci. 3) We should make CompSci more attractive to women.…

> 1) Women in absolute aggregate seem to not like CompSci. Based on what? They don't end up there, but we have evidence (based on decreasing enrollment in degrees) that they USED to be "more interested" (If you use that as criteria). Do you think they generationally are just more aware of what it really is now? How would that happen without ALSO becoming more aware of the absolute vile GamerGate-type shit women have…

I believe you already have a stance here and you're rather embroiled in the beliefs you already have. So I'm not going to comment to you- but to anyone who reads your comment.

Sorry for that.

> Based on what? They don't end up there, [...]

Well, yes, you can argue the factors here but there is a trend that something is off-putting. Either Gamer-gate (something which is absolutely mired in controversy of its own right) or 'rape jokes' but more likely the tropes of: long working hours with a dead end at the end of it, competitiveness, isolation and the notion that if you're in technology your job is your life.

Frankly to assume you and I know the true reason is rather arrogant, I'm not a sociologist I can only read the corpus of their work and believe that they came to the correct conclusions.

Your comment indicates that there is an aggressive amount of sexism in tech, rape jokes and groping not withstanding, and I'm not going to ask for evidence of that despite my conviction that this is not nearly as endemic as you indicate; instead I'd ask the question: If marketing is also inherently sexist (and definitely more "boys club groping the ladies" than tech) why is there a much stronger representation of Women there?

I think you have internalised a mistruth about the tech industry at large.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#733

Post by jariel »

balls187 wrote: post #699
jariel wrote: post #678

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You mean consequences for your behavior?" Outrage mobs are by definition 'consequences for some behavior'. But the implication that someone should be vilified globally for having an earnest and not entirely unreasonable intellectual opinion makes his responders an 'outrage mob'. Damore had no malice, ill will, his opinion was made ostensibly for some positive will, among a relatively private group. If he was beating…

> not entirely unreasonable intellectual opinion Despite reasoning his point of view well, it does not mean it's right, healthy, or valid. And while Sexism and Racism are not equal, there do parallel in many ways. How different is his memo than writings that discuss how the Negroid is a lesser form of human species, and there for it's condition is justified? Scientifically, there is very little, if anything, that dif…

You are crossing streams.

This is not about whether Damore was 'right or wrong' - it's about whether he was within his right to make a reasonable statement and not get publicly murdered for it.

Also - your comment has also demonstrated the intellectual dishonestly against him by misrepresenting the thrust of his argument.

There are considerable differences between genders, this is not a scientifically controversial position, and in an entire 24 years of general upbringing, imbued with gendered differences and possibly marginal - but material - biological differences, is going to yield very different outcomes.

There are many fields in society that have unequal gender ratios and it's not remotely specific to 'tech'.

It's obviously a thorny subject, which requires some dispassionate thinking. We don't need people screaming 'Nazi' at the first hint that they might think someone, somewhere committed a 'thought crime' against their personal and very narrow view of the world.

This is the kind of bigotry that is not 'right, healthy or valid'.

The mob is much, much scarier than Damore.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#734

Post by jariel »

wpietri wrote: post #688
abstractbarista wrote: post #676

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel bad for anyone who disagrees with this. Their bias prevents them from seeing the world as it truly exists.

I feel bad for anyone who believes that their political opinions just happen to represent "the world as it truly exists".

Google is entirely full of vindictive people with blatantly political opinions - many who have acted with obvious malice towards others, so spare us the hypocrisy.

If this were truly a matter of 'opinion rocking the boat' - then there would be a bunch of other firings, policy changes etc. - but that is not the case at all.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#735

Post by pydry »

scooble wrote: post #352
pydry wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* Intellectual posturing and oneupsmanship in software teams. Participating in intellectual dick waving. * A strong focus on being "right" over working collaboratively (especially in domains with no right answers). * Hyper competitiveness - to the detriment of effectiveness. * A lack of empathy (e.g. PRs with "your code sucks, suck it up and stop being such a baby"). These things are hardly good from the perspective…

Your post seems to make a set of assumptions about women's abilities and preferences (for example their ability to thrive in a hyper-competitive environment). It's not clear why these should be any more acceptable than the claims Damore made.

There are some quite well documented differences in women's personality traits - particularly surrounding sociability, agreeableness and neuroticism. It's not particularly contentious to state that men and women have differing personalities. What may be contentious is the conclusions you derive from that.

Incidentally:

1) An environment filled with intellectual posturing is not "hyper competitive". The fact that you could confuse the two is concerning.

2) My post may have seemed to you to make a set of assumptions about women's abilities but it didn't (just their preferences).

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#736

Post by [deleted] »

uxcolumbo wrote: post #248
manigandham wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He interviewed with Dave Rubin and Joe Rogan. Also who on the left would interview him? That's the issue with claiming that he only talked to one side.

What makes you think Joe Rogan is alt right? Watching his interviews with various people who are more left leaning doesn't give me the impression that he is alt-right.

[deleted]

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#737

Post by JeremySecond »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #646
Strang wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"X has been silent on Y," is generally not a fair criticism. Not speaking about a topic is the norm, since time is finite and there are uncountable numbers of issues to discuss, even within a specific topic.

Except they know about the issue, were pointed to it multiple times, even by me and are always quick to proclaim that 'Israel has the right to defend itself'. Dave Rubin for example has had several offers from some prominent left-wing commentators to debate the issue, among others, yet he's always busy or some other excuse. Sam Harris definitely knows about it as well, (has even spoken about BDS itself, just not thei…

[dead]

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#738

Post by saagarjha »

googlryas wrote: post #721
saagarjha wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fraternities exist, and they have a culture associated with them. Visit any college campus (well, not right now) and you’ll find out exactly what it is.

By "culture associated with them" you mean you have a stereotype of their culture you associate with them.

No, I was recently a college student who lived near frat houses. (Yes, I know there are academic fraternities: that’s not what this discussion was about.)

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#739

Post by manigandham »

uxcolumbo wrote: post #248
manigandham wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He interviewed with Dave Rubin and Joe Rogan. Also who on the left would interview him? That's the issue with claiming that he only talked to one side.

What makes you think Joe Rogan is alt right? Watching his interviews with various people who are more left leaning doesn't give me the impression that he is alt-right.

Joe Rogan is not alt right, far from it. That was my point, that the interviews were not from one side.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#740

Post by CydeWeys »

dane-pgp wrote: post #638
CydeWeys wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure how that's relevant here. He published under his real name, at work.

Maybe the lesson here, then, is "If a company really wants honest discussion of controversial ideas, they should provide a means for people to carry out those discussions with anonymity." A similar thing happened at a company I worked for, where the new COO wanted to make a name for himself by creating an "ask the CEO" email address which any employee could write a question to. Answers would then be shared (anonymous…

From your story it sounds like you already know this, but most companies really do not want broad discussions of controversial ideas, especially not ones entirely outside the remit of the employees participating in them.
Post reply on HN