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

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#831

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o » Sun, May 10, 2020, 12:26 AM UTC

judofyr wrote: post #193

alexpetralia wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> He is using "neurotic" in the psychological and clinical sense. I believe he specifies as much in his actual paper. Eh. He's using the psychological/clinical definition, but then draws conclusions on no scientific basis. This is what he said in the memo: > [Women, on average, have more] neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance): This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlege…

Regardless of the correctness of his overall argument, he wasn't saying "women are neurotic" in the colloquial sense, which was a common condemnation against him.

Also, and fact check me on this, does accounting for 10% of variance (aka 0.1 * sig^2) mean accounting for sqrt(0.1) * sig, aka 32% of the standard deviation?

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#832

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o » Sun, May 10, 2020, 12:34 AM UTC

exogeny wrote: post #60

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…

This view to me is just as tone deaf at Damore's piece itself. Whether or not you agree or disagree, it clearly had an impact of making a very large and significant segment of female employees at Google feel as if they were biologically inferior or otherwise not suited to do their jobs. You can sit here and say "Oh, that's nuts, that's not what he said" - but you're also not hearing the same internalized misogyny and…

How people misread it really shouldn't be the point, if we could establish that it's a misreading (a big if). Like if someone at google wrote about the harms of toxic masculinity, talking about the cultural pressures society puts on men, should it matter that a bunch of men will think it's calling men toxic and be pissed off?

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#833

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o » Sun, May 10, 2020, 12:36 AM UTC

fzeroracer wrote: post #136

manigandham wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was actually said is that men and women tend to have different interests on average, and therefore choose different professions when given equal freedom and opportunity. More men choose to be mechanical engineering and more women choose biological sciences. It's strange for that to be so controversial. Not having an interest in a field does not mean you're not capable. Perhaps that's the nuance that's missing.

This argument doesn't work because there were a significant number of woman devs back in the 70s and 80s. That claim is completely at odds with the history of programming. And before people make the claim that programming was glorified hole punching as it seems to come up by that point in history we already saw the rise of modern abstractions and higher level development. It's controversial because it's trying to abs…

What people chose to get degrees in a generation or two ago doesn't really help with hiring today. Especially when you mostly hire people in their twenties (not defending that).

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#834

Post by reroute1 » Sun, May 10, 2020, 12:37 AM UTC

magic5227 wrote: post #782

reroute1 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Less interested/"qualified" compared on average to males by virtue of their interests and biology not their intelligence. Ignoring this is like sticking your fingers in your ears to the argument How is the statement in a general population inaccurate? I agree it can make people uncomfortable but it looks pretty accurate to me

"How is the statement in a general population inaccurate?" um, because there is no credible science behind his assumptions. Many of the researchers he cites dispute his conclusions. I'm not ignoring his argument, I'm saying it's a really bad argument with almost no evidence to support it.

Actually it's pretty basic biology and psychology.

What "conclusions" are disagreed?

Can you really not see how this would apply in real life with personality differences? It seems obvious and intuitive not even mentioning the science, women are more social on average, men more into things that make a whirring noise. What data am I missing?

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#835

Post by jki275 » Sun, May 10, 2020, 12:38 AM UTC

seemslegit wrote: post #800

jki275 wrote: post #792

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Lol. You’re on the run from the US because you committed espionage, and you fly to Russia? That’s called defecting.

It's called defecting if you committed that espionage for Russia or cooperated with their intelligence while there, which while not entirely impossible is not very likely either.

No, that's not how it works.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#836

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o » Sun, May 10, 2020, 12:39 AM UTC

airnomad wrote: post #24

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…

You didn't have to bite your tongue - you could've told her she's wrong.

When the whole discussion is about a guy getting fired for saying a thing, it's not safe to defend him if you don't want to risk being fired. It's that simple.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#837

Post by dntbnmpls » Sun, May 10, 2020, 12:40 AM UTC

somewhereoutth wrote: post #226

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 natural…

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

We have to have this discussion is virtue signalers and far leftists keep spewing lies.

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

If it were, then it would mean that a significant number of women are forced into the field out of poverty or familial pressure.

"Some would say that the gender STEM gap occurs not because girls can’t do science, but because they have other alternatives, based on their strengths in verbal skills,” she said. “In wealthy nations, they believe that they have the freedom to pursue those alternatives and not worry so much that they pay less."

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more...

We have decades of research on this already. The wealthier a nation is and more equal a nation is, the greater the disparity in STEM.

"What’s more, the countries that minted the most female college graduates in fields like science, engineering, or math were also some of the least gender-equal countries. They posit that this is because the countries that empower women also empower them, indirectly, to pick whatever career they’d enjoy most and be best at."

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#838

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o » Sun, May 10, 2020, 12:43 AM UTC

thosakwe wrote: post #464

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…

1. I don't recall him ever "asking for forgiveness," or doing anything besides doubling down on his memo. 2. The "outrage mob" isn't real. You know who got James Damore fired? Himself. It's especially telling that you, and people who defend him, attribute zero fault whatsoever to the person who actually wrote the memo.

> The "outrage mob" isn't real.

If you mean this in general (not just the Damore thing), with the likes of twitter, it's pretty well documented that the outrage mob is real.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#839

Post by dntbnmpls » Sun, May 10, 2020, 12:48 AM UTC

hpcjoe wrote: post #290

throw0101a wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody suggests that women are somehow naturally 'less inclined', and the profession is richer for it. It was not about "inclination", but rather that the current engineering culture tended to be lean a certain way when it comes to focus: > Damore said that those differences include women generally having a stronger interest in people rather than things, and tending to be more social, artistic, and prone to neuroti…

There are economic factors associated with being a primary educator. The pay, for lack of a better way to put it, sucks. This impacts men and women. My wife and I went through Physics grad school together. To say that the experience was hostile for her, and many other women, would be an understatement. My daughter is contemplating grad school for next year (senior in college, its been an interesting year). We've been…

> We've been open/honest about the challenges she'll face in Physics

Why would you disadvantage her by poisoning her mind like that? Also, were you open/honest about the advantages she'd have for being a woman in physics? Extra programs, scholarships, internships, guidance, resources, etc set aside for her?

> My concern, as all fathers of exceptional daughters should be (I guess that's all of us?) is the cultural aspects of programs, and potential jobs.

If it was all of us, then it wouldn't be exceptional would it? It would be commonplace/universal, the opposite of exceptional.

> Its not about ability. Its about environment.

It's about personal choice. In wealthier liberal countries where women have choice, they don't go STEM careers. In poor traditional countries where women have little choice, they go to STEM careers. It's not about "passive agressive hostility" otherwise no women would work in nursing. It's about having the ability to do what you want.

"What’s more, the countries that minted the most female college graduates in fields like science, engineering, or math were also some of the least gender-equal countries. They posit that this is because the countries that empower women also empower them, indirectly, to pick whatever career they’d enjoy most and be best at."

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more...

"The trend was most pronounced in places like Norway, Finland, and Sweden. Although this region is known for policies and a cultural outlook that supports greater gender equality, relatively few girls pursue STEM degrees there, when compared to places like Algeria or Turkey."

https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/the-downside-to-greater-ge...

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#840

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o » Sun, May 10, 2020, 12:54 AM UTC

sz4kerto wrote: post #169

waheoo wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesnt cast doubt though.. You cant have so much more women than the rest of the industry without that being true. There literally is not enough women coming through engineering schools to allow for that without you a) discriminating against men based on sex, and b) lowering the bar for women. There is no doubt. It is a mathematical given.

I see what you mean I think but it's really not a mathematical given. If you have two groups where group 1 with size S scores X with variance V==0.4X on average in a given skill (score means competence), and group 2 with size S/2 scores 0.8X with variance V on average; then it's possible to recruit a set of people from group 2 and the same number of people from group 1 so that the average competence level of people h…

> All you need to do is to pick more carefully (invest more resources, etc.).

This needs fleshing out. One goal is to give equal preference to equally deserving candidates, say candidates with individual score x, regardless of their group membership. It's not clear that you can pick based solely on score x and still achieve that goal, no matter how carefully you pick. If you're picking on x and group membership, you're harming one group of people with score x (assuming a fixed headcount, where advantaging one person means disadvantaging another).