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

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#901

Post by pydry » Sun, May 10, 2020, 1:20 PM UTC

pinkfoot wrote: post #467

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 average insurance company's software team behaves like this? Whilst tweaking the payroll software? Because, if you really, really want gender parity, most programmers don't work at Uber or Snapchat. They work in mundane jobs at faceless companies. Even more so when you leave the USA. (Since this is about principle).

Fuck yeah it does. Actually I think it's the slightly below average places that are some of the worst. I've tended to find that technical quality correlates to better behavior, probably because insecurity is what drives so much of it.

In my experience, those below average places where people tweak payroll software (where I started out in my career) are the worst. I would expect the below average people in Uber and Google to be among the worst of the worst too, though (they are the most insecure, I think). A lack of psychological safety is what drives a lot of this.

As always there are exceptions, but as a rule, mediocrity breeds insecurity and insecurity breeds toxic behavior and no, none of this can be fixed in five minutes.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#902

Post by pdubs1 » Sun, May 10, 2020, 1:45 PM UTC

Traster wrote: post #749

pdubs1 wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"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…

You've missed what his comment was about, it's not that the things vs people dichotomy doesn't exist. It's that it has no relation to engineering. Architecture is just as much things over people as engineering, Architecture is balaanced, engineering isn't. The problem is that in reality, you can do engineering from a people first approach or from a things first approach, and in reality, only one of those approaches w…

Actually, I merely responded to a particular quote (which I quoted), simply to note that perhaps the thing which that person said is "vague and bullshit" may not entirely be so.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#903

Post by pdubs1 » Sun, May 10, 2020, 2:06 PM UTC

foldr wrote: post #426

pdubs1 wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"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…

Most software engineering jobs aren't predominantly about things rather than people, so I doubt any of that research is relevant, regardless of its quality. You can't just uncritically lump software engineering in with "science", "engineering" and "mathematics" (themselves enormously diverse fields). It's dangerous to do a "little bit" of research. What you'd actually need to do to get any information (if any really…

>"What you'd actually need to do to get any information ... is to become an expert ..."

I strongly disagree, citing the logical fallacy of appealing to authority:

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Taking your claim to heart would require a person to be so focused on becoming an expert (in an academic environment where new studies are constantly published) that they would be so focused on staying abreast of their expertise that they would be unable to comment at all-- for fear of missing some study somewhere. It would require a fanatical obsession with gaining all information and perspectives that one would be precluded from commenting at all: for fear of not being a 100% perfect expert.

Hence, I think one can cite studies without being a 100% perfect expert on all angles within a discipline.

I think your claim lacks introspection to be honest.

>"Most software engineering jobs aren't predominantly about things rather than people"

First I ask "Relative to what?" But let's backup: You state a claim of ratio, "most".

"A claim of ratio, "most" "--

If we're getting into ratios of people within occupations, then I would ask for a quantitative assessment, though I suspect no confident, non-subjective one exists, to prove your point.

"Relative to what?"--

I suspect people's experiences differ-- in my near future, I will be working on an engineering team. However, even there-- I suspect I will largely be sitting at a computer, typing into it for hours, rather than interfacing directly with a human for hours (as I previously did in Sales roles).

Ultimately I dispute your claim via my personal experience: Working on projects (mostly by myself at this point) where I am programming for 6 hours per day and have little human contact, yet still accomplish project goals and receive my paycheck.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#904

Post by eloff » Sun, May 10, 2020, 2:20 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #821

eloff wrote: post #785

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to have an insightful discussion, one should refrain from making strawman arguments. I think Demore's memo has little place in a company, but neither does the diversity program that spawned it. Better to keep politics out of the work place. But given the context, it was fully justified, regardless of its merits or lack thereof and I think the person who leaked it committed a real sin here, as did the comp…

You can't keep politics out of the workplace. Your notion that diversity programs shouldn't exist is enormously political, and company having them or refusing to have them is political either way. Especially here in America, where the rights and privileges of white men have been intensely political topics for literal centuries. You are practicing politics right here, right now.

A diversity program is inherently political, as you said. I don't think it has a place in a company. Again, I think leave your politics at home. You seem to think that's not possible, but that's how I would do things, were it up to me.

It's got nothing to do with men's or women's rights. I'm dismayed by that whole argument. Let the meritocracy rule and the chips fall where they may.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#905

Post by jhedwards » Sun, May 10, 2020, 2:27 PM UTC

fastball wrote: post #896

jhedwards wrote: post #841

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Have cultural factors not been ruled out? How could they be? That is an intractable problem. Cultural factors permeate our existence from birth. You'd literally have to catalogue every single thing influencing an individual's life from birth to the time they enter the workforce. I have two daughters and I've seen just how powerful subconscious messages from media influence the way they think. My oldest daughter is…

Your four-year-old daughter assuming that the norm is the only way to do something is her jumping to conclusions, not a mark against society. It is ok for children to jump to conclusions. Girls do generally marry boys, as >90% of sexuality is heterosexuality. Children are wrong all the time. This is only a problem if you don't correct her misconceptions. Your child growing up the way you think is right and proper is…

I just want to point out that I don't think we disagree on these points, but you're misinterpreting my argument.

> Your four-year-old daughter assuming that the norm is the only way to do something is her jumping to conclusions, not a mark against society

I didn't say it was a mark against society, you read that into my argument. If I thought this was wrong or bad, I wouldn't show her that kind of media. I am simply pointing out how _everything_ in a child's environment will influence their thinking, I made no moral judgement on the situation.

> Likewise, if she grows up thinking that girls shouldn't be programmers, that is on you.

I agree, but I think most adults aren't thinking "I'd better make sure my daughter knows she can be a programmer." If they aren't, then their children will be subject to myriad influences. That flows into my last point.

> This is exactly my (and, funnily enough, Damore's) point.

I read Damore's paper and that is not the part I take issue with. He claims the scientific evidence has established that women are _biologically_ less interested in engineering. I don't believe that has been established.

The parent comment referenced a study by Jordan Peterson that shows that in countries with more freedom of choice, women continue to choose people oriented occupations. My point is that freedom of choice _doesn't matter_ unless the entire society is focused on treating children equally. Again, I'm not making a moral judgement either way, just pointing out that the study doesn't take this into account. IIRC Jordan Peterson himself remarked that the results could be the effect of gender roles or culture.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#906

Post by banads » Sun, May 10, 2020, 2:34 PM UTC

jlebar wrote: post #858

banads wrote: post #696

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What percentage of people publicly criticizing the memo and attacking Damore do you think actually read it in full? Worth noting the first couple outlets (Vice, Gizmodo) did not post the full memo when they dropped the story.

How does the fact that people criticized the memo without reading it in full speak to OP's point about the memo having been taken out of context? I'll also suggest, reading this memo was incredibly painful for many of my female colleagues and friends inside and outside of Google. I don't think they should have to read the entire thing carefully in order to have an opinion on it. Indeed, I am not a well-read expert in…

Yes of course if it had not been excerpted and retitled as "Anti-diversity memo", people would have been less primed to have a knee jerk reaction, or to even click the link in the first place.

>How does the fact that people criticized the memo without reading it in full speak to OP's point about the memo having been taken out of context?

Because you can't begin to know what someone meant unless you read what they wrote.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#907

Post by throw0101a » Sun, May 10, 2020, 2:40 PM 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…

> I think it might be simple as that. Its not about ability. Its about environment.

Which is how I interpreted what Damore was trying to do with his memo: saying that women are capable, but that the environment was not appealing to them. Either/both of (a) what they got to work on, and/or (b) how they were treated.

IMHO, men and women perceive and react to the world differently, and treating them the same is foolish and counter-productive. Damore was simply pointing out those differences.

I found The Female Brain a good book on this topic:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Female_Brain_(book)

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#908

Post by wpietri » Sun, May 10, 2020, 2:43 PM UTC

eloff wrote: post #904

wpietri wrote: post #821

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't keep politics out of the workplace. Your notion that diversity programs shouldn't exist is enormously political, and company having them or refusing to have them is political either way. Especially here in America, where the rights and privileges of white men have been intensely political topics for literal centuries. You are practicing politics right here, right now.

A diversity program is inherently political, as you said. I don't think it has a place in a company. Again, I think leave your politics at home. You seem to think that's not possible, but that's how I would do things, were it up to me. It's got nothing to do with men's or women's rights. I'm dismayed by that whole argument. Let the meritocracy rule and the chips fall where they may.

Not having a diversity program is also political. The concept of meritocracy is political. Claiming that the things fitting with your political biases are non-political is political.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#909

Post by wpietri » Sun, May 10, 2020, 2:53 PM UTC

lliamander wrote: post #874

wpietri wrote: post #865

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In which case, the "request for feedback" bit, which Damore's defenders here are making a big deal about, was irrelevant. Him sharing it internally was not anything people asked for; it was something he decided to do on his own.

One of the criticisms made of Damore when this first broke was "he should have expressed his concerns to HR first". Like pretty much all of the criticisms of Damore, this one was based on ignorance (or a lie). He in fact did initially submit his concerns to HR, and not merely of his own initiative but in response to their request. If HR had an objection to Damore's memo, the appropriate time to address that would hav…

One, we don't know that he submitted this to HR. Two, even if he did, they had no obligation to reply, let alone within a month. Three, we do not know that they didn't reply. Four, whether or not they did, it was his decision to publish broadly; he is responsible for his own actions. Five, after he received negative feedback, he just adjusted it slightly and kept going (and in fact kept going until he dropped this suit.). And six, he knew or should have known that an explicitly political attack on Google's culture and D&I practices was not the average thing you might pass along for feedback.

He wanted a big reaction. He got it. He didn't get the outcome he wanted, but that was never his to control.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#910

Post by ForHackernews » Sun, May 10, 2020, 3:08 PM UTC

pas wrote: post #807

yahyaheee wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea and he was essentially complaining about google brainwashing

No, he was complaining about how the diversity team wasn't scientific enough, and pointed out that it from a certain viewpoint it doesn't makes sense. But failed to simply account for what Google as an entity (the CEO, the shareholders, the board of directors, the upper management, the vocal minorities, etc) wanted. And that was simply diversity even at the cost of spending a lot of money and making some sub-optimal…

> And that was simply diversity even at the cost of spending a lot of money and making some sub-optimal decisions.

That's an interesting take considering how little success Google has had in making their tech workforce more gender diverse.

One cynical view might be that the entire thing is a PR exercise, designed to make it appear that Google cares about gender diversity. For the cost of a small amount of money to write some press releases, and no real changes to their hiring policies, they get some good press and stave off criticism.

Damore's memo threatened this from both sides: it makes it look (or was made to look by adversarial press coverage) like Google is hostile to women, and it also threatens to call attention to the diversity Potemkin village set up by HR.