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

921–930 of 1001 posts

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#921

Post by [deleted] »

SamWhited wrote: post #894
camelite wrote: post #802

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why don't most women want the software job? Amusingly, the damore memo was an attempt to address just this very question. Are we not beyond pretending responses outside the proscribed woke ideology will be engaged with in good faith, at this late stage?

There are actual things in the world that we know are true or false and aren't just part of some "ideology" as you put it it. One of them is that the kind of pseudoscientific bullshit damore was spouting is false. We know this. It is in no way engaging in good faith to post an internal memo to your coworkers full of stupid stuff that's been used for years to justify your dominance. His memo was not engaging in good f…

[deleted]

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#922

Post by UncleMeat »

afiori wrote: post #882
UncleMeat wrote: post #864

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comment I responded to very clearly implies that this "things, not people" is the reason for gender imbalance in CS. They are doing far more than identifying a correlation.

That can be one of many factors. The alleged claim is that "CS fits nicely in this model", whether microbiology also fits is a different question. Also microbiology is closer to medical field than engineering.

> The alleged claim is that "CS fits nicely in this model"

And there is no evidence provided for this at all.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#923

Post by UncleMeat »

ALittleLight wrote: post #917
UncleMeat wrote: post #862

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes absolutely. I'm barely even qualified to synthesize conclusions from CS papers outside of my subfield. Drawing broader conclusions from a slice of the literature requires immense context.

If you aren't able to read research papers and synthesize an opinion on them then by your own standards it seems you shouldn't have an opinion here. You can't tell whether Damore was right or wrong because you can't read papers from different fields and reach conclusions. You think the authors Damore cited rejected him. Perhaps you have an example of that. I haven't seen anything beyond the authors agreeing with Damo…

> If you aren't able to read research papers and synthesize an opinion on them then by your own standards it seems you shouldn't have an opinion here. You can't tell whether Damore was right or wrong because you can't read papers from different fields and reach conclusions.

I cannot personally derive a conclusion about Damore from the literature. What I can do is ask world experts about their thoughts. In general, this is an effective way of developing reasonable opinions about the state of research. I'm friends with a few social psych faculty who study workplaces and let's just say that they don't hold Damore in high regard.

I'm super uninterested in having an argument about the merits of his essay since that discussion has been had thousands of times and no progress can be made. But "well he has a master's degree from harvard" is among the least compelling arguments in his favor.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#924

Post by pas »

UncleMeat wrote: post #922
afiori wrote: post #882

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That can be one of many factors. The alleged claim is that "CS fits nicely in this model", whether microbiology also fits is a different question. Also microbiology is closer to medical field than engineering.

> The alleged claim is that "CS fits nicely in this model" And there is no evidence provided for this at all.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23129035 sorry for crude link to links

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#925

Post by fastball »

foldr wrote: post #912
fastball wrote: post #900

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You literally claimed that women working in an industry means women are interested in working in that industry. That's not necessarily true. Hence the analogy.

It does mean that in the absence of any other obvious explanation. I don't actually know the extent to which women working in factories were conscripted in WWII. But I do know that women weren't forced to work as programmers in the 1960s.

The issue here is that doing something without being forced to do that thing does not then mean you are interested in that thing.

If you have many good / attractive options and you choose one, you probably have an interest in that thing.

If you have precious few, not great options, and you choose one, it does not necessarily indicate the same.

I shouldn't need to provide copious examples for this to be obviously true. Money is only one of many motivators, but it is often strong enough on its own to overcome your interest (or lack thereof) in something if it means you get paid for it.

Take another example: many women throughout history have chosen sex work. That does not mean that sex work interests them. It just means they decided sex work was better than alternatives, for whatever reasons.

Doing something of your own free will does not mean you have a genuine interest in that thing. It can (and often does) just mean that thing is better than alternatives, for a multitude of reasons that are not "I find it the most interesting".

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#926

Post by hackissimo123 »

jlebar wrote: post #854
hackissimo123 wrote: post #653

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first website to publish his memo (Gizmodo) removed all the graphs and citations, meaning that a great many people who read the memo did not read it in full.

And to you this constitutes reporting that was "purposefully out of context and twisted in order to create rage click bait to satisfy someone's ideological crusade"?

Well I wouldn't put it that strongly (I didn't write the post you're quoting), but it hardly demonstrates journalistic integrity. (But then what would you expect from a site that's just Gawker rebranded?)

For an example of "reporting" that comes closer to what you describe in your quote, I'd point to the pile of hot garbage that former Google exec (and deranged lunatic) Yonatan Zunger posted on Medium.com, which was very widely shared and cited in the weeks following Damoregate.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#927

Post by ALittleLight »

UncleMeat wrote: post #923
ALittleLight wrote: post #917

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you aren't able to read research papers and synthesize an opinion on them then by your own standards it seems you shouldn't have an opinion here. You can't tell whether Damore was right or wrong because you can't read papers from different fields and reach conclusions. You think the authors Damore cited rejected him. Perhaps you have an example of that. I haven't seen anything beyond the authors agreeing with Damo…

> If you aren't able to read research papers and synthesize an opinion on them then by your own standards it seems you shouldn't have an opinion here. You can't tell whether Damore was right or wrong because you can't read papers from different fields and reach conclusions. I cannot personally derive a conclusion about Damore from the literature. What I can do is ask world experts about their thoughts. In general, th…

Sure, his master's degree isn't the most compelling argument. It's somewhat more compelling an argument than "My unnamed expert friends don't hold Damore in high regard".

If world experts have weighed in on Damore, link to their opinions. I'm happy to discuss those.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#928

Post by wpietri »

eloff wrote: post #911
wpietri wrote: post #908

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If that's the case everything is political. I'm not sure I accept that. What I want to say is I don't care about left or right or the agendas of either. Focus on the product, the customers, and the fight. Alexander the Great never had a diversity program. I'm not going to say he was the pinnacle of morality here, but maybe it's a good idea to focus on the important things if you want to be successful.

Wanting to ignore America's long history of sexism and racism is a political position. Wanting to ignore the effects of those is a political position. Your contributions here are political activism.

If you want to be a reactionary, fine. But please own it.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#929

Post by wpietri »

ALittleLight wrote: post #919
wpietri wrote: post #863

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you talk about how "Google fired Damore" and "They asked him for feedback" you imply that the firer and the feedback-re are the same entity. But there's no reason to think that's the case. A more plausible interpretation is that somebody running D&I programs said something general, like "we welcome feedback on our programs". But there's no evidence that he specifically was asked, and even if he were, sharing it…

Damore was both asked for feedback and fired by Google. Sure, it was different individuals at Google who did each, whoever presented the diversity the diversity conference asked for feedback and the decision to fire Damore was made, I believe, by Pichai. I never said it was the same individual though, I said it was Google. I think it's splitting hairs to take what I wrote "Google asked for feedback and fired him" rea…

It is definitely not splitting hairs. The "but Google asked him to do it and then fired him" line of defense hides relevant details. He wasn't assigned to write it, he wasn't assigned to publish it, and he wasn't assigned to not back down despite how much trouble it was causing.

It's true that sharing opinions is a common activity. But that again elides key facts. A highly political document attacking company programs and company culture was not the sort of thing people normally pass around for discussion.

Your notion that Damore just, gosh golly, thought he was sharing some helpful feedback is hard to square with the content or with his subsequent behavior both before and after his firing. I think what fits better with the text and his behavior is that he was engaging in political activism, and was well aware that he was going to cause a stir.

I agree that it's possible Damore wouldn't have ended up being fired under a variety of circumstances. Maybe it's true that if it hadn't hit the press, he'd still be there. Although given that what made news was the level of internal upset it was causing, he could well have been fired anyhow. And regardless, any employee should know that, "Don't cause the company a giant PR problem" is a reasonable rule to follow. Indeed, that apparently is explicitly part of Google's orientation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23124750

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#930

Post by manigandham »

pydry wrote: post #899
manigandham wrote: post #767

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very strange to say that's male only and "off-putting" to women. Have you ever tried exploring female-dominated industries? Because women can and do display all those behaviors as well.

I think these behaviors are toxic and off putting to other men too, but men seem to be more willing to put up with them. I don't see an equivalence to nursing or primary school teaching since by and large it's not the toxic aspects of these careers that puts off men, it's the lack of pay and status.

So basically men and women are different and have different interests and attitudes. What's the problem with them choosing different professions then?
Post reply on HN