Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

More than 60 women consider suing Google, claiming sexism and a pay gap

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 136 posts

Re: More than 60 women consider suing Google, claiming sexism and a pay gap

#101

Post by likpok »

rayiner wrote: post #95
mpweiher wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that software is "thing-oriented" rather than "people-oriented Yes, that is the dominant view. You may have a different opinion (which you haven't substantiated except by assertion), but that's just that, your opinion. > without proof, that these observed differences are stable across cultures. Actually, most of the studies that replicated these findings (with large effect sizes and very large sample sizes) were cr…

> Yes, that is the dominant view. You may have a different opinion (which you haven't substantiated except by assertion), but that's just that, your opinion. Whether the view is widely held has nothing to do with whether its supported by evidence. You can't claim to be making a scientific argument, when a major link in your chain of reasoning is nothing more than an appeal to preconception. > Actually, most of the st…

> That conflates two different things: what gender roles a society imposes on adults, and how the society socializes children. Those two things are not necessarily linked. Take India for example: it's not very egalitarian; women are still strongly encouraged to stay home with kids (and the work force is 70% men). On the other hand, half of STEM majors in India are women. How do you explain that result if you assume that preferences are biological?

Presumably because they're not free to choose what they would prefer, and instead do what their family expects of them.

Of course, we're getting back into your "women make a choice because they've been socialized to make it" territory here, which I find pretty convincing.

Re: More than 60 women consider suing Google, claiming sexism and a pay gap

#102

Post by [deleted] »

rayiner wrote: post #95
mpweiher wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that software is "thing-oriented" rather than "people-oriented Yes, that is the dominant view. You may have a different opinion (which you haven't substantiated except by assertion), but that's just that, your opinion. > without proof, that these observed differences are stable across cultures. Actually, most of the studies that replicated these findings (with large effect sizes and very large sample sizes) were cr…

> Yes, that is the dominant view. You may have a different opinion (which you haven't substantiated except by assertion), but that's just that, your opinion. Whether the view is widely held has nothing to do with whether its supported by evidence. You can't claim to be making a scientific argument, when a major link in your chain of reasoning is nothing more than an appeal to preconception. > Actually, most of the st…

[deleted]

Re: More than 60 women consider suing Google, claiming sexism and a pay gap

#103

Post by CaptainZapp »

patrickaljord wrote: post #100
CaptainZapp wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"no poaching" is illegal but it doesn't go against free market principles. I call bullshit. A no poaching agreement very much resembles a cartel. Same as companies colluding in order to squeeze the highest possible value out of, say, tenders for public works. If poaching agreements are in line with free markets then so are lying, cheating and violating just about every aspect which is the basis of contract law.

I don't think no-poaching agreements infringe anyone's liberty and it that sense I don't see how it goes against free market principles. If you sign a contract with your employee saying you won't do no-poaching then doing so would be a breach of contract obviously but that would be a specific use-case. I totally agree that it breaks the laws though as it is illegal in the US. I was talking about free-market principle…

Since it's a distortion of the market it can't really adhere to free market principles, which (in theory) do not allow that.

It seems we need to agree to disagree at this point.

Re: More than 60 women consider suing Google, claiming sexism and a pay gap

#104

Post by trentnix »

thesmallestcat wrote: post #38
trentnix wrote: post #6

Here is a clue for everyone: you aren't paid according to the value you bring. You are either paid according to some pseudo-arbitrary schedule or you are paid what you can be had for. Unless Google has a secret pay penalty for females, the problem here is women being willing to work for less. No lawsuit is needed to correct that.

Quite recently, Google was found guilty of colluding to depress engineer salaries via "no poaching" agreements. Google doesn't get the "free market" benefit of the doubt anymore in these matters.

I never gave them the benefit of the doubt, and knew that "Don't Be Evil" wasn't much good if you can't recognize that something isn't necessarily good just because it's good for you. And indeed, the "no poaching" stuff is pretty sorry.

They should have depressed salaries with non-competes like everyone else does.

Re: More than 60 women consider suing Google, claiming sexism and a pay gap

#105

Post by mpweiher »

rayiner wrote: post #95
mpweiher wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that software is "thing-oriented" rather than "people-oriented Yes, that is the dominant view. You may have a different opinion (which you haven't substantiated except by assertion), but that's just that, your opinion. > without proof, that these observed differences are stable across cultures. Actually, most of the studies that replicated these findings (with large effect sizes and very large sample sizes) were cr…

> Yes, that is the dominant view. You may have a different opinion (which you haven't substantiated except by assertion), but that's just that, your opinion. Whether the view is widely held has nothing to do with whether its supported by evidence. You can't claim to be making a scientific argument, when a major link in your chain of reasoning is nothing more than an appeal to preconception. > Actually, most of the st…

> You can't claim to be making a scientific argument,

> when a major link in your chain of reasoning is

> nothing more than an appeal to preconception.

"Gendered Occupational Interests: Prenatal Androgen Effects on Psychological Orientation to Things Versus People

There is considerable interest in understanding women’s underrepresentation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. Career choices have been shown to be driven in part by interests, and gender differences in those interests have generally been considered to result from socialization. We explored the contribution of sex hormones to career-related interests, in particular studying whether prenatal androgens affect interests through psychological orientation to Things versus People. We examined this question in individuals with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), who have atypical exposure to androgens early in development, and their unaffected siblings (total N = 125 aged 9 to 26 years). Females with CAH had more interest in Things versus People than did unaffected females, and variations among females with CAH reflected variations in their degree of androgen exposure. Results provide strong support for hormonal influences on interest in occupations characterized by working with Things versus People."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3166361/

"To sum up: I think there is more than "a shred of evidence" for sex differences that are relevant to statistical gender disparities in elite hard science departments. There are reliable average difference in life priorities, in an interest in people versus things, in risk-seeking, in spatial transformations, in mathematical reasoning, and in variability in these traits. And there are ten kinds of evidence that these differences are not completely explained by socialization and bias, although they surely are in part."

Steven Pinker - https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/debate05/debate05_index.htm...

UPDATE: But actually, that does not really matter. His argument was that because there are differences we cannot rule out the possibility that unequal outcomes may have causes other than discrimination, not that he had proof that these differences are the cause.

Re: More than 60 women consider suing Google, claiming sexism and a pay gap

#106

Post by jorgemf »

yellowapple wrote: post #93
jorgemf wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Throwaway account created one hour ago? So you say that some who is starving if Africa we shouldn't care because he wasn't at the right place at the right moment? If you answer is that it is not the same case where do you put the line? Because your argument for getting things is basically luck.

"Because your argument for getting things is basically luck." Luck is really what drives a successful career and life: - Lucky to have been born in the right place - Lucky to have the right skin color - Lucky to have the right sex/gender/orientation (and for those to match up in the "right" way) - Lucky to have the right family - Lucky to have an outgoing and/or extroverted personality - Lucky to have an interest in…

I agree with you. What I am saying is that we should try to make the world more balance and not let it be driven just by luck or discriminatory reasons.

Re: More than 60 women consider suing Google, claiming sexism and a pay gap

#107

Post by jorgemf »

throwaway9853 wrote: post #92
jorgemf wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Throwaway account created one hour ago? So you say that some who is starving if Africa we shouldn't care because he wasn't at the right place at the right moment? If you answer is that it is not the same case where do you put the line? Because your argument for getting things is basically luck.

Yes and it's luck + skills. Because otherwise you wouldn't even be in that position in the first place. And what does Africa have to do with this? This was related to people working at Google and/or similar companies. So you're point is that we should give unqualified people jobs that they are clearly not meant for just because they are having a hard time? There are NGOs and state help for this. Of course if I'm havi…

I want to balance the world and given the people what they deserve (same job = same salary). Try to fix the luck issue (either if you are starving in Africa or your salary at google is lower than the rest).

I never said given unqualified people better jobs, I said give people in the same jobs the same salary (don't accuse me of not staying in the point when you don't understand my argument and them make a claim of something I didn't say, please).

> I'm having a hard time, I'd like someone to help me, but the first one to help me should be ME. I should do everything that is in my power to help myself, I shouldn't expect help from others.

You think everybody has the same opportunities in the world, which is not the case. Sometimes you need external help and you cannot do anything by yourself (maybe you are lucky and will never suffer this, but doesn't imply it doesn't happenn).

I am asking the same question again, where do you put the line to take an action? For you it is clear the jobs are not an issue, if someone have a better salary with the same job position we shouldn't do anything. But when should we start taking action when the luck is harming people? I put the example of the person in africa starving as an extreme to try to help with my argument.

Re: More than 60 women consider suing Google, claiming sexism and a pay gap

#108

Post by nowo »

patrickaljord wrote: post #100
CaptainZapp wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"no poaching" is illegal but it doesn't go against free market principles. I call bullshit. A no poaching agreement very much resembles a cartel. Same as companies colluding in order to squeeze the highest possible value out of, say, tenders for public works. If poaching agreements are in line with free markets then so are lying, cheating and violating just about every aspect which is the basis of contract law.

I don't think no-poaching agreements infringe anyone's liberty and it that sense I don't see how it goes against free market principles. If you sign a contract with your employee saying you won't do no-poaching then doing so would be a breach of contract obviously but that would be a specific use-case. I totally agree that it breaks the laws though as it is illegal in the US. I was talking about free-market principle…

> If you sign a contract with your employee saying you won't do no-poaching then doing so would be a breach of contract obviously but that would be a specific use-case.

You contract is "employment law" + "your contract". I they don't agree with employment law they have to override it in your contract, in this case with a non-compete clause. If they don't, you have both agreed to the terms in "employment law" + "your contract".

Re: More than 60 women consider suing Google, claiming sexism and a pay gap

#109

Post by yellowapple »

zimpenfish wrote: post #66
boona wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's just psuedo-scientific garble As Julian Assange pointed out, it's been reviewed by a professor of social psychology, a PhD in personality psychology, a professor in evolutionary psychology, and a PhD in sexual neuroscience and in large part it checks out. http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-... > Why is the tech world turning itself upside down for a mediocre undergrad paper? Precisely…

> a professor of social psychology, a PhD in personality psychology, a professor in evolutionary psychology, and a PhD in sexual neuroscience Only one of these is qualified to comment on biological claims.

But all four are (in my opinion, whatever that may be worth) qualified to comment on psychological claims, which is more what the paper was about.

This doesn't change the fact that psychology is a very fuzzy science with lots of room for ambiguity and subjectivity. The human brain is among the most complex computing devices known to humans, and it's one which humans had no real part in designing; psychology basically amounts to reverse-engineering a convoluted and obfuscated closed-source program running on an entirely-undocumented computing platform. Oh, and the software - and even hardware - in question is constantly rewriting itself as part of the way it processes inputs.

Our understanding of psychology is changing constantly as a result; information from even as little as a decade ago is fraught with inaccuracies revealed since, and information from today will almost certainly be invalidated - whether in part or entirely - within the next decade.

Put simply: just because these authorities have validated the paper in question does not make that validation - or the paper - actually correct.

Re: More than 60 women consider suing Google, claiming sexism and a pay gap

#110

Post by patrickaljord »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #103
patrickaljord wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think no-poaching agreements infringe anyone's liberty and it that sense I don't see how it goes against free market principles. If you sign a contract with your employee saying you won't do no-poaching then doing so would be a breach of contract obviously but that would be a specific use-case. I totally agree that it breaks the laws though as it is illegal in the US. I was talking about free-market principle…

Since it's a distortion of the market it can't really adhere to free market principles, which (in theory) do not allow that. It seems we need to agree to disagree at this point.

My definition of the free market is the absence of coercion (ie all actors are free), not whether people should be allowed or not to sign contracts you think may distort it which seems pretty subjective. I think making people not free to sign no-poaching contracts they willingly want to would be the distortion here, the no-poaching agreements may or may not have a negative effect overall but that is not a distortion of the free market. The only characteristic of the free market is that it is free, not that it is inefficient or not. The theory is that free markets tend to be more efficient, but they are not always so.
Post reply on HN