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

Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

juliagalef.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 194 posts

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#101

Post by _pmf_ »

freetime2 wrote: post #81
_pmf_ wrote: post #60

Note that Sundar Pichai is very clearly in category 2, i.e. he does not dismiss the memo as untruthful or expressly voices disagreement. What irks me is that the discussion in the main stream media ignores the fact that someone was fired for writing relevant information in a forum explicitely introduced by the employer to anonymously voicing workplace opinions (a "safe space"), not by "circulating a memo". Maybe disc…

What irks me is that the discussion in the main stream media ignores the fact that someone was fired for writing relevant information in a forum explicitely introduced by the employer to anonymously voicing workplace opinions (a "safe space"), not by "circulating a memo". Citation on this point? I have been following the news on this story pretty closely and have not been able to find out much about how the "memo" wa…

Search for "The document was first posted to an internal company forum". I cannot find an authoritative source, but it seems much more plausible to me than James Damore mailing it to the global Google email list. If you know enterprisey social networks, posting on some forum there might send notifications to subscribers (IBM Connections does this, for example), but stating "James Damore wrote a memo" is very misleading.

Now, I don't deny that Damore is somewhat of a (smart and polite) troll, but he played fair within the rules set by Google by posting to a forum dedicated to workplace issues. His message to SJWs is clearly that he hates the game, not the players, but Google responds by banning an opposing player instead of honestly acknowledging the fact that they have a large part of the workforce with a conservative mindset who are silenced by company policy.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#102

Post by tajen »

someguydave wrote: post #22
maehwasu wrote: post #12

> However, his overall claim that there exist personality differences between genders that differentially affect men’s and women’s interest in and aptitude for tech jobs, is what people are mostly getting mad at. And that’s a claim that seems plausibly true. Not obviously true, but also not a claim you would be justified in emphatically dismissing as false, as many people have, including Google, who called them “inco…

>It's intellectually stifling, and I'm no longer interested in enabling people who use that kind of rhetoric. Not only is it stifling, it is tearing our society apart. If a person believes one of these "forbidden hypotheses" they sudden find themselves to be the target of irrational hatred and hostile actions. Everyone must understand that demonizing people creates demons who may one day seek violent revenge.

> violent revenge

If not violent, we're creating the next generation of bigots.

The current people identifying with James Damore (=men who were promised they would be selected on skills) are as young as 15 years old. Do we expect them to be inclusive during the remaining 45 years before their retirement?

I don't even understand how I should adapt my expectations for career. If competence isn't the criteria anymore, what is, then? Do opportunities now depend on our ethnicity, gender and religion? "Sorry, we know the situation is unfair for males, we're only looking for males who don't mind never being promoted and who know how to shut up." Should I choose an education based on the male/female balance in that sector? In which direction should a white male adapt?

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#103

Post by JohnStrange »

maehwasu wrote: post #12

> However, his overall claim that there exist personality differences between genders that differentially affect men’s and women’s interest in and aptitude for tech jobs, is what people are mostly getting mad at. And that’s a claim that seems plausibly true. Not obviously true, but also not a claim you would be justified in emphatically dismissing as false, as many people have, including Google, who called them “inco…

Psychologically, men and men are way more different than women and men are different between each other as groups (on the average, as tendencies), so this whole debate is ill-conceived. The reason why there is still a 'debate' and perceived 'fight' between men and women has to do with human reproduction drives (aka "sex") and its tabooing, and not with any kind of meaningful differences that would allow you to draw conclusions about particular cases.

We could just as well discuss whether short employees should be treated on a par with taller employees, or brown-eyed on a par with blue-eyed, and so forth. It's a spurious debate.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#104

Post by teddyh »

niuzeta wrote: post #98
kobeya wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, it's just a precursor skirmish for spaces-vs-tabs.

Okay, now we're talking about Armageddon. Why bring it up when one option is clearly better than the other?

Neither! http://nickgravgaard.com/elastic-tabstops/

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#105

Post by ryan-allen »

mercer wrote: post #49
matt4077 wrote: post #28

Yes, there may or may not be biological differences. Or cultural differences. In fact, it's almost certainly both, and it really doesn't matter. The single most important argument people like this ex-Googler never seem to understand is that they're confusing what is with what ought to be. If there's one defining characteristic of humanity, it's our ability to overcome biology (the 'hardware',so to speak), using our u…

I'm not sure the ex-Googler would disagree with you on this, though. There's even a section titled 'Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap' that clearly indicates he at least is not opposed to reducing the gender gap.

I've been wondering about this. Say that we can prove the distribution of Male/Female interest in technology/no interest in technology, and for arguments sake say we can reliably measure that to be 75:25 male to female.

Then we look at the industry as a whole and we discover placement is 90:10, that'd be indicative of a gap, and it'd be equitable to ensure that people who's interests lie in tech are not prevented from perusing it.

Would that be a fair and honest thing to do?

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#106

Post by pg314 »

freetime2 wrote: post #51
pavlov wrote: post #33

The real tragedy in the discussion is this assumption, quoted from the OP: "His hypothesis implies that personality differences mean a smaller percentage of women will be interested in and/or qualified for a Google job than men" Empathy and social intelligence are actively disqualifying factors for a job at Google, or software in general? That is so wrong on so many levels. I really like Bob Wyman's take on this: htt…

I completely agree that communication and people skills are necessary to be a great programmer. But consider that in order to get a job as a programmer, I first had to spend 4 years taking relatively intensive courses in math and computer science (even longer if you go back to elective courses in high school), and empathy was not an important factor in getting through my coursework or examinations. Sure there are oth…

> But consider that in order to get a job as a programmer, I first had to spend 4 years taking relatively intensive courses in math and computer science (even longer if you go back to elective courses in high school), and empathy was not an important factor in getting through my coursework or examinations. Sure there are other paths into the industry, but no matter how you get here, the fact is that learning to code is intensive.

If you look at the number of maths majors compared to the number of computer science majors, this argument isn't very persuasive. The former had more than 40% women in 2012, the latter less than 20%.

[1] http://www.randalolson.com/2014/06/14/percentage-of-bachelor...

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#107

Post by teddyh »

dang wrote: post #93
my_first_acct wrote: post #4

Recycling (and slightly modifying) a previous comment [0]: Certain topics, that otherwise might be interesting to discuss, are surrounded by minefields. One such topic is the distribution of intellectual ability within subgroups of the population. This minefield was not put in place by a repressive government. Nor was it secretly put in place overnight by a fanatic band of social-justice zealots. My observation, whic…

> Recycling (and slightly modifying) a previous comment Please don't. There's too much repetition on HN already without copy-pasting previous comments.

What? So according to this policy, you are now no longer allowed to complain about repeating comments, because you have now written that comment, once and for all?

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#108

Post by thinkfurther »

izacus wrote: post #79
freetime2 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems to me like a pretty length way of saying you agree with option 2: Say “This topic is harmful to people and we shouldn’t discuss it” (a little draconian maybe, but at least intellectually honest)

You should read the post again and perhaps use a bit of generosity this time.

But that's all that is there. It says "I would argue for X" and then doesn't argue for it, just claims that it must be so. So it is just that minus intellectual honesty.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#109

Post by yorwba »

shadowmint wrote: post #71
kobeya wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He specifically said 'decreasing the false negative rate', not 'increasing the false positive rate.' That is explicitly worded (he could have been more succinct) to imply that all people hired by Google are good enough to work at Google. He is saying that IF you are already good enough to work at Google, then your odds if you are from a protected minority group are better than if you are not. You are right that peopl…

yeah, ok... but I mean, really, do you care what he said? I mean, do you really care if people misinterpreted it? Is that what is important here? What someone did or didn't mean when they did or didn't say something? I honestly couldn't care less if they were 'wrong' interpretations. I mean, really, honestly, I don't give the slightest damn about this guy or what he says or thinks. Really. I don't know him, I don't c…

> Do you think that diversity programs necessarily result in lower quality candidates filling some roles,

Not all diversity programs, ...

> even if the program only forces a quota into the interview process?

... but if the "program" only amounts to setting a minimum quota, without any concrete plan for action on achieving the quota.

Say you believe the proportion of women in programming, given a fair hiring process, would be at least 30%, so you set that as a minimum quota all your interviewers have to fulfill. If you are right about the average, by pure randomness some interviewers will make their quota easily. But what about those who are unlucky and don't have enough qualified candidates to choose from? They will have to lower their standards to make the quota.

Fixed limits are just too blunt, they focus on the results a fair process would achieve, but fail to enforce that they actually come about due to a fair process.

> Do you think that's a bad thing, that it has tangible negative outcomes for businesses?

It depends on the concrete program in question and how much it misfires (or not), but the negative outcomes for the business will probably be relatively small. They might have to spend more money on training and get a higher turnover of employees, but Google is probably more selective than they have to, so they can afford to hire some slightly less qualified candidates.

> How do you propose to address the issues around this stuff,

I'm partial to blinded tests and outreach programs, since the combination can address both hiring bias and lack of interest.

> or is diversity something you don't think is worth having?

I think in terms of business value, gender diversity is overrated (as opposed to diversity of thought). Nonetheless, discrimination and harassment don't just affect aggregates like diversity, they also hurt individuals, so I think fighting them is important.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#110

Post by ryan-allen »

pavlov wrote: post #33

The real tragedy in the discussion is this assumption, quoted from the OP: "His hypothesis implies that personality differences mean a smaller percentage of women will be interested in and/or qualified for a Google job than men" Empathy and social intelligence are actively disqualifying factors for a job at Google, or software in general? That is so wrong on so many levels. I really like Bob Wyman's take on this: htt…

If we're talking measurements then Empathy and Social intelligence are not a thing in modern psychometrics, but Extroversion and Agreeableness are, though (women score higher in men than agreeableness from what I remember).

And of course they are not disqualifying factors.

I think what he is referring to is that women in general prefer people to things, and that would naturally push more boys to computers. When I get home I'll update this comment with sources.

My guess is the implicit assumption is that 'gender in tech should be 50/50', but the memo author was arguing that studies point to that this would actually not be equitable.

Post reply on HN