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

The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science

theglobeandmail.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 684 posts

Re: The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science

#121

Post by Someone »

I think it is unfair to call this "the Google manifesto".

If I state here that it is scientifically expected to see more foos than bars on HN, and then get banned because of it, that wouldn't become HN's manifesto, either.

I fear that, a few years from now, people will say it represented Google's official standpoints (which it doesn't) or those of a significant portion of its employees (which may or may not be the case, from what I know)

"Google employee's manifesto" or "James Damore's manifesto" are better names.

Re: The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science

#122

Post by fiblye »

yAnonymous wrote: post #71
jamesrcole wrote: post #15

What disturbs me most about this incident is how many people's first instinct, when faced with views they strongly disagree with, is to try and suppress those views and the person speaking them. Not to engage with the argument or to try and argue against it, just to shut the other person down. It's a totalitarian kind of response.

In my experience, most people who act like that lack the intelligence to make valid points in an argument or there are no good arguments that support their point of view. I think a lot of this has to do with parenting. When crying always gets you everything, you don't learn to work hard or have a debate to get what you want. There's a whole generation of full-grown babies.

If the reason that people get enraged is because they lack the intelligence to dispute something, what are google and news agencies doing hiring such people?

I'm not sure whether it's lack of intelligence or a desire for self-gain/self-promotion (seeing as how loads of people proudly plastered their pictures and names in the ensuing twitter debates, trying to paint themselves as brave crusaders for whatever movement they want to lead).

Re: The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science

#123

Post by Jabanga »

sp332 wrote: post #87
blusterXY wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What astonishes me is that Google's VP of Diversity knows so little about the underlying science of her vocation that she confused statements of clinical fact (with the science even referenced in footnotes!) with personal attacks on women.

It was an attack on women, even if it used "science" as corroborating points.

This is just dogma. Making a scientifically supported argument against a position of postmodernists and feminists doesn't equal an "attack on women".

The lack of intellect and integrity displayed by the attacks on the fired Google employee is really disturbing.

Re: The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science

#124

Post by apeace »

No matter how you debate the validity of the science, I hope people pay attention to one suggestion the 'manifesto' author made: that his company should do more pair programming.

Pairing has always struck me as a great way to get programmers communicating better. Without addressing any other points in the manifesto, I think he's correct that encouraging pairing would be a good way to make development environments more collaborative.

Re: The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science

#125

Post by alkonaut »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #113
alkonaut wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no research (to the best of my knowledge) claiming that there are biological differences between the same sex of different races. I mean it's not controversial to argue that on average caucasian men are taller than asian men. I can't find a quotation for that exact fact right now but let's just assume it's true for the sake of argument. It's a toy example anyway. If it's scientific doesn't mean I can argue…

> If it's scientific doesn't mean I can argue without repercussion that I should be allowed to cut before asian men in the line in the cafeteria because as tall people we are always hungrier. Even arguing that would (rightly) be considered racist. Suppose that height is an advantage in basketball and we thereby discover that asian men are underrepresented in the NBA. Are you claiming that is racist and something we h…

I don't. However, it's a fine line. Pro sports is a bit special, but it might be racist to not let a player try out because of an asian name, quoting that "thanks for your letter, but asian men are on average so short that we don't want to see you". Context, and what precise actions are taken is important here.

The underrepresntation of black people in tech isn't "racist" though there are probably a lot of racist actions taken place that led up to it, and of course tons of structural racism that cause it long term. But the discrepancy isn't "racist" in itself. It's just a discrepancy.

Re: The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science

#126

Post by mmstan »

monochromatic wrote: post #98
thrden wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the first was cited as well, though news sources removed the citations.

That's really interesting. Do you have a link to the un-molested version?

Here you go:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...

Re: The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science

#127

Post by dmartinez »

megous wrote: post #36

What I find interesting about all this is how many people take personal offense from statistics. (and conclusions drawn from statistics) The author seems to put an effort into explaining statistical distribution and what it means and what not. He's explicit that statistical observations can't be used to judge particular individuals. Draws a graph of overlapping distributions to drive the point home even more. I'm not…

Because people do not understand statistics. A great example of this is the Gambler's fallacy [1].

[1] https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy

Re: The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science

#128

Post by tenaciousDaniel »

yAnonymous wrote: post #71
jamesrcole wrote: post #15

What disturbs me most about this incident is how many people's first instinct, when faced with views they strongly disagree with, is to try and suppress those views and the person speaking them. Not to engage with the argument or to try and argue against it, just to shut the other person down. It's a totalitarian kind of response.

In my experience, most people who act like that lack the intelligence to make valid points in an argument or there are no good arguments that support their point of view. I think a lot of this has to do with parenting. When crying always gets you everything, you don't learn to work hard or have a debate to get what you want. There's a whole generation of full-grown babies.

I thought that way too for a bit, and was generally in favor of Jon Haidts interpretation (blaming helicopter parenting). But I've noticed there are plenty of people well into their 40's and 50's who actively encourage this kind of thing. I don't know what to make of it.

Re: The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science

#129

Post by [deleted] »

computerex wrote: post #61
alkonaut wrote: post #10

Why can't the memo be both sexist and science? Arguing that there are differences between genders that make one gender unsuitable for a task can be as scientific as you want, it's still sexist. It's no different from doing the same but replacing gender with race - it's racist no matter how carefully and scientifically you worded it. It's almost as if the person writing this article believes that if the manifesto is f…

You are confused about what sexism is. Sexism is a prejudice based on lack of evidence and reasoning. Saying that women are inferior to men is a sexist remark. Saying that on average, women prefer working in people oriented roles whereas men prefer working in mechanical/technical roles is not sexist, because this is a fact supported by real evidence. The author's point about societies with the most gender equity havi…

[deleted]

Re: The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science

#130

Post by dsfjksdf »

alkonaut wrote: post #112
dsfjksdf wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to Google, the definition of sexism is "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex." So if you don't consider dating somebody because of their sex, by that definition you are sexist?

> So if you don't consider dating somebody because of their sex, by that definition you are sexist? Only if not dating someone is discrimination in some useful sense (it's not).

I seem to have heard different views a lot from trans people, or the whole gender crowd. I thought the current "correct" stance is that you should not be allowed to prefer one gender over another.

What makes you say it is not meaningful discrimination? Remaining alone is among the worst things that can happen to a human being.

Post reply on HN