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

Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 1001 posts

Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

#121

Post by adbachman »

sampo wrote: post #63

Why has this topic exploded like it did now especially in the software engineering context? Whatever talent or affinity to abstract and inanimate things we do or don't assume being correlated with gender, isn't software engineering just a lighter version, compared to mathematics and physics? Did math and physics communities already have their internal crisis/debate on these things, perhaps a decade or two ago? Or hav…

The math and physics communities aren't dominating business in the US. Four of the top five companies by market cap (Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon) are exclusively software or employ an oversized number of software developers compared to similarly sized non-technology companies. If there are reasons that groups of people are being systematically excluded from employment in those companies and others like them, it's worth at least trying to understand why (race? gender? other factors?) and wherever possible, worth trying to correct it.

"Why now" is a lot more complicated than just that, but that's the reason I keep in mind why it's worth fighting for.

Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

#122

Post by kristianc »

annexrichmond wrote: post #103
ryanbrunner wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think one thing that struck me from the linked article was the point that the memo wasn't structured to invite discussion. It wasn't "let's have a chat", it was "here's an evidence bomb of how you're all wrong". I think advancing points is fine, but if you're after productive discussion rather than an adversarial debate, you need to proactively invite discussion. And if an adversarial debate was what he was after,…

I disagree. He mentioned in an interview[1] that he was looking to be proven wrong which is what led him to share it with the Skeptics group at Google, which is when the document propagated. He had actually wrote the document weeks prior but was unsatisfied with the lack of discussion on his document. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU

That seems an odd approach tbh. Many 'Skeptics' groups (Skeptic / Rationalist YouTube) online at least would agree with his reasoning. It strikes me as odd that he was seeking to take down an ideological echo chamber but published it initially in the echo chamber most likely to agree with him.

Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

#123

Post by humanrebar »

tiles wrote: post #99
alpsgolden wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I walk into my job at a tech company, how do I know which of my colleagues thinks I’m an outlier among women versus someone who was hired because I’m female that doesn’t deserve the job they have? Isn't this an argument against any form of different hiring practices based on race/gender? Even if distributions of abilities are equal in nature, if a college has a lower bar based on gender, then abilities won't be…

Google's stance, as stated in the article, is that they divert more energy in to finding minority candidates. That's not the same as a lower bar. Abilities are expected to be distributed equally still.

In an interview, Damore said part of the "lowered bar" is extra interview rounds for minority candidates. You could call that "more energy", but it also reduces the chances that a given candidate suffers from bad luck.

Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

#124

Post by nicolashahn »

ryanbrunner wrote: post #52
hedgew wrote: post #21

Many of the more reasonable criticisms of the memo say that it wasn't written well enough; it could've been more considerate, it should have used better language, or better presentation. In this particular link, Scott Alexander is used as an example of better writing, and he certainly is one of the best and most persuasive modern writers I've found. However, I can not imagine ever matching his talent and output, even…

I think one thing that struck me from the linked article was the point that the memo wasn't structured to invite discussion. It wasn't "let's have a chat", it was "here's an evidence bomb of how you're all wrong". I think advancing points is fine, but if you're after productive discussion rather than an adversarial debate, you need to proactively invite discussion. And if an adversarial debate was what he was after,…

Then the correct way to handle it is to drop another refutational evidence bomb attacking his primary points instead of picking the low hanging fruit of claiming it's "too confrontational," "poorly written," "naive," or whatever other secondary problems exist (this is aside from wilfully misrepresenting his claims, which is definitely a bigger problem). Plenty of far more aggressive articles and essays have been written from the opposite side that have not been criticized in the same way.

And for the record, I did not get any aggressive tone from his paper. I thought he was as polite as he needed to be and made the necessary caveats. I think many people were just so unprepared to hear any argument from an opposing viewpoint that they read into it what they wanted to.

Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

#125

Post by gaius »

rpiguy wrote: post #6

I really enjoyed the well reasoned discussion. I think a lot more constructive dialog is happening now that people have calmed down. Of all the sentiments expressed in the article, I mainly disagree with the comment that Damore did the company harm. He posted his thoughts on an internal discussion board and someone else leaked this internal document to the press. The leaker did harm to Google not Damore. In fact, I t…

The leaker did harm to Google not Damore

I am 100% certain that the trackiest company in the world is perfectly capable of knowing exactly who leaked it. They have chosen to protect that person, for reasons unknown at this time.

Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

#126

Post by rpiguy »

tedivm wrote: post #26
rpiguy wrote: post #6

I really enjoyed the well reasoned discussion. I think a lot more constructive dialog is happening now that people have calmed down. Of all the sentiments expressed in the article, I mainly disagree with the comment that Damore did the company harm. He posted his thoughts on an internal discussion board and someone else leaked this internal document to the press. The leaker did harm to Google not Damore. In fact, I t…

Lets assume that we're in an alternative universe where the document was never leaked. The document still did harm. Just read this quote from the posted article- > When I walk into my job at a tech company, how do I know which of my colleagues thinks I’m an outlier among women versus someone who was hired because I’m female that doesn’t deserve the job they have? How do I prove myself to people one way or another? Th…

The thoughts of one twenty-something engineer posted to an internal message board (for these kinds of discussions I might add) does not create a hostile workplace or harm Google in any way.

Basically, in any other context we expect people who have vastly differing views to be able to put them aside and work together. The only exception to this rule seems to be around leftist issues, where if you disagree you are out of luck.

You would expect, for example, the Jewish people and the Islamic people at a company to work together.

The idea that toleration for one memo form a nobody employee marks an entire company as unwelcome is insane. This zero tolerance attitude is a recipe for disaster.

Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

#127

Post by epberry »

jccalhoun wrote: post #38

I think this is one of the better responses I've seen This line really struck me as being spot on: >There’s a difference between “let’s have a discussion” and “let me tell you what’s up, all you wrong people.”

Absolutely. This and the suggestion that he phrase his ideas as questions and more openly invite discussion helped me put into words my own discomfort with the memo. Of course the conclusion he draws that because of biological differences women are less suited to software engineering work remains the biggest problem.

Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

#128

Post by sidlls »

jorgemf wrote: post #111

> I disagree with his use of science and data to convert opinions into facts. Funny. So if you backed your opinions with science that is not right? It was hard to keep reading after that statement.

"Applied science incorrectly to confirm a bias or advance an opinion incorrectly" and "applied science to form an opinion" are different things. Damore did the former.

Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

#129

Post by humanrebar »

Delmania wrote: post #90
bufbupa wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you arguing we should spare factual discourse for the sake of someones subjective feelings?

Why don't you go ahead and read this: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2017/08/sloppy-scien... Simply put, unless you are mindful of someone's "subjective feelings" you will never be able to have a "factual discourse" with them. People are individuals and not statistics. You can quote statistics and average all day long, but if you offend, anger, or harm someone with your words, that person will not listen to…

> Simply put, unless you are mindful of someone's "subjective feelings" you will never be able to have a "factual discourse" with them.

Isn't that a catch 22? How do we know their subjective feelings if we can't discuss contested issues?

Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

#130

Post by Delmania »

jandrese wrote: post #108
Udik wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, like many others you are confusing "less people from this group are qualified" with "people from this group are less qualified". The first doesn't say anything about single individuals, and doesn't suggest any discriminatory practice against the group. The second does.

In practice both statements have the same outcome. Hiring managers aren't omniscient.

Yes, there's no way to say either of those statements to a member of a given group and not offend that person.
Post reply on HN