141–150 of 1001 posts
The author's arguments have been completely misrepresented. He pointed out widely-believed and sometimes scientifically-established differences in the DISTRIBUTION OF traits in men and women. He said that those differences make attempts to achieve numerical parity misguided, discriminatory, and harmful. What is his conclusion about how we should behave? "Treat people as individuals, not as just another member of thei…
One less white male on the team, diversity needle is moving in the right direction.
Yes because we should hire people based off the colour of their skin or current gender status!
I don't know why anyone needs to even give a shit about whatever "natural" differences exist or not. The law promotes equality. And if you're going to bitch about it, then fine, go vote for more Trump, I guess.
I haven't read the memo but I have read some summaries of it. Even before the memo was released I had a negative opinion of it. Not because someone spoke out their mind but because someone decided to just go and shout out their obviously controversial beliefs to the world expecting for his ideas to be taken seriously and for there to be no negative consequences. If you want people to care about what you think and hav…
I think you are making a number of poor logical leaps. I have read the memo in its entirety. I have begun the process of reading the citations in their entirety. I am, so far, entirely unconvinced of that he has proven his point about gender bias. I am entirely convinced that he did prove his entire point about the political and moral echo chamber that is Googles Mountain View office. Though he did not do it within t…
Oh, so stating that women can't handle stress is bad now? Political correctness gone, uh, sane. Edit: I had hoped the sarcasm was obvious
I'm personally not a fan of the memo's content but even if I were, it demonstrates incredibly poor judgement. Posting this sort of thing on internal work message boards and signing it with your name is just plain silly. If you want to have your 'rational discussion' about gender and race in tech and not get penalized for violating an agreement you signed governing your conduct, then do it on your own time and using your own equipment instead of your employer's equipment. This isn't hard. How does someone manage to get a PhD without acquiring a basic understanding of cause and effect?
> Equal Opportunity Employment
> Employment here is based solely upon individual merit and qualifications directly related to professional competence.
How are you going to achieve 50/50 diversity in the company if the pool of candidates is far from that distribution? (unless you go and don't hire the best ones to balance the distribution)
[1] https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html
EDIT: As kevingadd said, I might be wrong assuming the goal for diversity target for Google. It can be something more realistic and be close to the ratio of the pool of candidates. In that case I am wrong in my assumption. This is also a good link he provided: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/07/silicon-v...
An excellent opportunity to re-read PG's essay, "What You Can't Say". [1] "What scares me is that there are moral fashions too. They're just as arbitrary, and just as invisible to most people. But they're much more dangerous. Fashion is mistaken for good design; moral fashion is mistaken for good. Dressing oddly gets you laughed at. Violating moral fashions can get you fired, ostracized, imprisoned, or even killed."…
This isn't an issue of "fashion" or "opinion". It's an issue of whether the guy is right or wrong, and if he's wrong[1] whether or not he's caused damage to his employer[2], and if that is true whether it is a firing offense[3]. You don't get to avoid discussion[4] about those subtitled points by retreating to some kind of invented safe space here. Out with it. Is he right? [1] He is. [2] He has. [3] It is. [4] Yeah,…
The author's arguments have been completely misrepresented. He pointed out widely-believed and sometimes scientifically-established differences in the DISTRIBUTION OF traits in men and women. He said that those differences make attempts to achieve numerical parity misguided, discriminatory, and harmful. What is his conclusion about how we should behave? "Treat people as individuals, not as just another member of thei…
That's how far this has gone. I am saddened that more moderate voices have not spoken up like this brave ex-Googler but given the climate and the consequences, I understand it.
The author's arguments have been completely misrepresented. He pointed out widely-believed and sometimes scientifically-established differences in the DISTRIBUTION OF traits in men and women. He said that those differences make attempts to achieve numerical parity misguided, discriminatory, and harmful. What is his conclusion about how we should behave? "Treat people as individuals, not as just another member of thei…