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

141–150 of 684 posts

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

#141

Post by mistermann »

monochromatic wrote: post #72
Ajedi32 wrote: post #20

Not much new here. This article is essentially just re-affirming all the scientific statements that were already made in the original memo, backed by links to scientific studies. Only difference being that the author of this article has a PhD in sexual neuroscience (so people might have a harder time accusing her of not knowing what she's talking about) and is female (so some people might have a harder time of accusi…

> backed by links > PhD in sexual neuroscience > female There's a LOT that's new here, relative to Damore's memo.

Don't forget: POC.

Sadly, these things carry as much if not more persuasive capability than words and ideas. The West's days are numbered I'm afraid.

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

#142

Post by UK-AL »

alexholehouse wrote: post #93

As mentioned in the memo, gendered interests are predicted by exposure to prenatal testosterone – higher levels are associated with a preference for mechanically interesting things and occupations in adulthood. Lower levels are associated with a preference for people-oriented activities and occupations. This is why STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields tend to be dominated by men. And why we…

This is anecdotal. But a testament on how difficult this problem is.

I have two nieces and 1 nephew, all of which I've tried to encourage into programming. I have tried to get my nieces interested in programming with great difficulty but my nephew has taken to it almost instantly and effortlessly.

I suspect I am framing the activity wrong.

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

#143

Post by mcv »

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.

You follow different people than I do. I saw people engage with the arguments. Google's official responses explained how diversity was essential to their company.

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

#144

Post by titanix2 »

monochromatic wrote: post #72
Ajedi32 wrote: post #20

Not much new here. This article is essentially just re-affirming all the scientific statements that were already made in the original memo, backed by links to scientific studies. Only difference being that the author of this article has a PhD in sexual neuroscience (so people might have a harder time accusing her of not knowing what she's talking about) and is female (so some people might have a harder time of accusi…

> backed by links > PhD in sexual neuroscience > female There's a LOT that's new here, relative to Damore's memo.

Credit given to a quote shouldn't be based on the sex of the speaker. To some extend this is an application of the "your point is invalid" meme: you're a man so your point is invalid. This way of thinking is very damaging to the public debate.

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

#145

Post by [deleted] »

fiblye wrote: post #122
yAnonymous wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[deleted]

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

#146

Post by tptacek »

monktastic1 wrote: post #134
tptacek wrote: post #101

This defense of the "manifesto" is flawed just like the others. It picks out a small subset of the claims made in the document, discards the context and all the other claims, and then harangues us for having a problem with "science". I could argue "water is composed of two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule, so women are bad at software development", and my argument would just be a difference of degree worse…

Consider the Medium piece she cites: https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-man... Point #1: "I’m not going to spend any length of time on (1); if anyone wishes to provide details as to how nearly every statement about gender in that entire document is actively incorrect,¹ and flies directly in the face of all research done in the field for decades, they should go for it. But I am neither a biologis…

You haven't so much responded to my comment as used it as a coat rack to hang an unrelated argument on. I didn't cite Zunger's blog post and don't really understand why people like it so much. I'd prefer not to discuss it here, and thank you in advance for not demanding I do so.

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

#147

Post by dustinmoris »

alkonaut wrote: post #104
computerex wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Sexism is a prejudice based on lack of evidence and reasoning. That's not a definition I have seen anywhere. The usual definition is that it's "prejudice, sterotyping or discrimination based on someones gender". If we have different definitions of sexism to begin with, of course we aren't going to agree on whether X is sexist. So if I don't use the controversial S word: I thought his post was stereotyping and comin…

What on bloody earth are you talking about? Take a moment and listen to yourself, because what you say is exactly the hate speech that we are having today, where people take words of someone else and completely flip it around and claim something terrible which did not happen.

> something being true doesn't make it not racist (or sexist). The falsehood/lying isn't a necessary condition.

Of course it is! Seriously listen to yourself! If I say "The average 20 year old healthy person will be able to climb this mountain faster than the average 80 year old healthy person" then it is a fact based on science and DOES NOT make me a ageist, or does it? Now apply the same logic to the previous topic and listen to yourself again.

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

#149

Post by gkya »

burner11 wrote: post #92

Why is it that nobody wants to fix the gender gap in nursing?

Because programming pays higher. That's the response you eventually get from the feminist folks. I do believe this gender gap thing is good intentions, but there's just an enormous huge colossal amount of ignorance in the general effort itself and its perpetrators. The emotion-drivenness of the online audiences is not helping either.

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

#150

Post by avenoir »

akamaka wrote: post #102
dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #2

To people who are flagging this article: why don't you read it? It's important, and the author is competent.

This article is trash. Who is claiming that there are no gender differences across the population? Who is she arguing against exactly? Maybe the author should have actually read the manifesto more carefully, because it is primarily an argument about Google's hiring practices and how to build the best workforce for a company, a topic which the scientific studies she cites do not address in the slightest.

> Who is claiming that there are no gender differences across the population?

About a quarter of comments on the original manifesto thread here on HN were from people who explicitly stated that there are no differences between genders and wanted scientific proof if someone were to refute their statement.

Post reply on HN