The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science • Hacker News Board

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

#151

Post by iotb » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 2:49 PM UTC

52-6F-62 wrote: post #65

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…

I personally never called it out for sexism. I called it out for regressive-thinking as a solution based on plain fact. I can only be brief right now, but it's starting to get to me how so many people in an innovative sphere seem to have such a hard time with this. To me, it seems like it shouldn't be a second thought. If the main argument is that women do not [by nature of our scientific understanding] have minds tu…

Please define what's Regressive about plain facts...

> it's starting to get to me how so many people in an innovative sphere seem to have such a hard time with this

The prevailing (cultural) attitude is clearly against plain facts. The question should be why the prevailing attitude is against facts and real solutions but embraces lies and bad solutions. That is what is getting to intelligent people no matter their sphere.

> If the main argument is that women do not [by nature of our scientific understanding] have minds tuned to engineering prowess to the extent that men do for whatever cause

It's not an argument that women's brains are structural and chemically different than a male's brain. Also, there are time tested (1000s of years of history) of observations as to what these differences (generally) manifest in. This is also not an argument.

> then just how does that itself prescribe that we should stop pushing for an expansion there

Socially, you can do whatever you want. However, each such action caries consequences. A company that silences inconvenient truths and doesn't promote those capable of root cause analysis but instead promotes group think centered on flawed thinking and those that skirt around root causes will face the consequences of such a decision. As far as I'm concerned, it's a self-correcting problem. There are plenty of giant corporations in history that are no longer known for similar such missteps.

The rest of your post is filled with hand waiving and appeal to extremes. One group is presenting facts backed by sound logic and science you're resorting to demonization, appeal to extremes, and asserting intelligent people are incapable of philosophical/humanistic conjectures whereas observation proves the exact opposite. What's isn't the scope of a non-intelligent uninformed person is any higher minded thinking or analysis yet they feel the need to constantly interject their half witted opinion into matters and strong arm intelligent people's more accurate and thought out commentary. In the age of intelligence, it will be the half witted opinions that get disposed of and the opinions of entities in support of it and for good reason so that we can truly explore our humanity and our reach without being stunted by those who seek to hold back the truth or progress that can be made embracing it.

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

#152

Post by peoplewindow » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 2:50 PM UTC

stevenwoo wrote: post #137

peoplewindow wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very odd that you admit you didn't actually read the document. Does it cause you physical pain or something? You then judged it based on a bunch of re-tellings, believe it says something it doesn't and that this is somehow virtuous and worthy of proclamation. Kind of discouraging. It didn't say Google should stop encouraging women to apply. That's simply not true. It did say it should stop giving women specific…

There is an interview type where gender (or even attractiveness/height/race which can bias folks) is not taken into consideration - when orchestras have auditions with the candidates that perform behind a curtain. Obviously there is some component of interviewing for a technical position where one is attempting to assay the candidates suitability for the work environment that is not compatible with this, but it's a p…

The problem Google has is not the interviewing process itself (mostly). The problem is recruiters are told to try and close the gender gap. They find various ways to do this that may or may not be legal, but are at least morally questionable, like "reducing the false negative rate" as he puts it by letting women take more interviews despite a failing performance, like active discrimination in favour of women (and thus against men) and so on and so forth.

Even if interviewers had no idea who they were interviewing, which is possible but logistically awkward (Aline Lerner posted some data on this), the recruiters would know, and they're the ones making the decisions around how the recruiting process proceeds.

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

#153

Post by mistermann » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 2:50 PM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #133

Jabanga wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nope. But the original memo defends discrimination against women and makes recommendations for future discrimination. Implementing these suggestions would be literally illegal for Google (subject to EEOC), and in fact Google is already in a lawsuit defending their alleged discrimination.

> the original memo defends discrimination against women

Can you back up this claim with a citation from the document? If not, can you explain your thought (feeling) process?

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

#154

Post by ebola1717 » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 2:50 PM UTC

abhi3 wrote: post #26

UK-AL wrote: post #5

Please don't flag the article if you simply disagree. The key to changing minds is understanding the other side. Not shutting them out of the conversation.

I flagged it. How many times do we need to have the same repetitive discussion? This topic is crowding out other quality submissions.

Yeah, this is the 8th article about the manifesto this morning, and adds nothing new to the conversation

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

#155

Post by yAnonymous » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 2:50 PM UTC

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…

>desire for self-gain/self-promotion

This often involves being deceptive, which would explain both of your points. For many people, status is everything and it doesn't matter how they get there. Selling yourself is often more important than having the actual skills required for a position.

And let's face it: Not everyone at Google needs to be a rocket scientist. We've also seen how shallow Google's hiring practices are.* Ticking check boxes is more important than correct answers, which perfectly fits with everything we're currently seeing.

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12701272

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

#156

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 2:51 PM UTC

travmatt wrote: post #117

monochromatic wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In modern days, suppressing free speech is 90% a leftist thing.

Didn't a republican congressman literally commit a violent assault on a reporter, and then win accolades by the right and get rewarded for it? Do you believe violent assaults chill free speech?

[deleted]

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

#157

Post by sp332 » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 2:51 PM UTC

dionidium wrote: post #88

52-6F-62 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally never called it out for sexism. I called it out for regressive-thinking as a solution based on plain fact. I can only be brief right now, but it's starting to get to me how so many people in an innovative sphere seem to have such a hard time with this. To me, it seems like it shouldn't be a second thought. If the main argument is that women do not [by nature of our scientific understanding] have minds tu…

"If the main argument is that women do not [by nature of our scientific understanding] have minds tuned to engineering prowess to the extent that men do for whatever cause" The main argument isn't about prowess ; it's about preference .

But if other countries have more equal representation in tech, India and Malaysia for example, then doesn't the biological argument fall apart? The difference isn't between men and women but between America and other countries.

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

#158

Post by X86BSD » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 2:51 PM UTC

major505 wrote: post #42

Welcome to the left. Where we are democratic, and suport free-speech, as long as agrees with our views. :)

Yeah that is what I immediately recognized. The tell tale pattern of the liberal left eating itself. Between evergreen college and even UCB and now this the left is literally eating itself and turning on everything they said they stood for to the point of comical absurdity.

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

#159

Post by Jabanga » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 2:52 PM UTC

SippinLean wrote: post #84

piokoch wrote: post #57

I am always surprised that well educated people who are definitely not "creationists" but consider evolution as a way human kind developed are ready to ignore evolution when it comes to gender. Clearly man and woman are different physically and mentally as for millenias they played different roles. Why "gender people" keep ignoring that and are claiming that sex is not something inborn and is a "cultural" phenomena i…

I think they acknowledge that our society differs from that of our evolutionary ancestors, and that this context matters in determining social policy, and does not amount to "ignoring evolution".

Postmodernists reject the role evolution plays in human attributes. They reject its effect on intelligence, gender and race.

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

#160

Post by mistermann » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 2:52 PM UTC

malnourish wrote: post #67

major505 wrote: post #42

Welcome to the left. Where we are democratic, and suport free-speech, as long as agrees with our views. :)

Welcome to the internet. Where we make generalizations about large swaths of people. This could keep up until the end of time. I'm an incredibly liberal person in most regards but I find suppressing unwanted speech to be disgusting at a base level. I think it's unfair to make that generalization; further, it contributes to the false dichotomy that exists through "left/right" politic.

If a generalization is objectively correct, what is the harm? One could argue that suppressing such comments contributes to sustaining mental illness.