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

About This Googler's Manifesto

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 404 posts

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#181

Post by H4CK3RM4N »

interpol_p wrote: post #36
TimTheTinker wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understood the original manifesto's main argument to be against intentional, institutional discrimination (e.g. affirmative action) -- with many supporting points. I don't know what's shameful about that (unless you're referring to something else). He did seem to value gender equality in the sense that men and women should be valued and respected equally (unless I'm reading into it).

Except for the fact that it implies that men are in higher, more well paid positions because of inherent biological traits. If you truly believe people are equal and deserving of equal treatment then you must see a society where white men are the most powerful, most privileged class, as a failure of society. The author cannot claim to believe in equality and then go on to justify inequality with biological traits.

But if the biological innate differences exist, why must they be disregarded?

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#183

Post by sangnoir »

smsm42 wrote: post #103
dsacco wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what way is Chrome "kinda borderline"? If you mean borderline in terms of success, there are only four or five meaningfully used web browsers. Of those, Chrome has the largest desktop and mobile marketshare, respectively.[1] If you mean borderline in terms of Google's ability to release a product that appeals to a sense of usability and design aesthetic instead of just raw technical excellence, I would say that Ch…

In a way that I am not sure whether Chrome success (which is undeniable) happened because of its technology merits or its UX. It is hard for me to decide because significant part of UX interaction is supplied by extensions, for which I am not sure where they go. But I am OK with putting Chrome into the column of "good UX". I still feel it's rather exception than a rule.

Chrome was the first browser to pare down the browser chrome: svelte tabs, no title bar and even small touches like not immediately resize the tabs soon after closing one so you could rapidly click on 'x' N times and close N tabs without moving your mouse. Chrome did not just have good UX, it had excellent UX that set trends that inspired changes to Firefox[1] and IE.

1. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=465086

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#184

Post by thinkingemote »

to_bpr wrote: post #19

Is there any other professional industry as politically divided and toxic as tech has become? Is there any other industry in which private companies shove their "values" down the throats of their employees in the manner we experience in tech?

It's just American and silicon valley tech. Not world-wide.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#185

Post by ukj »

Scaevolus wrote: post #96

"(2) Perhaps more interestingly, the author does not appear to understand engineering." The manifesto's author has a degree in Biology, not Computer Science. He probably learned enough programming on his own time to pass a technical interview, but never learned the "softer" parts of a CS degree that address working effectively as a team. Programmers without degrees miss bits of the standard curriculum, often rigorous…

Not unique. Lacking nuance (a.k.a biased?).

I have reached similar deduction based on my suspicion that I suffer from EDD. I don't think I understand what empathy is. Perhaps as a concept, but I have a hard time putting it in practice (according to others).

On the other hand, I poses exceptional analytical rigor (bullshit detector?) that (combined with my lack of empathy) manifests as what people often call "somebody who speaks his mind".

I lack tact. Another hypothesis is that I am just a selfish jerk. An asshole. Or an introvert. I don't really know - I have many hypothesis. Bayesian analysis proves difficult.

Either way - this predisposition me, no - forces me to function in the world despite my deficiencies. And so I'd like to think that I am succeeding at being useful, even without empathy, but it is blatantly obvious that I gravitate towards problems where I don't have to deal with humans too often.

All in all, though - I think this opinion is somewhat consistent with the observation that "man systemize, women empathize"?

That insight alone is sufficient for me to know (and accept) that any team I am on, needs the counter-balance of an empath to mitigate the risk of my shortcommings.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#187

Post by nl »

nopatternhere wrote: post #177
ggggtez wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On that last sentence, that's the whole point. The manifesto claims empathy for colleagues and customers is not required, but clearly it is.

> The manifesto claims empathy for colleagues and customers is not required, but clearly it is. Can you help me understand how you reached that conclusion? Here is the relevant section of the original: > De-emphasise empathy. > I've heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy — feeli…

Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.

This is wrong. Emotions - feeling - are part of what makes teams work together well and make products work with people.

The reply linked on this post says it well:

Engineering is not the art of building devices; it’s the art of fixing problems. Devices are a means, not an end. Fixing problems means first of all understanding them — and since the whole purpose of the things we do is to fix problems in the outside world, problems involving people, that means that understanding people, and the ways in which they will interact with your system, is fundamental to every step of building a system. (This is so key that we have a bunch of entire job ladders — PM’s and UX’ers and so on — who have done nothing but specialize in those problems. But the presence of specialists doesn’t mean engineers are off the hook; far from it. Engineering leaders absolutely need to understand product deeply; it’s a core job requirement.)

Note the part I quoted above. I didn't quote this part: relying on affective empathy — feeling another's pain — causes us to focus on anecdotes, favour individuals similar to us, and harbour other irrational and dangerous biases is completely wrong. I struggle to think of a more wrong way of explaining empathy - I think it is fair to say that the author's idea of what empathy feels like is completely different to what the rest of the world thinks. For the fact biased amongst us (which I am) I'd note that there is no citation given.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#188

Post by nopatternhere »

nl wrote: post #187
nopatternhere wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The manifesto claims empathy for colleagues and customers is not required, but clearly it is. Can you help me understand how you reached that conclusion? Here is the relevant section of the original: > De-emphasise empathy. > I've heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy — feeli…

Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts. This is wrong. Emotions - feeling - are part of what makes teams work together well and make products work with people. The reply linked on this post says it well: Engineering is not the art of building devices; it’s the art of fixing problems. Devices are a means, not an end. Fixing problems means first of all understanding them — and since the whol…

> I think it is fair to say that the author's idea of what empathy feels like is completely different to what the rest of the world thinks

I think you misunderstand what he is getting at. Yale researcher Paul Bloom wrote a whole book about this concept of empathy as a bad thing, and I think that is what the manifesto is getting at (I'd almost argue quoting): https://www.amazon.com/Against-Empathy-Case-Rational-Compass... TL;DR is this:

> We often think of our capacity to experience the suffering of others as the ultimate source of goodness. Many of our wisest policy-makers, activists, scientists, and philosophers agree that the only problem with empathy is that we don’t have enough of it.

> Nothing could be further from the truth, argues Yale researcher Paul Bloom. In AGAINST EMPATHY, Bloom reveals empathy to be one of the leading motivators of inequality and immorality in society. Far from helping us to improve the lives of others, empathy is a capricious and irrational emotion that appeals to our narrow prejudices. It muddles our judgment and, ironically, often leads to cruelty. We are at our best when we are smart enough not to rely on it, but to draw instead upon a more distanced compassion.

This is how that manifesto is being so miscategorised. It says - DIRECT QUOTE - "relying on affective empathy — feeling another's pain — causes us to focus on anecdotes, favour individuals similar to us, and harbour other irrational and dangerous biases". Not empathy is not required. Not empathy is useless, but a specific, nuanced usage of empathy. It is understandable this miscategorisation given how most people see empathy, but it is still borderline strawmanning to impose a definition here that was not intended.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#189

Post by [deleted] »

nl wrote: post #187
nopatternhere wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The manifesto claims empathy for colleagues and customers is not required, but clearly it is. Can you help me understand how you reached that conclusion? Here is the relevant section of the original: > De-emphasise empathy. > I've heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy — feeli…

Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts. This is wrong. Emotions - feeling - are part of what makes teams work together well and make products work with people. The reply linked on this post says it well: Engineering is not the art of building devices; it’s the art of fixing problems. Devices are a means, not an end. Fixing problems means first of all understanding them — and since the whol…

[deleted]

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#190

Post by jfnixon »

api wrote: post #127
MichaelGG wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original doc doesn't argue women shouldn't be in tech, so it is irrelevant what some people suggest. It argues a 50/50 parity might not exist in part due to biology. What if it turns out that one gender is on avg smarter but with less range of intelligence (with some magically perfect measurement of intelligence, to avoid claims of test bias). So if that was true, would we THEN be OK with other than 50/50 split i…

You are correct that the doc does not argue this. I'm arguing that the doc's author fails to understand the purpose of diversity measures. They are not to make people equal but to challenge culture. Only CRISPR/CAS9 or similar could actually alter biologically based inequality. That being said I'm very skeptical of an innate gender disadvantage in coding. Some of the earliest coders were women back when it was consid…

If the various diversity initiatives were about culture... but they aren't. How culturally diverse is a 50/50 gender split along with a great match to general population racial percentages? I'd say you can't tell. Culture is more than gender and race.
Post reply on HN