James Damore and three others end Google suit • Hacker News Board

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#181

Post by [deleted] » Sat, May 09, 2020, 11:58 AM UTC

magic5227 wrote: post #112

manigandham wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the summary is that men and women have different interests (in average across billions) which creates a tendency to choose different professions. This division is even more pronounced in the most egalitarian and free societies. Lack of interest in a subject does not mean a lack of capability.

If a society tells a woman she's not likely as interested in something, guess what profession she is more likely to choose? Not the one she's being told she won't be happy with.

[deleted]

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#182

Post by icebraining » Sat, May 09, 2020, 11:58 AM UTC

JSavageOne wrote: post #151

ergothus wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As someone who actually read what he wrote, I just had to bite my tongue. That's not what he said at all, As someone that also read it, those arent the words he used, but that is very much what he was saying. A facade of misrepresented psuedoscience doesnt change the intent, motivation, or reality.

> but that is very much what he was saying No it's not. Nowhere in the paper did he say that women can't become good engineers. You're literally defaming his work. Either support your accusation with evidence, or don't comment.

No, ergothus is stating their interpretation based on disclosed facts, so it's quite unlikely to be considered defamatory (in the US).

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#183

Post by coldtea » Sat, May 09, 2020, 11:59 AM UTC

ergothus wrote: post #56

daenz wrote: post #16

I remember at a previous job, a female engineer talking to other engineers when the Damore story broke. She said "I can't believe he said that women can't be good engineers" and indicated he deserved to be fired. As someone who actually read what he wrote, I just had to bite my tongue. That's not what he said at all , but even making the distinction makes you one of "them" and politicizes the workplace. It's just dis…

> As someone who actually read what he wrote, I just had to bite my tongue. That's not what he said at all, As someone that also read it, those arent the words he used, but that is very much what he was saying. A facade of misrepresented psuedoscience doesnt change the intent, motivation, or reality.

>As someone that also read it, those arent the words he used, but that is very much what he was saying.

Ah, the classic "so you mean (something not said, and never meant)"...

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#184

Post by mabbo » Sat, May 09, 2020, 11:59 AM UTC

Damore committed the ultimate sin in the corporate world- he caused a huge PR mess. Let's set aside the content of his memo (I personally don't agree with what he said) and just appreciate that he made a mess.

As has been said before, if your CEO learns your name for the same reason he has to end his vacation early, you probably should start polishing up your resume.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#185

Post by jefftk » Sat, May 09, 2020, 11:59 AM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #180

gameswithgo wrote: post #174

Google has fired a few people, liberal and conservative, for being politically insufferable. Multiple people in the news about this on various places in political spectrum. It doesn’t mean they were wrong.

> for being politically insufferable In other words for hurting their bottom line by demanding Google be better (each in their preferred way) for society and its employees?

Firing organizers was an example of that: https://medium.com/@GoogleWalkout/google-fired-us-for-organi...

I don't think firing Damore was?

(Disclosure: I work for Google, speaking only for myself)

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#186

Post by epr » Sat, May 09, 2020, 11:59 AM UTC

I'm going to go ahead and call bullshit on anyone claiming that a difference in interests does not equate to a difference in capabilities. Think about fields you are passionate about vs. fields you couldn't care less about. Do you honestly think you could excel equally in both fields? If you are going to make the argument then don't insult everyone else's intelligence by watering it down.

As freedom in a society increases, women increasingly choose different professions than men. The extent to which these reflect their innate interests rather than those imposed on them by society has a direct relationship to their relative capabilities to men in these fields in the aggregate.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#187

Post by im3w1l » Sat, May 09, 2020, 11:59 AM UTC

Smaug123 wrote: post #140

Would it be too much to ask that we collectively say "The Damore thing is obviously a [scissor statement]( https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/ ), on which otherwise-reasonable people bafflingly manage to hold different views very strongly, and we should stop talking about it forthwith because no good can come of it"? Nothing new can be said on the subject, vanishingly few people can be persua…

I think it would be productive to move the discussion to the fact that Google is for many people the arbiter of truth. And how they are and ought to deal with political controversies in light of that.

Frankly, if this controversy had happened at... I dunno... Coca Cola, it would be completely uninteresting.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#188

Post by dijit » Sat, May 09, 2020, 12:00 PM UTC

searchableguy wrote: post #173

dijit wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Focusing on the idea that women are biologically "less interested" This is the absolute crux of the entire paper, and it's very easy to view it with whatever politicising lens you want. So lets try to flippantly and dispassionately break down how he constructed the statement 1) Women in absolute aggregate seem to not like CompSci. 2) We want more women in CompSci. 3) We should make CompSci more attractive to women.…

> We want more [singleton] in [x]. > We should make [x] more attractive to [singleton]. Why? Unless the field is more toxic to [singleton] or there is more productivity due to "diversity" at which point you are admitting that people are different on biological (or social) level and have different interests, views etc.

Diversity is a desirable trait, especially in things that produce products that are designed to be used by the entire planet.

My mother explained diversity to me this way:

"We are each of us, unique but equal. Meaning that while you will grow up and be stronger than me, I will be able to produce children. This doesn't make either of us better, both should be respected as equal. There is value but difference in both." (not verbatim)

If we assume that on average women are more prone to overthinking, then it likely follows that having a women the team designing a product with a man (who, on average are more likely to be dismissive and flippant) then there's a necessary conflict, and the product will be better for everyone if it happens.

We should not be judging a fish by it's ability to climb a tree, we should instead be asking, how do we define the value of swimming and how do we ensure we have great swimmers working with us.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#189

Post by pacala » Sat, May 09, 2020, 12:00 PM UTC

zozbot234 wrote: post #133

apta wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when the profession becomes high profile, the women are driven out Because of fierce competition, where males (primarily driven by testosterone) have a higher drive to compete. It's biological. This doesn't mean that there aren't going to be women who will compete with said men, just fewer of them.

Law and medicine are very competitive fields, with a higher representation of women. And tech/CS has not always been as competitive as it perhaps is today. Hence Damore's argument is somewhat subtler than this, and focuses on diverging interests that lead to having fewer women in the pipeline to begin with. Some people point to the boom in videogames and home computers throughout the 1970s and 1980s as a reason why t…

That is an interesting question. How are law and medicine different than CS career-wise? A couple additional thoughts, not intended to be exhaustive:

* CS is notorious for its solitary aspect. Stare at a screen juggling abstractions for hours on end.

* CS is notorious for lack of career paths. Between ageism and outsourcing, once you hit 40, the perception is you are relegated to the bottom of the pile.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#190

Post by ryan-c » Sat, May 09, 2020, 12:01 PM UTC

koheripbal wrote: post #103

duxup wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be curious what the agreement is if only because it didn't seem like he had much in the way of a strong with case.

Are you serious? He was fired for his political views.

Are there protected classes based on political views?

If someone is expressing political or even religious views that are so extreme that they create a hostile work environment, I don't see an issue with firing them over it.

(I am not interested in debating whether or not Damore's views reached the "hostile work environment" threshold)