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

191–200 of 684 posts

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

#191

Post by Cthulhu_ »

program_whiz wrote: post #107

I have a question to further this debate. Would people consider it sexist to administer a completely automated test of technical and personality questions which was used by an unbiased program to hire only the best qualified candidates? What would you say if the results were essentially the same as the status quo? By the Article's Author's account, she believes that we would probably maintain the status quo with such…

There's already a number of companies that do blind reviews of resumes, or applicants that intentionally hide or change their names - not sure if it makes a big difference, also because there's just less female applicants in general.

Actually, how many female software developers can't get a job nowadays?

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

#192

Post by mistermann »

Someone wrote: post #121

I think it is unfair to call this "the Google manifesto". If I state here that it is scientifically expected to see more foos than bars on HN, and then get banned because of it, that wouldn't become HN's manifesto, either. I fear that, a few years from now, people will say it represented Google's official standpoints (which it doesn't) or those of a significant portion of its employees (which may or may not be the ca…

By firing him they took ownership.

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

#193

Post by Jabanga »

Delmania wrote: post #187
mistermann wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

> Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things > Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be and we shouldn’t deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this).

Do you believe these comments defend discrimination against women? I'm trying to understand how one could see it that way. I see both of these statements as unquestionably true, and the sexism accusation as stifling the type of free expression needed for rational dialogue. If facts are sexist, then the definition of sexism being used is wrong.

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

#195

Post by foolrush »

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…

For the record, the "facts" cited in her post are indeed questionable. A decent sociological analysis has been making the rounds, including https://ifstudies.org/blog/five-facts-about-women-and-men-in... and https://ifstudies.org/blog/what-the-google-engineers-manifes... among others, including a presenter at Google https://twitter.com/histoftech/status/894418661741649920

Even a brief analysis of sociology would reveal a deeply seated counter argument to much of the "fact" present in the screed and the OP link.

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

#196

Post by jamesrcole »

and0 wrote: post #164
jamesrcole wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think you're very intentionally trying mischaracterize people That's a pretty strong accusation. What is your evidence for that claim? Show me what I wrote that attempts to do that.

W.. what? Literally your post. I'd have to quote the whole thing. "many people's first instinct". It wasn't many people's first instinct. Again, I read the article, many others read the article and wrote detailed responses. It's not my job to point these out. Someone making a stupid argument does not obligate anyone to engage or correct them. A massive popular backlash against a shitty idea isn't "trying to shut it d…

> It wasn't many people's first instinct.

There were many people doing exactly what I said in the HN comment threads, and, for another example, in the comments under George Takei's Facebook post on the incident.

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

#197

Post by tptacek »

monktastic1 wrote: post #177
tptacek wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If that's what I did, I didn't mean to. I was primarily addressing your opening paragraph: > 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'm claiming that the reason she does this is because it is the number one point cited by many of the detractors, and it prevents us from getting into the mo…

If you want to suggest that Debrah Soh blundered by expanding a rebuttal to Yonatan Zunger's piece into a broader defense of the very dumb "anti-diversity memo", I am prepared to stipulate that. Like I said: while I may be on the same side as Zunger, I found his blog post shrill and unpersuasive. He had the facts on his side, but didn't know where to look for them, and waved his hands instead.

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

#198

Post by Cthulhu_ »

mistermann wrote: post #192
Someone wrote: post #121

I think it is unfair to call this "the Google manifesto". If I state here that it is scientifically expected to see more foos than bars on HN, and then get banned because of it, that wouldn't become HN's manifesto, either. I fear that, a few years from now, people will say it represented Google's official standpoints (which it doesn't) or those of a significant portion of its employees (which may or may not be the ca…

By firing him they took ownership.

Or they firmly distanced themselves from the author, just like what happened to both sides in Donglegate.

Not sure if the author can sue the company though, I mean on what grounds was he fired?

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

#199

Post by hackinthebochs »

sp332 wrote: post #157
dionidium wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Not really, the societies are too different to draw such conclusions. In less gender egalitarian societies a women without income is at the mercy of a sexist society. In more gender egalitarian societies, there is more social support and safety for women at lower economic levels. So in these less gender egalitarian societies, the drive to secure income is much greater and thus you would expect women to take lucrative but otherwise unappealing jobs. In societies where these pressures don't exist you would expect women to be less attracted to income in career choice. And this is how it plays out.

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

#200

Post by crispyambulance »

megous wrote: post #36

What I find interesting about all this is how many people take personal offense from statistics. (and conclusions drawn from statistics) The author seems to put an effort into explaining statistical distribution and what it means and what not. He's explicit that statistical observations can't be used to judge particular individuals. Draws a graph of overlapping distributions to drive the point home even more. I'm not…

    > She's explicit that statistical observations can't be used to judge particular individuals.
That's perfectly fine but there's a lot more to it than the statistics, even if they're valid. Moreover statistics doesn't necessarily suggest a clear conclusion and course of action for organizations and decision makers.

That didn't stop the author of the original manifesto, however, from proceeding to make a bunch of bogus smug prescriptions for what google needs to do like "de-emphasize empathy" etc. These were way above his pay grade and I find it hard to believe that diversity has harmed this person.

The fact is, Google is doing just fine. They're not in a downward spiral because of diversity initiatives. They're thriving. At a minimum one could argue that Google's diversity programs aren't hurting the performance of the company.

The author of the manifesto clearly violated Google's Code of Conduct and got fired for it.

Post reply on HN