Brief thoughts on the “Google memo” • Hacker News Board

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#191

Post by AstralStorm » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 7:00 AM UTC

pavlov wrote: post #119

chrisco255 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything that everyone works on affects people. Programming is no different than any other profession in that regard.

That's obviously not true, as there are major differences between professions. The work of an architect or event planner affects people directly and intimately in everyday interactions. The work of a mathematician or sociologist doesn't. Programmers' work is closer to the former group, but educational and hiring practices pretend it's more like the latter.

Is it really though. Typically programmers do not interact directly other than with other of their kind (yes I used the tribalism adjective). software architects and testers neither.

This opposed to analysts, marketing who directly engage with clients and management who interact with their own group as well as at least people they manage.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#192

Post by AstralStorm » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 7:03 AM UTC

ryan-allen wrote: post #110

pavlov wrote: post #33

The real tragedy in the discussion is this assumption, quoted from the OP: "His hypothesis implies that personality differences mean a smaller percentage of women will be interested in and/or qualified for a Google job than men" Empathy and social intelligence are actively disqualifying factors for a job at Google, or software in general? That is so wrong on so many levels. I really like Bob Wyman's take on this: htt…

If we're talking measurements then Empathy and Social intelligence are not a thing in modern psychometrics, but Extroversion and Agreeableness are, though (women score higher in men than agreeableness from what I remember). And of course they are not disqualifying factors. I think what he is referring to is that women in general prefer people to things, and that would naturally push more boys to computers. When I get…

And that is in tech in general, not even the best of it which is a tiny slice of a already small pie. (And Google aspires to be.)

I'd course it might make sense to have an ineffective programme just for PR reasons. If they can afford it.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#193

Post by throwawaymanbot » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 4:55 PM UTC

thinkfurther wrote: post #186

throwawaymanbot wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IF he was worried about his job, why did he circulate a memo with highly controversial views around the company? Hes a little entitled to think that people cared to not only hear his controversial view, but also read his memo about his controversial thoughts on this controversial subject within a private company. What outcome was he expecting from doing this? Blaming google? Seriously?

If she was worried about being raped, why did she wear a mini skirt in the bad part of town? What outcome did she expect? Blame the rapist? Seriously?

To conflate these 2 completely different things is very lousy of you, and pathetic. But It does let me see what sort of person you are, and were brought up to be.

So id like to ask you to please justify how you linked a controversial Google memo that got a guy fired, with the trash lines you just wrote. Now is your chance to explain yourself. Or... you can leave it for all to see. Its your embarrassment!

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#194

Post by observation » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 7:16 PM UTC

Aloha wrote: post #179

observation wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a thing related to this. i firmly believe that people are not reading books. At least not the old books on important subjects. I rarely meet 'educated' people who read books. I believe that the liberals in particular have lost their way intellectually post-World War II. There used to be Great Intellectuals and widespread public debates e.g. Isaiah Berlin. Today there is nothing. Maybe in place of that there is…

I don't think its just liberals - I've met as many conservatives who repeat whatever nostrums and slogans the talking heads tell them to - but cant justify or explain why they are the correct answer - and just like liberals, they're certain of the righteousness and justness of their cause. In my humble opinion, the problem is authoritarianism - left or right doesnt matter - its dangerous - the big concern I see, is h…

You're quite correct on the dogmatism, but I didn't mean 'Democrat' when I said 'Liberal'. I meant 'Liberal' in the old sense which is in a nutshell the politics of the upper middle class.

In my view Authoritarian is something in demand because of poor rulership. People sense that cracks are opening up in society and then they become more authoritarian because they sense that aggressive actions may be required to reverse the trend or prevent cracks from widening. If we have good rulers, we have reduced demand for it. We don't, the governing of Europe and the United States is shockingly bad in comparison to the past. That's not a reference to Trump, it's been a slow rot and it's been systemic. Thiel has been talking about this in his videos on Youtube, there is a basic decline in the ability of government to, putting it bluntly: get shit done.