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

James Damore and three others end Google suit

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 1001 posts

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#191

Post by coldtea »

ergothus wrote: post #107
koheripbal wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's so disappointing to read this. I don't see how his thesis of "everyone needs to be treated by their individual merits because personal variances grossly outweigh any gender bias" can be interpreted as sexist. He was literally preaching for equality. His point was that affirmative action programs do companies a disservice by making minority/women employees seem like they didn't get there through their own merit,…

Focusing on the idea that women are biologically "less interested" (but don't worry, we aren't talking about the good ones you may know, they are just statistical outliers) and trying to twist up scientific "proof" for that does not lead me to trust him or his motives. Being blind to the widespread dismissive, discriminatory, and derogatory behavior that routinely drives women from the industry does not inspire confi…

>Focusing on the idea that women are biologically "less interested" (but don't worry, we aren't talking about the good ones you may know, they are just statistical outliers) and trying to twist up scientific "proof" for that does not lead me to trust him or his motives.

"Biological sex plays no role in life choices / job preferences" (which is different than: "we should not prevent people from going into X choice/profession because of their biological sex". A priori considering the former as "truth" / "obvious" etc is also a political idea.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#192

Post by h4l0 »

mabbo wrote: post #171
JSavageOne wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> those arent the words he used, but that is very much what he was saying > Nowhere in the paper did he say that You both are saying the same thing- he did not use those exact words. The parent comment is saying that despite not saying "Women can't be engineers", the entire purpose of the paper, in the view of that reader, was to insinuate that women can't be engineers. It's not terribly hard to promote an idea witho…

> in the view of that reader, was to insinuate that women can't be engineers

Although his intentions were unclear by his vague approach to the subject, I believe he didn't mean to say women can't be engineers.

Most of the time he gave population-based examples of how women decided not to be engineers. His thesis was to show that forcing women in STEM fields is not a fair practice to both women and men who want to be STEM professionals.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#193

Post by judofyr »

alexpetralia wrote: post #145
magic5227 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She's not wrong. He shared a manifesto about gender differences in the workplace. In it, he calls women neurotic. Whether people's read on the manifesto is reductive of his overall argument isn't the point. He showed a serious lack of judgement writing and posting that in his workplace. He should not have played the part of expert gender/psychology expert. A researcher he cites specifically disagrees with his takeawa…

> He calls women neurotic. Neurotic, as he uses it, is not the same way it is used in everyday parlance. Neurotic is part of the Big 5 personality traits, for which there is substantial academic evidence. The traits are: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extroversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. He is using "neurotic" in the psychological and clinical sense. I believe he specifies as much in his actual paper.

> He is using "neurotic" in the psychological and clinical sense. I believe he specifies as much in his actual paper.

Eh. He's using the psychological/clinical definition, but then draws conclusions on no scientific basis.

This is what he said in the memo:

> [Women, on average, have more] neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance): This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.

And this is a quote from the person who actually did the meta-analysis which Damore cites (emphasis is mine):

> These sex differences in neuroticism are not very large, with biological sex perhaps accounting for only 10 percent of the variance.

> It is unclear to me that this sex difference would play a role in success within the Google workplace (in particular, not being able to handle stresses of leadership in the workplace. That’s a huge stretch to me),

[1]: https://www.wired.com/story/the-pernicious-science-of-james-...

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#194

Post by zozbot234 »

hckr_news wrote: post #116
jashmatthews wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He skipped over classical liberal and very quickly gave interviews to prominent alt-right figures like Stefan Molyneaux.

He also tweeted during the middle of this, "The KKK is horrible and I don't support them in any way, but can we admit that their internal title names are cool, e.g. 'Grand Wizard'?" So... shrugs

That's obviously a joke, though. (It's also on Twitter. Everyone acts weird on Twitter.)

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#195

Post by seemslegit »

look_lookatme wrote: post #55
azinman2 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But he did become an alt-right / Fox News / conservative machine darling.

And Snowden defected to Russia. Sometimes you just have to go where you are free to state your case and not be shouted down which sometimes means an enemy-of-my-enemy scenario.

Snowden did not "defect to Russia", he got stuck in Russia while in transit after the US cancelled his passport.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#196

Post by kryogen1c »

koheripbal wrote: post #105
jpmoral wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand this PoV. Regardless of the Chinese government's incorrect handling of the coronavirus, deliberate or not, they did not dictate nor control the US response. I'm sorry about your friends' grandparents, but what's happening in the US right now is all on the US.

They blocked all travel out of Wuhan, EXCEPT international flights - including direct flights to LA, SF, NYC and Washington State - for weeks. ...despite knowing that infected people were leaving the country. They also denied that the virus was human-to-human transmissible for weeks after they knew. Every country could have done a better job, but China was malicious in their response.

> They also denied that the virus

they deliberately and knowingly lied to the WHO, point of fact.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#197

Post by discordance »

mabbo wrote: post #184

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.

Yet he still got a payout

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#198

Post by varjag »

look_lookatme wrote: post #12

Damore does not fit into the neat ideological right or left classification but it would be impossible for an institution like Bloomberg to have nuance on this issue. Just because some deplorable lifted him up doesn't mean he should be defined specifically on an ideological axis. But, of course, who gives a fuck. The rage machine rages on.

His political standing is fairly transparent.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#199

Post by reroute1 »

ergothus wrote: post #107
koheripbal wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's so disappointing to read this. I don't see how his thesis of "everyone needs to be treated by their individual merits because personal variances grossly outweigh any gender bias" can be interpreted as sexist. He was literally preaching for equality. His point was that affirmative action programs do companies a disservice by making minority/women employees seem like they didn't get there through their own merit,…

Focusing on the idea that women are biologically "less interested" (but don't worry, we aren't talking about the good ones you may know, they are just statistical outliers) and trying to twist up scientific "proof" for that does not lead me to trust him or his motives. Being blind to the widespread dismissive, discriminatory, and derogatory behavior that routinely drives women from the industry does not inspire confi…

Great don't trust him don't like him don't feel comfortable... That doesn't change the fact he posted biological truths did NOT say women can't be good engineers which is what you exactly try to project on him over and over and makes you look silly and wrong. It was in response to him not getting traction via internal channels and only after he talks about his legit concerns in this memo does it finally blow up... Not surprising Google has very loud outspoken minority groups

What about all the people that were made uncomfortable by his firing? Can we fire those responsible for that? This got so silly so fast

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#200

Post by toyg »

saagarjha wrote: post #63
lettergram wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My thoughts as well - makes sense. It's going to continue to bring Google a headache, especially with conservatism on the apparent rise (i.e. still could have Trump in 2024). Far easier to settle with a non-disclosure clause and an agreement to halt all public appearances. James Damore went on a campaign of visiting universities and other locations to discuss his views. Honestly, it was a good move, his case was weak…

> still could have Trump in 2024 You mean you think he'll lose this election but come back to win the next one?

Wouldn’t put it past him. Berlusconi kinda did that, alternating wins and losses fairly regularly over 20 years (while his opponents changed every few years). I think he started younger than Trump though.
Post reply on HN