The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google • Hacker News Board

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#231

Post by stagbeetle » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:40 PM UTC

door wrote: post #168

Invictus0 wrote: post #22

It is one thing to debated the veracity of a view, it is another to declare that that view should not be debated. For every point there is a counterpoint; every argument a counterargument. Arguing that the reasoning is flawed is not sufficient to ban it from discussion.

personally a bunch of middle class white male tech bros who have never taken a soft science course in their lives discussing racism and sexism in tech doesn't sound very productive to me. it's shocking how little humility that group of people has, how unwilling they are to say "hey I don't really understand this, I should defer to someone who does", how eager they are to use their hamfisted biological essentialism to…

>bunch of middle class white male tech bros who have never taken a soft science course in their lives discussing racism and sexism in tech doesn't sound very productive to me.

This is a strawman unless there is more data to back it up.

Anecdotally, I'm aware many CS bachelors have a "general education" requirement, which includes soft sciences and humanities.

Let's also not forget soft sciences are just that -- soft. They are not as scientifically rigorous as hard sciences, and face similar problems that economics does (another soft science). This includes over-simplifying with unaccountable variables and a wide-spread dissonance and lack of agreement within.

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#232

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:40 PM UTC

acdha wrote: post #213

renaudg wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here you go : https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/wh...

That blog post doesn't go into biological reasons — read through it and for each bit of evidence, ask whether the relationship described could be explained by social expectations in early childhood. Talking about career preferences in high school students is much later than what people are talking about – socialization starts before they can talk! I'm married to a neuroscientist and have spent a lot of time talking w…

[deleted]

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#233

Post by renaudg » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:40 PM UTC

Quarrelsome wrote: post #216

home_boi wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The suggestion that men and women ARE different is taboo. This is the assumption being made by diversity hiring and diversity advocates. That some races/genders have different perspectives and viewpoints than others. It can quickly follow that some of these viewpoints may make a person more or less fit for certain careers.

The difficulty is whether those differences are biological, social or cultural. Its hard to tease those differences apart with our current tools. I'll stick with the assumption that its the latter two just because its more convenient and diplomatic. Maybe the genetic data we mine in future generations will give us the real answers but I don't see any advantage in pressing the biological argument until then (as I'm no…

We don't need to wait for genetic data mining, this has been widely studied already.

Differences are visible within the first two days of birth : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222673203_Sex_Diffe...

and are present in monkeys too : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/

I'll let you draw the conclusion.

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#234

Post by evgen » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:40 PM UTC

renaudg wrote: post #148

brians wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boys are encouraged to build and to play ball. Girls are encouraged to perform and to play tea. Why would we expect the stereotypical difference to be biological at all? I'm sure there are some differences in tendencies, but I'm not at all sure they'll avoid being swamped by environmental effects, socialization, and individual variation.

Because it happens even in monkeys : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/ I've posted it elsewhere in the thread already, but this article is a good recap of research on the topic : https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/wh...

That is not a "good recap of research", it is a motivated collection of cherry-picked data points put together to suit the author's political purpose. Dig a bit on the author of the piece and you will get a feel for his objectives, and dig a bit into the actual points he is, poorly, attempting to make in the article and you will see that they seem to hand wave over a bunch of questions that any real researcher would examine further. Please provide real research rather than spamming this blog post as though it was actually a useful contribution to the conversation.

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#235

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:41 PM UTC

swframe2 wrote: post #104

I was talking to coworker who recently transferred from China to the US. He told me that China is will dominate the US because diversity is the greatest US weakness. Kind of shocking because our company is about 1/3 White, Indian and Chinese. But he doesn't see that as diversity. I think that is the answer that he can't see. Once groups accept each other as equals diversity becomes a non-issue. It does take work and…

[deleted]

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#236

Post by remarkEon » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:41 PM UTC

door wrote: post #178

throwanem wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sociology and anthropology being, of course, fields particularly noted for their peerless objectivity and rigor...

uh yeah i'd rather trust people who study society for a living for their opinions on social theory than some computer science major who has never taken a soft science class in his life

So your comment is (rightly) getting downvoted. I think readers here tend to reject anecdotal arguments and rely on data. The critiques of sociology and anthropology are legitimate: those fields are not like technical fields and they lend themselves to weird conclusions that don't get peer reviewed in a way that's different from, say, math or physics.

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#237

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:41 PM UTC

door wrote: post #178

throwanem wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sociology and anthropology being, of course, fields particularly noted for their peerless objectivity and rigor...

uh yeah i'd rather trust people who study society for a living for their opinions on social theory than some computer science major who has never taken a soft science class in his life

[deleted]

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#238

Post by smsm42 » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:41 PM UTC

santoshalper wrote: post #25

asploder wrote: post #7

It’s interesting that the author considers the conceptual framework of microaggressions spurious, while describing his negative experiences as a conservative Googler in terms of what a feminist might describe as microaggressions. To further undermine his own point, he asserts that several harms against conservatives have been caused by these microaggressions. The difference between effective negative feedback and har…

I noticed that as well. I find it interesting that the alt-right has started to embrace so much of modern feminist/liberal terminology and tacitly accepted so many of the premises. The modern alt-right conservative: "I don't believe in safe spaces, but please stop bullying me!"

There's a difference between asking not to be fired because somebody overheard and misunderstood your conversation as being "microagression" and asking mentioning anything that might upset you to be proscribed. In fact, the persons doing the latter are very likely to be the perpetrators, and not the victims, in the former. So it's completely logical - what they are saying is "we do not believe in declaring everything that we disagree with is violence and should be purged from existence, and we do not want to be purged from existence because we think so". I think there's nothing wrong in such opinion.

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#239

Post by Quarrelsome » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:42 PM UTC

renaudg wrote: post #233

Quarrelsome wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difficulty is whether those differences are biological, social or cultural. Its hard to tease those differences apart with our current tools. I'll stick with the assumption that its the latter two just because its more convenient and diplomatic. Maybe the genetic data we mine in future generations will give us the real answers but I don't see any advantage in pressing the biological argument until then (as I'm no…

We don't need to wait for genetic data mining, this has been widely studied already. Differences are visible within the first two days of birth : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222673203_Sex_Diffe... and are present in monkeys too : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/ I'll let you draw the conclusion.

Yes but to speculate that a baby's desire to look at a face more means they're less able to negotiate their pay is a bit of a leap (as opposed to that being social or cultural). Sure there are literal differences between gender but one still has to ask that if those differences are big enough to make a difference following the YEARS of nurture or not.

I'll wait till the genetic data mining transitions this from speculation to fact thank you very much.

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#240

Post by humanrebar » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:44 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #162

smsm42 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem with the "???" step is that it's unrigorous handwaving. Probably because nobody actually knows right now what actually causes the differences and how. The case that is caused exclusively by entrenched sexism - somehow driven by people graduating from the same institutions who have been fighting sexism for decades now, and by the same people who repudiate and denounce sexism on every corner - also does n…

Read what Rayiner wrote more carefully. Computer science is unique among STEM fields --- even mathematics --- in its gender imbalance. The "???" here has a name: it's called "special pleading". It's not hard to see why people would get angry at a special pleading intended to excuse gender disparities.

The article is objecting to special pleading in a different direction. In other words, there's another train of thought:

1) Sexism exists

2) ???

3) Differences in representation are explainable by sexism

I think the original article was making a more nuanced argument allowing for an interconnected set of factors explaining the gender imbalance.