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

251–260 of 684 posts

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

#251

Post by jpmattia »

josephg wrote: post #180
jpmattia wrote: post #45

I'm surprised greater attention is not focused on the fact the "science" is in the midst of a reproducibility crisis. This is a big issue in the hard sciences; I can only imagine what it's like in the squishy science of gender behavior. Tying your reputation to such a soft foundation is just inviting trouble.

The people-things orientation has an extremely large effect size for social science. The Su et al. meta-analysis from 2009 found an effect size of 0.86 with N > 500,000 participants. Lippa (N > 200,000) found an effect size of 1.40. http://sci-hub.cc/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x If you don't believe the research is solid, please post some convincing counter studies.

> If you don't believe the research is solid, please post some convincing counter studies.

It sounds like you don't understand the reproducibility crisis: It's not up to me to produce counter studies, it's up to you to produce replications of the already published work, using the exact same methods and techniques.

So far, the reproducibility in the psychological sciences has been pretty poor. Nature summarized the original test a couple of years ago: 61 out of 100 replications failed in the test.

https://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-...

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

#253

Post by Mangalor »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #183
Delmania wrote: post #171

From below (I wanted to make sure this didn't get hidden under a downvoted comment): >I fail to understand how a memo calling for MORE diversity can get headlined as "anti-diversity memo" on all big media outlets. Do journalists even do independent research anymore or are they just regurgitating whatever reuters send their way without scrutiny? The author is referring to psychological diversity, in other words, Googl…

> To invoke Goodwin's Law, perhaps we should be more sympathetic to the viewpoints of Nazis? How about white supremacists? There's a movie on Netflix at the moment, a German movie called "Er Ist Wieder Da" ("look who's back") about Hitler returning in modern-day Germany. It's part movie, part documentary - the actor playing Hitler travels around the country and talks to people about politics and the like, and finds t…

So...we should value the opinions of Nazis? Are we really at that level?

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

#254

Post by cpncrunch »

ebola1717 wrote: post #221

If all this science were the end all be all, the low level engineers would be men, and men with their evolutionary handicap for empathy would be none of the managers, leaders, designers, product managers. That's how it is right?

No. Try actually reading the memo and learn a bit about statistics and bell curves.

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

#255

Post by bryanlarsen »

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…

The problem with scientific studies is that they're great at describing a population, but generally have very little predictive power at the individual level.

For example, one of the studies that showed boys were better than girls at math showed that if you chose a random boy and a random girl, there was a 55% chance that the boy was better at math. Not very much different from flipping a coin at an individual level, but quite significant in a population.

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

#256

Post by jorgemf »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #65
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…

I personally never called it out for sexism. I called it out for regressive-thinking as a solution based on plain fact. I can only be brief right now, but it's starting to get to me how so many people in an innovative sphere seem to have such a hard time with this. To me, it seems like it shouldn't be a second thought. If the main argument is that women do not [by nature of our scientific understanding] have minds tu…

> edit: Wanted to add, a PhD of neurosexuality is probably one of the last people I would consult on philosophy, humanism or any kind of larger social issue. It's not exactly her scope. It does help to have an expert on the subject chime in on the science, though. It will help at least dispose of that less useful side of the discussion.

Please respect all the researches, they usually read out of their main topic to get more data and more opinions. She works in neursexuality and probably has read a lot more from philosophers, humansims and other larger social research than you.

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

#257

Post by hasenj »

omikun wrote: post #202
piokoch wrote: post #57

I am always surprised that well educated people who are definitely not "creationists" but consider evolution as a way human kind developed are ready to ignore evolution when it comes to gender. Clearly man and woman are different physically and mentally as for millenias they played different roles. Why "gender people" keep ignoring that and are claiming that sex is not something inborn and is a "cultural" phenomena i…

You're confusing the way things are versus the way things should be. Evolutionary biology explains the way things are. Diversity measures combats that with the goal of getting us to the way things should be. There are a host of reasons why things are the way they are now. The memo tries to offload some of that to biological explanations and cites studies. Then he makes a leap of faith and recommends the should based…

Without further clarification or elaboration, your comment does not seem to make much sense.

Consider the extreme case of children vs adults. Should we advocate for policies that force companies to employ children because we think it's more equal that way?

I'm not trying to say women are children or anything like that, just taking your position to it's absurd conclusion to show that it's at least questionable.

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

#258

Post by pygy_ »

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 necessarily. These populations may have, for genetic reasons, a smaller gendered difference in tech interest.

The "young males prefer trucks, young females prefer dolls" split is also found in chimps FWIW.

Interest drives practice and practice drives skill.

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

#259

Post by mcv »

jamesrcole wrote: post #182
mcv wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You follow different people than I do. I saw people engage with the arguments. Google's official responses explained how diversity was essential to their company.

> I saw people engage with the arguments. That doesn't invalidate what I said. I said "What disturbs me most about this incident is how many people's first instinct..." I never said that literally every single person's response was like this. Are you trying to argue that there weren't a lot of people doing what I said?

Well, yes. I didn't see anyone try to suppress those views. Quite the contrary, they were widely shared. And then criticised.

He wasn't silenced in any way. His message reached way more people than he probably ever imagined.

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

#260

Post by brighteyes »

Delmania wrote: post #171

From below (I wanted to make sure this didn't get hidden under a downvoted comment): >I fail to understand how a memo calling for MORE diversity can get headlined as "anti-diversity memo" on all big media outlets. Do journalists even do independent research anymore or are they just regurgitating whatever reuters send their way without scrutiny? The author is referring to psychological diversity, in other words, Googl…

> perhaps we should be more sympathetic to the viewpoints of Nazis? How about white supremacists?

Practically no one is saying that. We should cast out the tiny minority of Nazis.

What people are saying is that the views in the memo are not of a tiny minority. They are accepted by a significant part of society, by reasonable people. They are considered factual or at least debatable by many scientists. And many of the core principles are accepted by conservatives, i.e., a large wing of US politics.

What will happen to society if we aren't willing to listen across the political aisle? And if we aren't willing to listen to reasonable scientific debate?

> This memo does not call for more diversity.

It literally does call for more, including of gender and racial minorities:

> I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more

You can disagree with its practical suggestions - I do, I think many of them are harmful - but it's unfair to say it's not calling for more diversity.

Post reply on HN