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

#261

Post by smsm42 » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:52 PM UTC

door wrote: post #215

devrandomguy wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Commenting on someone's bathing suit is not inherently sexual, because we do it in non-sexual contexts; for example, I complemented my nephiew's new swim trunks earlier this summer. A particular complement might be sexual, but we shouldn't assume that. For all we know, the guy is gay, and we are now discriminating against that. Furthermore, commenting directly on the awesomeness of someone else's body is also not inh…

>Furthermore, commenting directly on the awesomeness of someone else's body is also not sexual. Have you never admired a femal athlete, the way you admire a male athelete? I am bisexual so the analogy doesn't quite work lol. and yes sometimes that can be non-sexual, but a workplace is not a place to make those kinds of comments because it is a VERY thin line and can easily make someone uncomfortable. and 99% of the t…

> 99% of the time men commenting on women's bodies is sexual or has sexual undertones

Stereotyping is ok, as long as we do it for the right reasons!

> when's the last time you heard a straight man say something like "wow she always has super cool outfits and I love what she does with her makeup" or whatever lol.

The same time the same straight men wasn't called sexual harasser for such comment. So you basically say "men complimenting women coworkers are sexual harassers" and then ask "why don't men compliment women coworkers more in non-sexual context?". I hope you can see a case of circular reasoning here.

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

#262

Post by AnOscelot » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:53 PM UTC

remarkEon wrote: post #70

grey-area wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fail to understand the outrage but attribute that to the fact that few bothered to read Rather than assuming those who disagree with you are shallow and hysterical (a contentious word choice, given the subject), perhaps consider why others might be outraged, you could try some empathy (though I know the article warns us against empathy). The doc presents a point-of-view, grounded in reality. Furthermore it's not "a…

Sorry, but there's a whole host of psychological research that has long established behavioral differences between male and female. I find this new rejection on the Left of what are simply basic observations of biologically formed behaviors to be extremely bizarre. I'm really struggling to understand it because to me it seems like the same kind of science rejection we'd see on the Right if we were talking about clima…

Sure, there are differences. For men, no one ever expects those differences to limit what they can do. Men can be firefighters, loggers, hairdressers, florists, politicians, engineers, interior designers, party planners, chefs, teachers. There aren't many professions where people would question why a man was doing the job instead of a woman.

What the left and feminism wants is for the same consideration to be given to women. That despite gender differences, if a woman can do the job, then there are no second guesses or carping about gender. That she's allowed to just be, just like men are. That there's a recognition that while gender differences exist, men can do jobs once considered traditionally feminine, and can do them well. And that we can recognize women can do jobs once considered tradtionally masculine, and can do them well.

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

#263

Post by taysic » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:53 PM UTC

stagbeetle wrote: post #217

door wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've seen people driven out just for saying someone else looks good in a bathing suit. understandably, as that is extremely unprofessional and sexual harassment

Your comment was one of the points argued in the memo. It's important to understand and prioritize intention or else: > increases [in our] our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offense and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. This means distinguishing between a well-meaning comment and a maleficent or predatory remark.

Usually if it takes work to distinguish it's not worth it within a work environment. That's why professional environments are effective and make a pleasant place to work for all.

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

#264

Post by tomp » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:54 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #250

humanrebar wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For differences in representation to be explainable by something other than sexism --- which has been rampant in other fields, in particular medicine and law, in the past and then enduringly corrected --- you'd need to establish either that CS is somehow fundamentally different from every other hard science, virtually all of which see better (usually: much better) gender parity than CS does. In other words: you'll ne…

> CS is somehow fundamentally different from every other hard science,

Well the obvious difference is that CS is not a science at all. It's really more akin to engineering, which AFAIK has a similar gender imbalance.

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

#265

Post by DuskStar » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:55 PM UTC

chrismcb wrote: post #139

bmn__ wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I was willing to give him a fair hearing until he listed a handful of differences between men and women that he ascribes to biology without any factual support. You've been punked, Gizmodo journalism at its finest! Kate Conger withheld the factual support so that to a not-careful reader it looks like the original poster just makes stuff up. ctrl + f: "Two charts and several hyperlinks are also omitted." Note the pa…

I'm missing something, but how are those two statements different. I read the first sentence "gizmodo omitted two charts and hyperlinks" my assumption was the charts and hyperlinks held company data or pointed to company websites. But how does changing the sentence to "I omitted..." Change anything? It did you assume the omission was done by someone outside of gizmodo?

I think he's suggesting that the removed charts and links were the evidence in question, and that the author purposely removed them to make the documents arguments look weaker/less supported.

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

#266

Post by anon0394678 » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:55 PM UTC

spaceseaman wrote: post #21

ubernostrum wrote: post #2

Ah, yes, the true believer in meritocracy, who assumes that the present-day distribution of careers and job titles is a perfect reflection of inherent skills, talents and interests hard-wired in by biology. Because there is no evidence whatsoever that anyone's ever tried to rig large-scale societal systems to discriminate on the basis of factors like race or sex, and even if there ever had been such a thing, it is co…

I think your tone is a little smug but completely agree. To be frank I empathize with the writer of the article a bit. He worked very hard to achieve his position, and with that hard work comes a belief that the system he achieved in was inherently fair. It's difficult to call the situations we benefit from unfair - it's important for our self-worth that we value our accomplishments. But the key is that the author's…

> believe that they are being demonized for a political opinion

I have an acquaintance who occasionally reacts with outrage, shouting and questioning my human decency when I voice conservative points of view. Even mentioning biological differences between sexes is anathema to him and bringing up IQ makes him uncomfortable because it shows that not all people are born equal.

I have explicitly told him that at times I may argue points that I do not agree with for the sake of debate and yet he still shakes his head and complains how I can even say such bad things that only "they" would say.

It feels quite quite demonizing in ways when just debating a topic is treated as an unspeakable act. But to give him credit, he's generally a decent guy and does not act like a SJW stereotype, there are just some short outbursts.

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

#267

Post by mzw_mzw » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:56 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #125

factsaresacred wrote: post #5

I fail to understand the outrage but attribute that to the fact that few bothered to read the document before allowing themselves to be outraged by it - such is the shallow, feeling-fueled, hysteria-laden media cycle of today. The doc presents a point-of-view, grounded in reality. Furthermore it's not "anti-diversity", but rather anti-discrimination - specifically 'positive 'discrimination which it discredits while p…

The argument basically proceeds as follows: 1) Gender differences exist 2) ??? 3) Differences in representation are explainable by gender differences The problem with the "???" step is that it's unrigorous handwaving. "Women prefer working with people." Okay, so that's why the majority of accountants are women? That's why STEM fields that don't involve people at all (math, biology) actually have quite a lot of women,…

> It's not that people are angry about the article's conclusion

Yes, that's why all the journalists and self-proclaimed thought leaders are screaming for the author to be tracked down, fired, and made unemployable forever. Because they're not angry.

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

#268

Post by door » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:56 PM UTC

noddy1 wrote: post #230

door wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

read "myths of gender" or "delusions of gender" on this subject, which thoroughly debunk this essentialist nonsense about "biological" gender difference. anyone in any sociology or anthropology department will tell you how incredibly obviously false the biological essentialist position of gender is. it's literally only white men in tech or right-wing white male biologists writing outside their field of expertise who…

Anyone who knows anything about biology or genetics knows that it is absurd that there would be zero phenotypic difference between males and females. There are simply different factors driving each gender's reproductive success, and therefore the XX and XY chromosomal difference will push different traits. Sociology and anthropology depts can't handle this because they aren't interested in science.

both "myths of gender" and "delusions of gender" were written by scientists.

the fact that you still think of sex as a binary difference between xx and xy shows how far outdated your ideas about the science of sex differences are. even "biological sex" (not even gender) is a spectrum influenced by a variety of different factors

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

#269

Post by Quarrelsome » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:57 PM UTC

renaudg wrote: post #241

Quarrelsome wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Except he didn't say that the differences we observe are 100% due to biology. He did, if he didn't intend to he used the wrong language. He had a section called: > Personality Differences Where to his credit he did say: "on average" but then he failed to distinguish these differences as cultural or social. Rather he prefixed that part of the article with a section that stated: > On average, men and women biological…

You have to consider that Gizmodo has acknowledged having stripped the essay of several hyperlinks, probably lending support to his claims. This comprehensive recap could be one of them : https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/wh...

Yes but that's still the soft science of sociology and the author of the OP should tread carefully before asserting this as literal fact. It remains a conclusion of incomplete results. Obviously better than complete speculation but still no stronger than the technology used by the culture this OP is rallying against.

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

#270

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 11:57 PM UTC

renaudg wrote: post #241

Quarrelsome wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Except he didn't say that the differences we observe are 100% due to biology. He did, if he didn't intend to he used the wrong language. He had a section called: > Personality Differences Where to his credit he did say: "on average" but then he failed to distinguish these differences as cultural or social. Rather he prefixed that part of the article with a section that stated: > On average, men and women biological…

You have to consider that Gizmodo has acknowledged having stripped the essay of several hyperlinks, probably lending support to his claims. This comprehensive recap could be one of them : https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/wh...

[deleted]