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

261–270 of 684 posts

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

#261

Post by renaudg »

mwytock wrote: post #215
tptacek wrote: post #101

This defense of the "manifesto" is flawed just like the others. It picks out a small subset of the claims made in the document, discards the context and all the other claims, and then harangues us for having a problem with "science". I could argue "water is composed of two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule, so women are bad at software development", and my argument would just be a difference of degree worse…

Well said, it's a massive leap to go from biological gender differences to differences in aptitude for engineering. The gross oversimplified claims from the document that attempt to make this leap are textbook stereotypes.

> massive leap to go from biological gender differences to differences in aptitude for engineering

For the n million-th time : the memo said nothing about aptitude for engineering, just preference.

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

#262

Post by humanrebar »

dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #237
jorgemf wrote: post #203

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, then just how does that itself prescribe that we should stop pushing for an expansion there? You are wrong in this assumption. I am going to try to explain it. We have group A and group B with different genetics. We measure everybody in the group…

The point is, many people feel very bad at the thought that the distribution you mention exists. Some feel it's not something inherent and can be changed.

> Some feel it's not something inherent and can be changed.

That's a fair position. But it's not an indisputable position, clearly. The biggest issue here isn't about whether there are fair points against the google manifesto. It's about whether thoughts, hypotheses, and opinions like this are harmful and punishable.

> ...many people feel very bad...

And many people feel bad that someone expressed himself earnestly in good faith and has been treated this way. Do we decide where to go from here from how people feel? How do we decide which feelings are important to us?

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

#263

Post by zach »

kartan wrote: post #76

Women work in the Berlin Post Office with calculators, 1928: http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-women-work-in-the-berlin-po... The managers, a more people-oriented activity, are all men. But the people working with actual calculators are women. And it was not just this office, this was happening everywhere. Working with a calculator was a woman's job. More: http://www.history.com/news/human-computers-women-at-nasa Ther…

Data entry has always been a strongly female occupation. Even sixty years later, data entry workers were 92% female: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1987-08-02/news/870226065...

It seems concerning that the de-emphasis of data entry in programming in the 1970s and 1980s may have caused the loss of entry-level opportunities for women and help lead to our field's gender imbalance.

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

#264

Post by Chris2048 »

atomi wrote: post #189
iotb wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please define what's Regressive about plain facts... > it's starting to get to me how so many people in an innovative sphere seem to have such a hard time with this The prevailing (cultural) attitude is clearly against plain facts. The question should be why the prevailing attitude is against facts and real solutions but embraces lies and bad solutions. That is what is getting to intelligent people no matter their sp…

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

What does this prove? At some point in time, unscientific, racist practice was called science? It even says "pseudoscientific" in the article. If you are claiming that the citations in the memo are an example of pseudoscience, the burden is on you to demonstrate.

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

#265

Post by akamaka »

avenoir wrote: post #150
akamaka wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This article is trash. Who is claiming that there are no gender differences across the population? Who is she arguing against exactly? Maybe the author should have actually read the manifesto more carefully, because it is primarily an argument about Google's hiring practices and how to build the best workforce for a company, a topic which the scientific studies she cites do not address in the slightest.

> Who is claiming that there are no gender differences across the population? About a quarter of comments on the original manifesto thread here on HN were from people who explicitly stated that there are no differences between genders and wanted scientific proof if someone were to refute their statement.

I don't think that's accurate. Nobody was trying to refute the science that was cited by the manifesto writer. There were many comments arguing that environmental factors are more important, or pointing out that the science of testosterone's effect hasn't been directly connected to job performance, which I think are great subjects to debate.

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

#266

Post by Chris2048 »

weddpros wrote: post #227
52-6F-62 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The problem is Google fired this guy for distributing WRONG information. Wrong is the important word here. If the information is right, it completely changes the case, and the guy was fired for Wrong reasons. I hope he'll sue and win his job back (yes, I think Google needs this guy more than ever).

He should be the new D&I person. At least he has something more substantial to offer than doublespeak.

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

#267

Post by dustinmoris »

alkonaut wrote: post #240
dustinmoris wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I can tell you exactly what you misunderstood: The English language. You are making shit up, because at no point in this whole memo did the author use the word "unsuitable" or "suitable" AT ALL. AT NO POINT. Yet, people like you constantly keep quoting him saying "genders or sexes that make one unsuitable for a given task". Go back to school, I am seriously losing tolerance with this stupidity. Enough is enough.…

As it has been made obvious I other parts of this thread, people even disagree on what sexism or racism is. Some argue that falsehood is required, for example. I use the definition that includes prejudice, stereotyping or discriminating based on gender, and irrespective of whether something is factual (I.e I do not subscribe to the idea that facts can't be sexist/racist). I apologize for reading the "unfit" between t…

He mentioned Neuroticism as a characteristic which has been observered higher on average with women and cited it with a link to wikipedia which also makes the exact same statement, which again cites other scientific resources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism

Does that make Wikipedia sexist?

Which one is sexist to you, or do you find both sexist:

"Women have less stress tolerance"

"Scientific studies show that Neuroticism, a personality trait which is related to less stress tolerance, is on average more common among women than men"

There is a huge difference and if you don't see it, then I think all educational material, books, research, science, really anything is lost on you

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

#268

Post by SippinLean »

Jabanga wrote: post #159
SippinLean wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they acknowledge that our society differs from that of our evolutionary ancestors, and that this context matters in determining social policy, and does not amount to "ignoring evolution".

Postmodernists reject the role evolution plays in human attributes. They reject its effect on intelligence, gender and race.

Easily disproved by the entire school of evolutionary psychology and many other modern schools of thought. The question is if there is more to consider in social constructs than simply evolutionary biology.

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

#269

Post by alkonaut »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #186
alkonaut wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't. However, it's a fine line. Pro sports is a bit special, but it might be racist to not let a player try out because of an asian name, quoting that "thanks for your letter, but asian men are on average so short that we don't want to see you". Context, and what precise actions are taken is important here. The underrepresntation of black people in tech isn't "racist" though there are probably a lot of racist act…

> Pro sports is a bit special, but it might be racist to not let a player try out because of an asian name, quoting that "thanks for your letter, but asian men are on average so short that we don't want to see you". Well of course it is, but it's inaccurate to suggest that the gender disparity in tech is entirely attributable to companies turning away female applicants on account of their gender. And if the suggestio…

> it's inaccurate to suggest that the gender disparity in tech is entirely attributable to companies turning away female applicants on account of their gender.

And that's why no one makes that argument I hope!

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

#270

Post by Chris2048 »

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.

> more equal representation in tech, India and Malaysia for example

Places where women also have less choice / self-determination. When women get to choose their career path, they do not choose tech. That is the relevant correlation suggested as a cause.

Post reply on HN