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

271–280 of 684 posts

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

#271

Post by tptacek »

renaudg wrote: post #261
mwytock wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

For the n-million+1th time:

1. The memo uses the word "preference" without ever establishing whether it's talking about free choice or choice after discouragement, and so is flagrantly begging the question.

2. It's simply false that the memo makes no connection between supposed preference and aptitude, as it builds to a section about the "harms of diversity" that includes a direct claim that women in Google's workforce are less capable than men.

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

#272

Post by 52-6F-62 »

dionidium wrote: post #88
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…

"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 .

I think that a lot of the noise this whole thing drummed up as been a bit more about both.

The major concerns being how some perceive their prowess -- and who's preference is really deciding the solutions.

Aside: I've been around enough people in the general field to have heard enough thoughts about women in tech... and they're too often ill-reasoned and ill-positioned (relating to prowess and potential)... but that's more circumstantial, I admit.

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

#273

Post by iotb »

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

Inferiority nor superiority was argued. So, quite frankly, this doesn't fall into this category. You can admit to a difference without falling privy to pseudo-science. Men and women's brains are structurally and chemically different as is each individual's unique brain. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that this manifests itself in real-world observable differences.

Misapplying a wikipedia link brings zero support to the parent comment. It possibly demonstrates that you have no truthful, factual, or logically sound arguments against the facts/science that have been stated thus can only resort to demonization .. Aka trying to thinly imply what has been presented is scientific racism.

I'm African American and I'd hire this guy in a minute. Why? because I can be assured that he is capable of sound root cause analysis and wont hold back his tongue w.r.t to presenting his findings... Even if the document was 100% about the inadequacies of African Americans, Id still give him the opportunity to debate and highlight his supporting data/arguments. This is not grounds to be fired. This is grounds for a promotion.

This is invaluable in engineering... The fact that company's in the valley have grown so high and mighty that they feel that such people are dispensable is a clear sign to me that the current tech giants have no place in the future of technology that is set to unfold... As such, the problem quite clearly will resolve itself.

Good luck discovering and developing the future of technology when you can't stomach viewpoints beyond the least common denominator social consensus.... I'm so glad I ignored google's attempts to recruit me as a quota hire... which is a whole other discussion on its own (hiring minorities for market/social currency and to pad your statistics while throwing them into b.s roles that don't allow them to develop further). I went through enough of that crap in my internships. Ironically,many times I was overqualified yet constantly was looked at and treated like the dumb minority who is there to fill a seat.

The problem and wrong minded culture that select people have embarked and forced on society is clearly going to fix (sink) itself.

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

#274

Post by SippinLean »

allengeorge wrote: post #175
waistland01 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you might want to step outside friend, your 4chan is showing

Anecdotally , I've noticed more people from the left of the political spectrum being less tolerant of any view that doesn't mirror their own. Note that I'm not saying all . And, people can be left on some issues, and even then, the degree varies.

Anecdotal evidence may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases.

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

#275

Post by foolrush »

brighteyes wrote: post #219
foolrush wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the record, the "facts" cited in her post are indeed questionable. A decent sociological analysis has been making the rounds, including https://ifstudies.org/blog/five-facts-about-women-and-men-in... and https://ifstudies.org/blog/what-the-google-engineers-manifes... among others, including a presenter at Google https://twitter.com/histoftech/status/894418661741649920 Even a brief analysis of sociology would reve…

There are reasonable arguments on both sides, which rational people can debate. That's the bigger point here. Not that there is a slam dunk argument on the side of biology or society, but that we don't know where the exact truth lies, and we need to be open to discussion about it in order to find out. As scientists have been saying all along, both biological and societal factors matter. What I hope we can all agree i…

Would phrenology be acceptable to "debate"? Or race based "debates"?

It is remarkable how the need for debate is disproportionately forwarded from the side with power.

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

#276

Post by vcjohnson »

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.

For what it's worth, the stuff I've read on societies that flatten our social pressures for job roles, specifically the most egalitarian societies like in Scandinavia, have larger exaggerations of traditional job preference for the sexes rather than more equal distribution.

I don't think it's clear why both of these occur however and I haven't been convinced that people who try to derive a position solely off societal level trends tend to do anything other than show off their ideological preference on both ends of the debate.

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

#277

Post by jorgemf »

humanrebar wrote: post #262
dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think he was fired because he offended people in the company (with his opinions). If this is the case they should fire everybody because someone is going to be offended by the opinions of others. I found very stupid what google did without taking some time to analyse what happened and the consequences. The research community is turning against google with this type of articles now.

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

#278

Post by zzalpha »

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'm just gonna copy another comment I made elsewhere:

The problem is that the gender differences cited cannot, in aggregate, explain the 70/30 bias toward men in the industry.

There's a real similarity to the global warming debate, here. There are many factors that affect global mean temperature. For example, over the very long term, the sun will get brighter. But that can only account for an astonishingly tiny fraction of the warming observed on the planet.

Someone who wishes to debate honestly would admit that, while there are many factors that affect global mean temperature, the rise on CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is significant, and has a demonstrable effect on temperature, making it by far the strongest influencer.

Someone who wishes to debate dishonestly will use these other explanations as a method to muddy the debate and try and turn attention toward lesser factors that cannot explain the whole effect.

Now, if you look at this current "debate", yes, there are undoubtedly biological gender differences that can explain some male/female bias in engineering (among many other disciplines).

But no serious psychologist or sociologist would claim that those differences can account for the dramatic real world bias in the industry. It simply doesn't follow.

So to claim those gender differences lie at the root of bias in the industry is a distraction. At best it's a gross misunderstanding of the science and statistics. At worst, it's a deliberately dishonest attempt to muddy the waters and confuse the debate. Personally, my bet is it's more the former than the latter.

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

#279

Post by humanrebar »

chourobin wrote: post #139
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…

"He used science to reason out a way to revert to a state of community where he stands to gain more." This is spot on right here and the main difference between the memo and this article. The memo might have cited real science but it arrived at grossly inappropriate conclusions.

> inappropriate conclusions

"Inappropriate conclusions" resembles "thought crimes" applied to a corporate/social context.

I'm fine if people think his conclusions are "incorrect", "garbage", "shoddy", "poorly argued", "unsubstantiated", and a whole host of other adjectives. These are all responses that can be part of a discussion, even a healthy one in the right context.

But "inappropriate" is a lot more puritanical. It implies the thoughts are unwelcome and should be shunned (or worse). It implies that the appropriate response isn't reason-based but power-based. Some power is social (shunning, blacklists, twitter shaming) and some is corporate (HR training, formal reprimands, notes in files, demotions, firings).

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

#280

Post by brighteyes »

alexholehouse wrote: post #93

As mentioned in the memo, gendered interests are predicted by exposure to prenatal testosterone – higher levels are associated with a preference for mechanically interesting things and occupations in adulthood. Lower levels are associated with a preference for people-oriented activities and occupations. This is why STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields tend to be dominated by men. And why we…

We do see people-focused fields like psychology dominated by women. Perhaps law is somewhere in the middle.

The memo didn't say biology was "larger than any/all combined societal/'nurture' effects". In the memo there is a section with this title:

> Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech

Note "possible". No one knows the exact combination of causes of the gap, it likely has many factors. The memo is saying there may be non-bias factors too, and that Google is blind to those, so it's pointing those out. That's not the same as saying non-bias factors are larger than everything else.

Post reply on HN