The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science • Hacker News Board

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

#281

Post by ObnoxiousProxy » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 3:27 PM UTC

Delmania wrote: post #233

Jabanga wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe these comments defend discrimination against women? I'm trying to understand how one could see it that way. I see both of these statements as unquestionably true, and the sexism accusation as stifling the type of free expression needed for rational dialogue. If facts are sexist, then the definition of sexism being used is wrong.

It's subtle, but yes. These 2 lines essentially state that as women are more interested in people, there are some roles they might not be able to perform. A little further down he makes a similar claim that since women look more towards work life balance, technical and leadership roles may not seek out leadership roles as much as men. This can be used again to claim women don't belong in those roles. This is also bul…

The author mentions many many times throughout his memo that these are 'average' observations and by no ways representative of the entire female population. The author did not say that all women are more interested in people, merely that there is a higher proportion in comparison to the male population.

The author suggests that when these average statistics propagate into life decisions and employment preferences, you end up with an equilibrium with less females in these roles.

You write 'This can be used again to claim women don't belong in those roles' but the author did not use this to claim such a thing! 'I know several women' precisely coincides with what the author wrote. Again, he pointed out multiple times throughout that he was not generalizing but was merely looking at average trends.

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

#282

Post by Chris2048 » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 3:27 PM UTC

52-6F-62 wrote: post #248

blusterXY wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> just how does that itself prescribe that we should stop pushing for an expansion there? You are the only one being "prescriptive". If a class of people doesn't prefer (in aggregate) to do the kinds of work you want them to do, what right do you have to insist that it is better for them if they are forced to do this work? When did it become feminist to lecture women about the sort of work environment they should wan…

The practices at places like Google have been designed to get women who want to be in the field into the field . They're far from perfect. Being a straight white male in a progressive country and working at a larger corporation that is currently undergoing many of the same situations and issues that this whole thing is about -- I will likely be passed over to share the opportunity with people who traditionally have n…

> That's fine by me. I just have to adjust my trajectory.

And silence your mouth? There is a big difference between "I'm fine with this" and "Anyone who isn't should be fired".

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

#283

Post by highfiveui » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 3:27 PM UTC

foolrush wrote: post #218

Jabanga wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is toxic postmodernist/feminist dogma. It frames everything through a lens of identity power struggles. Therefore, whether an argument is scientific and factual is secondary to what identity group the person making it belongs to, and what their group stands to gain from it. This ideological lens is anti-science, anti-cooperation, extremely racist/sexist and ultimately focused on only one objective: reducing the…

You realize that science is ideological, epistemological, and political? Edit: I appreciate all of the vote downs. Empiricism is as guilty in choosing models according to power dynamics as any ideological endeavor. See phrenology. To suggest science isn't political and ideological is absolutely delusional.

Is science not about finding the truth above all else?

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

#284

Post by akamaka » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 3:27 PM UTC

jp_sc wrote: post #209

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.

She is arguing against the way the memo was reported by the media. Like this piece http://gizmodo.com/men-have-always-used-science-to-explain-w...

That article is trash as well, and it fairly got flagged when it was posted here. I think HN is a place for a more enlightened discussion.

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

#285

Post by dsfjksdf » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 3:27 PM UTC

rexpop wrote: post #205

dsfjksdf wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that is not related to "shortage of women in tech/STEM". More women in management wouldn't change that. Maybe it is just difficult to put managers without experience in the trenches in front of people? That is, managers who have no tech skills as such?

> without experience... who have no tech skills Sorry, who are you describing? What group?

The hypothetical managers (women) with no tech skills. The comment I was replying to said many women might do better as managers than in tech.

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

#286

Post by lmickh » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 3:28 PM UTC

mousa wrote: post #136

riffraff wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIU, but I cannot reference, this was sent to a limited group of people, got forwarded and then became viral.

The way it was published does not lead me to believe that story. The link to the document riffed on documents whose authors want all Googlers to read them and fix their broken ways.

According to the interview with the author linked in comments above, he published it internally a month ago. The fact that it only got linked and went viral weeks later would indicate it was originally limited.

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

#287

Post by omikun » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 3:28 PM UTC

peoplewindow wrote: post #90

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 guy's post was science, according to scientists - 5 of them have now spoken up saying that. Maybe there'll be more. With respect to "why not try to solve it", it's a reasonable question. The guy answers that too - he is all for trying to solve it. He even makes suggestions about new ways to do it, like encouraging pair programming. But he feels the current solutions aren't working and are, in fact, causing bigger…

> But he feels the current solutions aren't working and are, in fact, causing bigger problems. They might also be illegal. That seems like a good reason to pause for a moment and re-evaluate if the current strategy is a good one.

In fact, he goes farther. He says this "Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business." Where is the science to back that up?

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

#288

Post by vowelless » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 3:29 PM UTC

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…

> Evolutionary biology explains the way things are. Diversity measures combats that with the goal of getting us to the way things should be

Who specifically told you how things should be? I fear I am witnessing the birth of a new religion here and I'm not done recovering from the teachings of the imams I grew up with...

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

#289

Post by 52-6F-62 » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 3:29 PM UTC

jorgemf wrote: post #256

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…

> 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 g…

I wasn't disrespecting her work. In this discussion, though, her writing on the hard science being referenced is extremely valuable. Her giving a conclusive statement on the intent of the original author muddies the pool a little bit.

I keep hearing "well the scientists say so!", but it's simply not enough. For instance, I am enamoured with the work of physicists and their unique ability to explain the beauty of the "clockwork of the universe", so to speak. Outside of my personal sphere, I wouldn't consult a PhD Physics for advice on breaking up a fight between friends, necessarily.

Also, I didn't attack anyone here so please leave the ad hominem jabs at home.

edit: typo

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

#290

Post by peoplewindow » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 3:30 PM UTC

danso wrote: post #229

peoplewindow wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The guy's post was science, according to scientists - 5 of them have now spoken up saying that. Maybe there'll be more. With respect to "why not try to solve it", it's a reasonable question. The guy answers that too - he is all for trying to solve it. He even makes suggestions about new ways to do it, like encouraging pair programming. But he feels the current solutions aren't working and are, in fact, causing bigger…

Why did the memo's author think that Google's current hiring practices were flawed? I mean, what empirical evidence? Were there teams full of "diversity" hires that were performing below par?

Well, did you read it? He lists the following:

"* Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5]

* A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates

* Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate

* Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)

* Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination [6]

These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology [7] that can irreparably harm Google."

There are some hyperlinks that are presumably citations but they go to internal links so we don't know what they say.

So that's why he thinks that.