Live data from Hacker News

Google’s Testament to Political Correctness

medium.com

31–40 of 48 posts

Re: Google’s Testament to Political Correctness

#31
post #9

Not going into the merits of any particular point of view, but it's amazing to me how few people talking about identity or diversity work to ensure that their arguments aren't perceived as naked self-interest. In most areas of political life factions work to recruit seemingly nonpartisan entities to advance their agendas. They go to great lengths to compellingly demonstrate how what they want is really good for every…

> it's amazing to me how few people talking about identity or diversity work to ensure that their arguments aren't perceived as naked self-interest

I argue strongly for diversity etc. and I am a privileged high-earning healthy English speaking white dude - literally one of the easiest levels of life there is.

Re: Google’s Testament to Political Correctness

#32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's essentially the problem that the article is trying to bring attention to - our culture of intellectual hostility. The only way this will ever change is if people stop caving in to political correctness. I realize it's a prisoner's dilemma in that individually it's in nobody's best interest to speak out, but that's an incredibly selfish mindset. We need to start valuing integrity and doing the right thing. It w…

This is not the same thing, is it? From reading the comments in most forums, looks like people seems to at least partially support the contents of the memo and the guy for writing this. Also, he is not speaking out in support of the minority, he is insinuating that they may be biological not suited for the job. If only we could decide the characteristics and job of a person based on the person's birth, race and other…

but that's not what he's saying at all is it? The memo says that the diversity initiatives that google puts in place (I presume trying to get close to 50/50 gender representation) is a bad idea because more men than women are going to be developers naturally, due to gender differences in interest or aptitude. That doesn't mean women can't be developers or that female developers are less capable - it means there are naturally going to be less of them. I don't understand why so many people are misreading what the memo author was saying. Is it wilful?

Re: Google’s Testament to Political Correctness

#33
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apologies if the presentation was unclear, will see if I can make that clearer. > Additionally, a workplace works best without the friction of being a place for the discussion of politics or controversial topics. Let alone "innocuous" jokes. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. I prefer workplaces, or any environment for that matter, where we all respect each other enough to be open to the discussion of any…

The author was fired but I certainly wouldn't describe the reason as due to "any little thing they say". Most of the time people are fired for harassment, which can be nuanced but a normal company compliance training can get one up to speed. The author was probably fired for going through the wrong channel to voice this. Now not only has he attacked his company but he also alienated his female coworkers who may feel…

The channel he voiced the memo was apparently opt-in, thus I don't see that as inappropriate.

If an opposing viewpoint backed by facts and evidence make you feel alienated, then the problem is not with the person who presented the facts. Affirmative action by definition discriminates in favor of women and underrepresented racial minorities, and this is simply a fact - the very definition of affirmative action itself.

I'm a huge proponent of diversity in the sense of embracing people with different perspectives and ideas. Deciding that you need X% of females and Y% of colored people does not make you a proponent of diversity, except in the shallow sense of wanting some set of racial representation. The strongest advocates of this form of racial diversity in my experience tend to actually be the most hostile towards diversity of opinions - like all the people deeming this memo sexist who fail to bring up any coherent argument backing up their claims (since most of them never read the document).

And one of the points of the memo was that we need to de-moralize diversity and allow people to have an honest discussion over it (which he ironically got fired over).

Diversity of thought > Diversity of appearance

Re: Google’s Testament to Political Correctness

#34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was simply a list of topics that PC culture has deemed indisputable and heresy to even question. The topic of whether or not they're appropriate in a work environment is a whole different discussion. The Google memo was pertaining to their own company's diversity policy, and hence should be fair game for discussion. If that makes you feel uncomfortable, then the Obama quote at the bottom of the article summarize…

This is not just PC assertions. Generalizing characteristics of people based on their gender is harmful and exactly the reason racism is frowned upon. If biological reasons can determine if a person is fit for a particular job, let us start deciding the traits of people based on the gender, race and blood samples and assign jobs based on that. If you haven't, please watch the movie Gattaca.

> Generalizing characteristics of people based on their gender is harmful

So we should completely deny that there are differences between genders?

I strongly disagree that we should be denying reality.

Re: Google’s Testament to Political Correctness

#35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's essentially the problem that the article is trying to bring attention to - our culture of intellectual hostility. The only way this will ever change is if people stop caving in to political correctness. I realize it's a prisoner's dilemma in that individually it's in nobody's best interest to speak out, but that's an incredibly selfish mindset. We need to start valuing integrity and doing the right thing. It w…

This is not the same thing, is it? From reading the comments in most forums, looks like people seems to at least partially support the contents of the memo and the guy for writing this. Also, he is not speaking out in support of the minority, he is insinuating that they may be biological not suited for the job. If only we could decide the characteristics and job of a person based on the person's birth, race and other…

Just because women tend to be naturally more empathetic than men doesn't mean that men aren't fit to be psychologists. It just means that more women will pursue that profession.

Re: Google’s Testament to Political Correctness

#36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not just PC assertions. Generalizing characteristics of people based on their gender is harmful and exactly the reason racism is frowned upon. If biological reasons can determine if a person is fit for a particular job, let us start deciding the traits of people based on the gender, race and blood samples and assign jobs based on that. If you haven't, please watch the movie Gattaca.

> Generalizing characteristics of people based on their gender is harmful So we should completely deny that there are differences between genders? I strongly disagree that we should be denying reality.

In the memo, he mentions that the gender differences "may" be the reason for the lesser number of women in technology. There are no studies which link the differences with ability to work as a computer programmer. I would prefer we do not impose labels or assume certain characteristics on people just because they belong to specific gender, race or come from specific background - especially when it is not something they control and when the link is tenuous.

My view was like yours before and the movie Gattaca was among the most important things that changed it. In short humans are far more complex and trying to say that a person may not be interested in software engineering just because the person is of specific gender is disservice to half the population and not helpful.

Re: Google’s Testament to Political Correctness

#37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not the same thing, is it? From reading the comments in most forums, looks like people seems to at least partially support the contents of the memo and the guy for writing this. Also, he is not speaking out in support of the minority, he is insinuating that they may be biological not suited for the job. If only we could decide the characteristics and job of a person based on the person's birth, race and other…

Just because women tend to be naturally more empathetic than men doesn't mean that men aren't fit to be psychologists. It just means that more women will pursue that profession.

Are there any studies that concludes empathetic people become psychologists (honest question as I do not know)? Or is it an assumption that we make because of the nature of the profession?

Also, is empathy a function of only gender - would not the surrounding environment, role model, religion, books read, experiences in life and various other countless factors affect if a person develops empathy?

Re: Google’s Testament to Political Correctness

#38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not the same thing, is it? From reading the comments in most forums, looks like people seems to at least partially support the contents of the memo and the guy for writing this. Also, he is not speaking out in support of the minority, he is insinuating that they may be biological not suited for the job. If only we could decide the characteristics and job of a person based on the person's birth, race and other…

but that's not what he's saying at all is it? The memo says that the diversity initiatives that google puts in place (I presume trying to get close to 50/50 gender representation) is a bad idea because more men than women are going to be developers naturally, due to gender differences in interest or aptitude. That doesn't mean women can't be developers or that female developers are less capable - it means there are n…

I read in comments from people who claimed to work for Google - diversity initiatives in Google aim to bring the diversity close to the male-female ratio in the applicant pool. Couple of other companies I know where number of employees are in thousands, the diversity initiative aims to achieve something similar. That does not seem like a bad idea at all.

Humans are complex beings. Is interest in a specific field or profession a function of only gender? Would not the surrounding environment, role models, religion, books read, experiences in life and various other countless factors affect a person's interest and character?

I don't think he was wilful. He was wrong to reduce a complex subject like human interests and behaviour into a simple statistical function.

Re: Google’s Testament to Political Correctness

#39
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear you. That sounds very nice, but a work environment can simply never be the same as hanging out with a friend over lunch. There needs to be some way to discourage harassment and promote a positive, friendly work environment that values people for their skill set rather than other given irrelevant attributes. Free discussion is just not appropriate at a work place - the line must be drawn somewhere and usually t…

Professionalism itself is an evolving standard and a moving target. It varies wildly between companies, industries, cultures, and even regions within the United States. Professionalism used to mean 9-6PM M-F work with suit and tie or formal dress and strong hierarchical organizations. In some industries it still means that. The startup tech industry was sort of founded on a rebellious disregard for old standards of p…

Honestly I don't think there is much fuel added on both sides. This argument is age old. Since I was in middle school boys were asserting to me that due to biological reasons I probably wasn't as capable as them as I was very competitive in math and science. When I went to college, we heard the same argument used by Larry Summers president of Harvard.

None of this is new, especially when I discuss it with my mother and grandmother. Same story, different colors.

What I hope is that other woman continue to do what I did- ignore those people. Youll never convince them because the biological argument is impossible to disprove. The statistics are on their side. Now are the statistics due to social conditions, expectations, belief patterns, and women who simply want to avoid these discussions and intimidations - or are they from biology?

There is no hesitation from my life experience that it is the former. First woman was allowed in Harvard in the 60s. This is only just getting started but expect more of the same.

Re: Google’s Testament to Political Correctness

#40
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author was fired but I certainly wouldn't describe the reason as due to "any little thing they say". Most of the time people are fired for harassment, which can be nuanced but a normal company compliance training can get one up to speed. The author was probably fired for going through the wrong channel to voice this. Now not only has he attacked his company but he also alienated his female coworkers who may feel…

The channel he voiced the memo was apparently opt-in, thus I don't see that as inappropriate. If an opposing viewpoint backed by facts and evidence make you feel alienated, then the problem is not with the person who presented the facts. Affirmative action by definition discriminates in favor of women and underrepresented racial minorities, and this is simply a fact - the very definition of affirmative action itself.…

As I already explained diversity of thought isn't appropriate in a workplace. If it were, that would mean bullying and teasing would be appropriate. The problem is where to draw that line.

Where Google drew this line was firing someone for implying some people were undeserving of their jobs due to the biological argument. This declaration breeds hostility and is an outright attack on the qualifications of his coworkers.

As far as I know, affirmative action is practiced in colleges while companies practice seeking diversity out of the same pool of qualified applicants. I agree with this and think it's great companies can make their own decisions.

I've applied to jobs for startups where I would have been the only woman on the small team and bro culture was strong. I don't fault them but I declined those positions. I've gravitated toward companies like Google and their diversity policies have attracted talent like me. Companies do this in their own self interest.

I just want to clarify I'm not at all offended that the memo writer wrote what he did. I would feel offended if someone I worked with felt like there were too many woman in their office while there were only 5% and I felt that they were all qualified.

Even measuring qualification is tricky as unless you are someone's manager. More often than not, I've witnessed men make poor assumptions unaware of their own prejudices. For example, I got accepted to a very good college. I was surprised as to how many men thought it was only because I was a woman. However I knew for a fact I got better grades than them. I simply didn't advertise mine.

Post reply on HN