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

31–40 of 684 posts

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

#31

Post by UK-AL »

abhi3 wrote: post #26
UK-AL wrote: post #5

Please don't flag the article if you simply disagree. The key to changing minds is understanding the other side. Not shutting them out of the conversation.

I flagged it. How many times do we need to have the same repetitive discussion? This topic is crowding out other quality submissions.

This adds additional arguments to the discussion from a person who has a Ph.D in the area, and is the of the opposite gender of the original author.

I have also seen articles about legal action being taken which was news to me, also being flagged down.

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

#33

Post by snowwrestler »

The article hides a common but incorrect assumption. Look at this paragraph:

> 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.

The assumption here is that employment in STEM industries fundamentally and solely involves "mechanically interesting things".

The reality is that tech companies are composed of people and make products for people. Google themselves have found through their own research that the best managers are defined by their people skills, not their technical skills. So why aren't the management layers of tech companies composed of mostly women?

Strong technology is important for success, but so is leadership, market fit, team dynamics, understanding the customer, etc. The hardest question in tech companies is not "how" to build, but "what" to build. This is essentially a people-oriented problem, since customers are people.

EDIT: this tweet puts it succinctly:

> WEIRD how none of these guys ever argue that because our ladybrains are better at communication and teamwork we should be paid more

https://twitter.com/kelliotttt/status/894770623611682818

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

#34

Post by UK-AL »

snowwrestler wrote: post #33

The article hides a common but incorrect assumption. Look at this paragraph: > 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, technolog…

I don't he denied that though did he. He specifically said women would prefer those roles.

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

#36

Post by megous »

What I find interesting about all this is how many people take personal offense from statistics. (and conclusions drawn from statistics)

The author seems to put an effort into explaining statistical distribution and what it means and what not. He's explicit that statistical observations can't be used to judge particular individuals. Draws a graph of overlapping distributions to drive the point home even more.

I'm not sure why would anyone get offended by statistical observation. It's not personal by definition.

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

#37

Post by dsfjksdf »

snowwrestler wrote: post #33

The article hides a common but incorrect assumption. Look at this paragraph: > 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, technolog…

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?

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

#38

Post by typicalbender »

As an additional perspective, here's an interview from James' perspective[1]. The interviewer is clearly fairly bias and holds the same viewpoint which is unfortunate but I think hearing James' perspective on the purpose of the document is interesting.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agU-mHFcXdw

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

#39

Post by and0 »

jamesrcole wrote: post #15

What disturbs me most about this incident is how many people's first instinct, when faced with views they strongly disagree with, is to try and suppress those views and the person speaking them. Not to engage with the argument or to try and argue against it, just to shut the other person down. It's a totalitarian kind of response.

Some people may have reacted that way. I think you're very intentionally trying mischaracterize people rolling their eyes the same way they always do as some sort of ignorant knee-jerk reaction.

I read the memo entirely. It was half-baked, ideologically, but also creepy. I've heard what it had to say a million times before and it's still stupid.

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

#40

Post by jazzyk »

alkonaut wrote: post #10

Why can't the memo be both sexist and science? Arguing that there are differences between genders that make one gender unsuitable for a task can be as scientific as you want, it's still sexist. It's no different from doing the same but replacing gender with race - it's racist no matter how carefully and scientifically you worded it. It's almost as if the person writing this article believes that if the manifesto is f…

Your analogy to race is wrong.

There is no research (to the best of my knowledge) claiming that there are biological differences between the same sex of different races.

But there is enough research about biological differences between sexes (and some differences are obvious, such as different hormones, etc) to at least warrant a debate.

"Sexist" is one of a handful of words that have become absolutely sacred in the US, at the expense of scientific discovery (or common sense, or both).

Post reply on HN