Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

About This Googler's Manifesto

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 404 posts

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#331

Post by am1988 »

fatso83 wrote: post #327
am1988 wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe he should have thought about that before he posted it. The author of the medium article is right that the manifesto implies that a lot of coworkers are less capable. It's a grey area though.

Where does he say that? There are lots to say/critique on that manifest, but Yonatan's commentary piece is pure dishonest bile. Ironically it also strengthens the claim of an authoritarian regime at Google and its "our way or the highway" policy when facing discussions. The piece is simply garbage. It was an ad hominem that attacks viewpoints the original author never presented, such as "... how women and men are int…

It's the obvious implication from stating that women are biologically prone to being inferior engineers, and that they should end diversity hiring programs.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#332

Post by [deleted] »

untog wrote: post #299
blub wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's inhuman to attempt to destroy someone's life for having politically incorrect opinions, no matter what those opinions are. The employee should instead give them a warning and educate them. Writing a manifesto is not a capital crime.

More or less inhumane than forcing a gay employee to work alongside someone that has publicly stated he thinks gay people should be killed? The problem is that someone has to bear a cost when opinions like this are made public.

[deleted]

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#333

Post by mcphage »

thehardsphere wrote: post #230
mcphage wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. All of human moral progress can be briefly summarized as "not hurting other people". Solving disagreements through discussion is better than solving them through violence, but you don't solve disagreements via discussion if you attack them verbally.

Right, and because it's hard to have discussions that may not be easy to resolve, it far easier to re-label those disagreements as "attack them verbally." Hence, the new thoughtcrime.

So tell me why you labeled "people disagree with me" as "thoughtcrime"

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#334

Post by retox »

to_bpr wrote: post #19

Is there any other professional industry as politically divided and toxic as tech has become? Is there any other industry in which private companies shove their "values" down the throats of their employees in the manner we experience in tech?

Game development, though that's still tech. The cause may be that these fields are mainly formed of young Americans who have recently been through the marxist training camps known as university.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#335

Post by lsh123 »

When people I manage ask me about career advice, I always start from "Love what you do, do what you love". Over the years I saw a few examples of people who were pushed into mathematics, computer science, etc. by parents or environment but who didn't like it. Some changed their careers (my high school classmate opened a backery after a few years at Google - she absolutely loves it and would never go back to technology.

I believe we are all different and this is a good thing. The real hard social issue I think is that not all jobs are considered lucrative by the society (which is also reflected in the pay). In the ideal world, there would be good well paying jobs for everyone to fulfill their dreams.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#336

Post by Aron »

jgrowl wrote: post #130
cropsieboss wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, and somehow he knows it goes against nearly all research. That manifesto is obviously inspired by recent rise in popularity of Jordan B Peterson. That guy is a very good psychologist.

I was thinking the same thing. There a lot of points he brought up that Peterson brings up, especially about neuroticism and conscientiousness. Maybe a little of Sam Harris thrown in there too. I saw people in the comments on gizmodo freaking out about the point about avoiding empathy. It's a nuanced point that is completely lost on them that compassion can be a better trait than empathy.

Yeah that was my impression as well. He's been travelling the same Jordan Peterson/Sam Harris circuit I have. I could probably list the reasons but just his use of Big Five personality traits makes it highly likely.

I think to some extent this Googler may survive his effort to Larry Summer himself simply because his arguments are so familiar at this point. If he had actually said true things that hadn't already been circulating as a standard counter-narrative, he'd probably have fewer supporters and die on his cross.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#337

Post by unityByFreedom »

fatso83 wrote: post #326
unityByFreedom wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Instead everyone shames him, tells him his mostly very valid thought process is sexist and his career is done What? This guy has gotten an unbelievable amount of attention and debate on the topic he wanted to discuss, both in support and against it. Trump got the same attention, and constantly complained he didn't get enough. Enough with this lie that certain [far right] conservatives don't get enough press. They g…

You fail to see the difference between attention and actual debate. Very few of the opposing views actually try to dissect his statements, but choose to rant away. Yonatan's piece being a prime example of an ad hominem that attacks views he never once wrote in favour of. It's also quite dishonest of you to liken a reasonably well written, source referenced piece with the rants from the clown in the oval office. The m…

> It's also quite dishonest of you to liken a reasonably well written, source referenced piece with the rants from the clown in the oval office.

The parent comment mentioned Trump, and I'm responding to that. Fact is, the parent comment, the manifesto author, and Trump, all complain about not getting the proper attention. Meanwhile, they're getting a TON OF IT! and laughing all the way to the attention-bank.

> You fail to see the difference between attention and actual debate

"Actual debate"? Sounds like you want the debate to happen on your terms. That's not how debate works.

The original author wrote that women have "higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance". That is highly debatable. Yonatan responds to the author's belief that "women and men are intrinsically different" as it pertains to the workplace.

We all know that, historically speaking, women have had fewer rights and opportunities than men. Women won equal rights from government, and it's not so shocking to me that a company might try diversity training in order to move the needle further towards equal opportunity.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#338

Post by nl »

nopatternhere wrote: post #188
nl wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts. This is wrong. Emotions - feeling - are part of what makes teams work together well and make products work with people. The reply linked on this post says it well: Engineering is not the art of building devices; it’s the art of fixing problems. Devices are a means, not an end. Fixing problems means first of all understanding them — and since the whol…

> I think it is fair to say that the author's idea of what empathy feels like is completely different to what the rest of the world thinks I think you misunderstand what he is getting at. Yale researcher Paul Bloom wrote a whole book about this concept of empathy as a bad thing, and I think that is what the manifesto is getting at (I'd almost argue quoting): https://www.amazon.com/Against-Empathy-Case-Rational-Compas…

This is around the multiple definitions of empathy. To quote:

I am staunchly with Bloom here: it is undoubtedly a valuable gift, but only provided it is fortified by a prior rational moral position and appropriately judged action. And there are many arguably moral actions that have nothing to do with empathy or even sympathy – paying one’s taxes, or picking up litter are not glamorous activities but they stem from a rational perception of what is for the general good.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/feb/06/against-empath...

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#339

Post by Goladus »

am1988 wrote: post #317
cropsieboss wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because postmodernist and neomarxist ideas are appealing to idealists dreaming of utopia. It's quite weird that an article with 0 citations, 0 proper rebuttals of arguments in the original manifesto gets so much attention. It is pure leftist circlejerk. For example, show me a single study demonstrating proper effectiveness of unconscious bias training. HR departments in FB and Google have those. Studies of the effect…

HTe original was pure conservative (oh I'm sorry, "classical liberal") circle jerk about how poor (er... upper middle class) white males are being discriminated against and are such victims nowadays. Pepper in some dog-whistle sexism and little digs at the left and you have a nice manifesto.

Apparently anyone to the right of utter insanity is now a conservative.

Most of the responses to the manifesto so far do nothing but absolutely confirm the validity of the central thesis. Unable to defend their sick ideology on its own merits in spirited debate, the radical progressives engage in lying, shaming, manipulation, intimidation, coercion, cyber-mobbing, grandstanding-- anything to shut the discussion down without actually addressing or debunking any of the points made. It is vile and reprehensible.

The original piece is the opposite of a circle-jerk. It is a call to dialog. It is a call to openness (a LIBERAL value!). It is a rigorous challenge that anyone with the merest shred of intellectual integrity will recognize as legitimate and sincere. Progressives have the opportunity to respond honorably and engage with sincere and honest arguments, trusting that when truth prevails their side will be victorious on the merits of their ideas.

Although it might be too late. The lying sacks of shit in the left wing echo chamber (The Guardian, etc.) have already decided brand this an "anti-diversity screed" and promote a deceitful, defamatory narrative of a google employee who just handle diversity. It is an absolute disgrace.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#340

Post by dang »

Goladus wrote: post #195
searealist wrote: post #30

> You have probably heard about the manifesto a Googler (not someone senior) published internally about, essentially, how women and men are intrinsically different and we should stop trying to make it possible for women to be engineers, it’s just not worth it. This sets the tone for the entire article: An emotionally driven rant that refutes nothing and argues against a strawman.

And yet, it has 178 upvotes at the time of posting.

Similar things happen for most rants.
Post reply on HN