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

#381

Post by 52-6F-62 » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 4:24 PM UTC

jorgemf wrote: post #346

52-6F-62 wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't attack her at all, nevermind on her work in Neurosexuality. Frankly, it's a subject I know nothing about and have no position to do so. I did imply that it's no more her position to conclude the subject of the original essay than anybody else's, and cautioned against taking words of any number of scientists as canon on the understanding of both the original essay and any social implications it may or should…

Probably you missunderstood what neurosexuality mean. It is a mix of philosophy, psychology, social sciences, physics and biology. That is why I think it is very relevant for the topic. I didn't mean to attack you, but I would like to people to consider her opinions too. Some people trend to discard what doesn't fit with their opinions too quickly and this leads to problems

I can assure you, I didn't misunderstand what it means.

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

#382

Post by jpmattia » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 4:24 PM UTC

ahh wrote: post #317

jpmattia wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you don't believe the research is solid, please post some convincing counter studies. It sounds like you don't understand the reproducibility crisis: It's not up to me to produce counter studies, it's up to you to produce replications of the already published work, using the exact same methods and techniques. So far, the reproducibility in the psychological sciences has been pretty poor. Nature summarized the or…

I think you might not know what a meta-analysis is: it's actually a summary of replications and duplicate studies on some topic. Generally (I have not read this particular one!) they are specifically designed to detect potential publication bias and other effects that would imply non-reproducibility.

> it's actually a summary of replications and duplicate studies on some topic. ... they are specifically designed to detect potential publication bias and other effects that would imply non-reproducibility.

Not quite right: Meta-analyses combine several studies to improve the statistical power of a given topic. They do not address reproducibility, because the individual papers forming the basis for the meta-analyses make no attempt at reproducing prior results before introducing new ones. I'd go so far as to say part of the necessity for the original reproducibility study of 100 seminal psychology papers was because meta-analyses fail to address reproducibility.

The repercussions of 61/100 papers failing to reproduce are still not as widely understood as they should be.

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

#383

Post by notahacker » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 4:25 PM UTC

typicalbender wrote: post #163

holtalanm wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an interesting video to listen to, but as you said, the interviewer is most definitely leaning a certain direction. That being said, I am not informed enough on the topic of gender differences to actually weigh in on who is right or wrong in this situation.

I am certainly not either, I just think people grabbed their pitchforks impulsively and painted him as a misogynist monster without hearing his side of the story. From the interview it sounds like the document was sparked from an internal diversity meeting that was dubious in its intent. Whether that is actually truth or not who knows but I get the impression James was trying to have a discussion and present some evi…

If his desire is to spark reasoned debate, then Jordan "gender neutral pronouns are Evil Marxism" Peterson and Stefan Molyneux probably aren't the best choices of interviewers to help him with that, unfortunately

It's entirely possible that as he said, he wanted to spark some reasoned debate and he's just made a few mistakes (and got particularly unlucky with Gizmodo cutting his charted caveats) but it's equally possible that he knew exactly what reaction he was likely to provoke and aimed for just beyond the line of what would be considered acceptable.

(I have no insight into what he thinks or how he's been treated, but if I wanted an open discussion on the merits and shortcomings of Google's diversity policies, I'd probably start by suggesting that quotas are nearly always bad and male/female inequalities in STEM start long before people apply to Google, not with an essay insisting that men are more suited to software roles because biology and that Google's promotion of the view that attitudes contribute towards gender imbalances is left wing bias that threatens my psychological safety.)

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

#384

Post by agarden » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 4:26 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #271

renaudg wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 workfor…

> 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.

I have been confused why you and others have been repeating this, but after re-reading the section "The Harm of Google’s biases", I think I see your point now.

Damore does not say that all women who work at Google are unqualified, but he does imply that there are fewer women who are qualified, and that by trying to mine that population too heavily, Google is hiring women who are, on average, less qualified than the men are, on average. Do I have that right?

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

#385

Post by Lon7 » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 4:28 PM UTC

kenjackson wrote: post #208

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…

The issue with the original article was two-fold: 1. It used strawman arguments. Notably that the world is looking for a 50/50 split in gender ratios. Most reasonable people believe that even in ideal equilibrium state that this is not the expected outcome (although I'm sure there exist some people that push for 50/50 or greater). But that the current ratio is not the ideal equilibrium state. The author of the paper…

> Lastly, there is a difference between speaking truth and how you speak truth.

Yes, this seems to be the thing that most people are missing. He didn't release a study in a scientific journal, he shared a document with his coworkers while at work. The things he talks about are what his Women coworkers are living through. He made this about their experience. It doesn't matter how much is true, it was incredibly unprofessional and absolutely something you can be fired for.

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

#386

Post by tptacek » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 4:29 PM UTC

lackbeard wrote: post #363

tptacek wrote: post #101

This defense of the "manifesto" is flawed just like the others. It picks out a small subset of the claims made in the document, discards the context and all the other claims, and then harangues us for having a problem with "science". I could argue "water is composed of two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule, so women are bad at software development", and my argument would just be a difference of degree worse…

Scott Alexander posits a theory which addresses why programming has a high gender disparity but law, medicine, biology and (undergrad) mathematics don't: http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagger... . Doesn't address why the number of women in programming has fallen since the 80's though...

This piece is fatuous. Alexander perpetuates the "women like people, men like things" trope that is common to every message board discussion of CS gender disparity. He then explains away the fact that women excel in science fields by saying "what do women do with math degrees? They become teachers." He ignores that the effect remains in graduate-level math studies (women do not get math PhD's to become high school teachers) and in other STEM fields (women do not get biochem masters to become high school teachers).

He's contrived a just-so story that appeals to his audience. Which is par for his course.

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

#387

Post by omikun » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 4:30 PM UTC

biggerbistro wrote: post #368

omikun wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Actually, diversity measures make things worse by promoting below-average candidates unfairly based on their superficial attributes (skin color, sex etc). This actually achieves the opposite of what is intended as it reduces fitness selection of whatever genes make someone good at/interested in STEM topics. By going against meritocracy you are harming the vulnerable groups by giving them a crutch to rely on.

I don't think anyone is promoting below-average hires as part of diversity programs. If that was the case, they could just hire only women until the desired gender balance is met.

I get the feeling your position is exactly what Google referred to as toxic. Imagine a woman hired in a diversity program hears your position. Do you think she will feel welcomed and understood?

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

#388

Post by vowelless » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 4:32 PM UTC

omikun wrote: post #379

vowelless wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

No one told me . I'm still trying to figure it out. But mainstream gender equality says there should be a roughly equal split while the memo says the split should be something else and implied it should be more men than women by citing reasons for why there currently are more men than women. Oh, am I not allowed to form an opinion on what should be? Please correct me if I am wrong but perhaps your opinion is no one s…

I didn't mean to be antagonistic. Apologize if I came off that way.

Part of the discussion around the memo indeed is having an open discussion about what things should be like. Of course I would like to see more women in tech and also make sure everyone is comfortable. My gf is also in tech.

My only qualm is that many people seem to axiomatically take the position that a 50/50 split should be the case. I just don't see why. Why not 70/30 or 30/70 or maybe exactly match the gender ratio in the US? What about trans or third gender ?

You're right that the memo similarly makes "should " claims. I am not acquitting it of that issue. Just trying to understand where people are coming up with this idea that 50/50 is the right split and that we should use that as an optimisation function in hiring as opposed to pure, blind meritocracy.

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

#389

Post by biggerbistro » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 4:33 PM UTC

jazzyk wrote: post #40

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…

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

Actually there are numerous observed differences in physical ability that are attributed to race, such as Tibetans having better adaptability to high altitudes than most other groups[1]. Physical differences are relatively uncontroversial, the problem arrives when we start to discuss mental differences.

I see not reason why a difference in environment would not cause various mental adaptations to form along the course of natural selection of geographically separate groups of people. This is an inconvenient idea and has been vehemently suppressed in the scientific community whenever it is brought up [2]. Instead of pretending such differences cannot exist we should instead focus on overcoming these differences so that everyone can participate according to their own unique ability.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_adaptation_in_hu... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn#Reception

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

#390

Post by omikun » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 4:34 PM UTC

hasenj wrote: post #257

omikun wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Without further clarification or elaboration, your comment does not seem to make much sense. Consider the extreme case of children vs adults. Should we advocate for policies that force companies to employ children because we think it's more equal that way? I'm not trying to say women are children or anything like that, just taking your position to it's absurd conclusion to show that it's at least questionable.

That's hardly a fair comparison. It's not illegal for women to work (anymore).