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

401–410 of 684 posts

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

#401

Post by humanrebar »

kenjackson wrote: post #395
humanrebar wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So with part of all that is something you'd fire someone over? Before you say "hostile work environment", keep in mind that lots of people find firing someone for this to be hostile as well.

I don't work at Google so its hard for me to say what the environment is like. That said, I would not have published this memo, had I believed the content, on a public work forum. In general I avoid any sorts of things like that on protected classes at work. I would be open to going directly to HR to discuss it. I, for example, have done this to discuss team vs individual compensation at my job. While not the hot top…

Right, but if you were a boss and a member of your team published it, would you fire him? Why or why not?

I don't find rehashing the wisdom of his decision to speak his mind as important as how everyone else responds to it. That's where the real controversy is.

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

#402

Post by jcranberry »

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 upvoted this comment since I think you made a good, salient point, but I also think that you elided the important baseline point that programming is simply more "mechanical" than work done in HR/Sales or by managers.

My impression is that most managers in the tech industry already have a good amount of experience in "mechanical" (development, etc) roles, and to even get there you need an education or experience in relevant skills (correct me if I'm wrong). I don't know about whether the proportion of women vs men with managerial roles in tech is fair, but if what the author of this article is saying is true, the required educational or professional pedigree just to get into the tech industry is probably one of the biggest causes of men vastly outnumbering women in tech already.

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

#403

Post by monochromatic »

travmatt wrote: post #358
monochromatic wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say 100%.

And didn't the president promise to pay the legal defense of supporters of his who committed violence on his behalf to intimidate a free press? It seems you have an odd system of weighting where college kids policing language is weighted very heavily, and elected officials committing and advocating violence to further political goals weighs very lightly. I'm beginning to suspect your analysis is more driven by how yo…

> And didn't the president promise to pay the legal defense of supporters of his who committed violence on his behalf to intimidate a free press?

Not to my knowledge. Are you talking about when he (perhaps jokingly) said:

> So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them. I will pay for the legal fees.

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

#404

Post by tptacek »

lackbeard wrote: post #400
tptacek wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 te…

It seems like you did not even read the article... > He ignores that the effect remains in graduate-level math studies I'm not sure what "effect" you're talking about, but he points out that graduate-level math programs have about the same gender disparity as CS (explained by his theory because like you say, no one gets a PhD to teach and thus the studies shift from being about people to being about things.) I don't…

1. I quoted from the middle of the article. I've read it multiples times.

2. There is a reason that particular argument is banned by the guidelines ("Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article"): it's inherently uncivil.

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

#405

Post by gormo2 »

StrangeOrange wrote: post #393

I think it's important for us to gain some kind of perspective here. Whatever current science (or "science") says on the matter, that's not the point. These arguments seem to be of the following: women are inherently less capable of being good engineers, therefore they should be underrepresented in engineering. Okay, now let's extend that argument out from the engineering sphere. Using the same logic, the following a…

>women are inherently less capable of being good engineers

The memo never argued that, no one defending it argues that. I urge you to read the original document.

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

#406

Post by cpncrunch »

StrangeOrange wrote: post #393

I think it's important for us to gain some kind of perspective here. Whatever current science (or "science") says on the matter, that's not the point. These arguments seem to be of the following: women are inherently less capable of being good engineers, therefore they should be underrepresented in engineering. Okay, now let's extend that argument out from the engineering sphere. Using the same logic, the following a…

>women are inherently less capable of being good engineers

The article doesn't say that at all. It just says that on average women have certain traits that mean they are less likely on average to want to go into an engineering job.

>Men are inherently less suited for child care, so we shouldn't put in effort to help them be as good at child care as women

But men are inherently less likely to want to go into child care, for obvious reasons. However nobody is saying that they shouldn't be allowed to do so.

I think the main problem with the memo is this line:

"Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race"

I don't see any problem with those programmes myself, and I think he would have gotten more empathy and less hostility if he hadn't advocated removing those programmes to help women.

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

#407

Post by notacoward »

Joeri wrote: post #351

I have always felt very ambivalent about affirmative action. It is a form of discrimination and therefore furthers the message that discerning based on gender or race is acceptable. You can make a strong argument that it is harmful, which is what the memo did. However... In the kingdom of Belgium at some point the rule was introduced that half of all political candidates for election must be women and had to receive…

> I have always felt very ambivalent about affirmative action.

Part of the problem is that "affirmative action" takes many forms. Some people assume that it means quotas and lowered standards, but those approaches have been deprecated (and sometimes outlawed) for a long time. Outreach, anti-bias education, and support programs are generally preferred precisely because they don't lead to the same untoward outcomes that tokenism does. Sure, some people still get left out. I was "discriminated against" in that way once, but I thrived despite that and have learned to appreciate how that policy was just overall even though it was unjust to me.

There is no perfect affirmative-action policy, including lack of any explicit policy. The best we can do is ensure that the burden of any policy is as small as possible, and distributed as fairly as possible.

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

#408

Post by coryfklein »

jorgemf wrote: post #203
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…

> If the main argument is that women do not [by nature of our scientific understanding] have minds tuned to engineering prowess to the extent that men do for whatever cause, then just how does that itself prescribe that we should stop pushing for an expansion there? You are wrong in this assumption. I am going to try to explain it. We have group A and group B with different genetics. We measure everybody in the group…

I want to take your example one step further to see if I understand what you are implying.

If you select all persons from groups A and B that pass a certain threshold, then you will have a smaller number of A than B. Let's say the split is 40% A and 60% B.

We then analyze the population at our company and find we have 7% A and 93% B. Does this mean the company has a bias towards B, and needs to take special action to search for more A candidates to bring the ratio closer to 40/60?

It's not a question of "diversity", just an optimal hiring algorithm - the company is not utilizing a pool of hireable people in a time of scarcity, and its in their best interest to source more from that pool.

Of course the math gets more complicated when the supply of A is drastically different than the supply of B.

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

#409

Post by agarden »

tptacek wrote: post #397
agarden wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 sa…

Damore is smart enough not to come out and say directly that he believes all women to be less qualified; instead, he just strings together a series of assertions that leaves reasonable people with only one conclusion, which is that the women at Google are beneficiaries of a lowered bar that results in the women at Google being on average less qualified than the men. I have very little patience with arguments rooted i…

Oh, so you know what he is actually thinking even though he doesn't say it and says things that are contrary to it. I see.

This, too, helps me understand the outrage. Thank you for being honest.

(I do hope the 'thank you' above can be read by people in a calm, snark-less voice. It is genuine. I appreciate Ptacek being forthright. I learned from it. It really does make the thread better and furthers the conversation in a productive way.)

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

#410

Post by lackbeard »

tptacek wrote: post #404
lackbeard wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like you did not even read the article... > He ignores that the effect remains in graduate-level math studies I'm not sure what "effect" you're talking about, but he points out that graduate-level math programs have about the same gender disparity as CS (explained by his theory because like you say, no one gets a PhD to teach and thus the studies shift from being about people to being about things.) I don't…

1. I quoted from the middle of the article. I've read it multiples times. 2. There is a reason that particular argument is banned by the guidelines ("Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article"): it's inherently uncivil.

Apologies for the incivility, but his article contradicts what you wrote and cites the relevant data.
Post reply on HN