On managing outrage in Silicon Valley • Hacker News Board

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#411

Post by Atheros » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 8:55 AM UTC

Atheros wrote: post #166

mnm1 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's really up to Google to decide in this case. My personal opinion on whether his writings are toxic is irrelevant. It seems a lot of people are outraged by it, both in and out of Google. If Google does decide that this is toxic, even if just from a PR point of view, they should have no problem firing the guy. That's my point. Expressing opinions is not an action without consequences.

Silencing future opinion is not an action without consequences either. I predict that Google will let him stay. If they fired him, no one would speak out on any sensitive subject in the future even with careful moderation. "When people are not comfortable with an oppressive regime they keep their moderate opinions to themselves. Voicing any opinion contrary to the Party line is dangerous no matter how extreme or mode…

Holy shit I was wrong.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/google-fi...

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#412

Post by kamaal » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 8:58 AM UTC

Const-me wrote: post #394

In US, only 1.5% plumbers are female: http://www.contractormag.com/blog/stop-calling-yourself-plum... In IT, in 2008 women held 25% of all professional IT jobs in the US: https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorikozlowski/2012/03/22/women-... An order of magnitude difference. I have never seen discussions about gender-based discrimination for plumbers, or biological or sociological factors preventing women to seek career in…

>>I have never seen discussions about gender-based discrimination for plumbers

In general only jobs which have a high value of effort/money-earned are preferable to anybody.

Im pretty sure most plumbers don't get into plumbing because they are passionate about it.

Also curiously you can be passionate about something if you earn well doing it. So, ultimately its all about home much money you can make, at what effort.

Make plumbing a high paying job and calls for diversity in plumbing will go up like no tomorrow.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#413

Post by ubertaco » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 9:22 AM UTC

fnovd wrote: post #150

I read the memo, and compared to the stuff I read from the real "deplorables" (on 4chan, The_Donald, etc.), it was pretty tame. Yes, many of his ideas are backwards and unjustified. At the same time, many of his arguments were perfectly sane (e.g. silencing all dissenting opinions leads to an increasingly toxic and divided culture). If you want people like him to actually change their minds, you have to be willing to…

> If you want people like him to actually change their minds, you have to be willing to hear them out first. You can't show someone where they went wrong if they're too scared to tell you what they think in the first place.

I agree with you that this minimum amount of maturity should be the standard (though, again, I think it should be the minimum standard).

However, this amounts to being the guy who will let you finish your sentence, but isn't actually listening, they're just waiting for you to stop talking so they can say "you're wrong because..." without having heard anything.

Maybe it's better not just to make people think they can speak up, but also to make an effort to actually listen when they do.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#414

Post by ubertaco » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 9:39 AM UTC

kamaal wrote: post #412

Const-me wrote: post #394

In US, only 1.5% plumbers are female: http://www.contractormag.com/blog/stop-calling-yourself-plum... In IT, in 2008 women held 25% of all professional IT jobs in the US: https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorikozlowski/2012/03/22/women-... An order of magnitude difference. I have never seen discussions about gender-based discrimination for plumbers, or biological or sociological factors preventing women to seek career in…

>>I have never seen discussions about gender-based discrimination for plumbers In general only jobs which have a high value of effort/money-earned are preferable to anybody. Im pretty sure most plumbers don't get into plumbing because they are passionate about it. Also curiously you can be passionate about something if you earn well doing it. So, ultimately its all about home much money you can make, at what effort.…

>Im pretty sure most plumbers don't get into plumbing because they are passionate about it.

I'm pretty sure most office desk jockey computer nerds don't get into being stuck sitting at a desk all day because they're passionate about it.

I'm pretty sure most professional head-trauma punching bags don't get into being an NFL defensive tackle because they're passionate about it.

I'm pretty sure most accountants don't get into hunching over spreadsheets and calculators because they're passionate about it.

See? I can concoct blatantly-false statements from lots of my-opinions-are-universal bubbles!

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#415

Post by RangerScience » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 10:08 AM UTC

ameister14 wrote: post #361

RangerScience wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're using different notation systems. I'm thinking "modifier to the dice roll", you're thinking "score". This is making it real hard to understand what you're saying. What is your understanding of how AA works?

Ah, I see. As I understand it, AA usually comes into play when there is little separating two candidates. Most other qualities are the same or the historically advantaged candidate is only slightly better than the disadvantaged one. To counter this historical disadvantage, the candidate possessing it is given additional 'points' which push them beyond the other. All other things being equal or close to equal, this be…

I got real into AA back in day, when I thought I was on the receiving end of reverse discrimination.

I learned that the biggest part of AA is actually just letting the kids know they qualify. We grow up with the narrative that after highschool you do college; and that you'll succeed at going somewhere. Not everyone gets that narrative, so a big part of AA is finding the kids that qualify for admission / scholarship / etc, and letting them know that. The next part is helping them apply; if no-one you know has ever navigated an academic bureaucracy, it's confusing and intimidating.

It's like the Black Panthers. Everyone knows about the least of their efforts (police watch), because it's also the most controversial. Few people know about the bulk of their efforts (school lunches) because it's not.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#416

Post by kamaal » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 10:19 AM UTC

ubertaco wrote: post #414

kamaal wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>I have never seen discussions about gender-based discrimination for plumbers In general only jobs which have a high value of effort/money-earned are preferable to anybody. Im pretty sure most plumbers don't get into plumbing because they are passionate about it. Also curiously you can be passionate about something if you earn well doing it. So, ultimately its all about home much money you can make, at what effort.…

>Im pretty sure most plumbers don't get into plumbing because they are passionate about it. I'm pretty sure most office desk jockey computer nerds don't get into being stuck sitting at a desk all day because they're passionate about it. I'm pretty sure most professional head-trauma punching bags don't get into being an NFL defensive tackle because they're passionate about it. I'm pretty sure most accountants don't ge…

I said exactly what you are saying.

Most people chose jobs because they pay well for little work.

Nobody really calls for diversity among coal miners.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#417

Post by slavak » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 11:03 AM UTC

sigmar wrote: post #300

blusterXY wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author of the paper is well-read, and the people criticizing his science understand neither the underlying science, nor what it implies for the problems they profess to care about.

He doesn't cite any science so it is hard to appreciate that any of it is based on quality research. Seems like a lot of stereotypes mixed in with hedging. For example: suggesting that women are too emotional to "reason about the facts" as well as men do.

He cites plenty of science, it's just that Gizmodo conveniently edited out all of his references when they posted the text. Here's the full memo in its entirety: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#418

Post by stefantalpalaru » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 11:30 AM UTC

mnm1 wrote: post #138

This idea that all opinions are equal and need to be respected is ridiculous and needs to stop. Politics is real and political opinions and actions have real consequences. Not all political opinions should be respected. In fact, it's our duty as citizens to evaluate and mock / scorn the opinions of others that we see as toxic. No one is protected from this and people that think they are, are feeling entitled to somet…

> Protections of free speech apply to government actions only.

From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#419

Post by humanrebar » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 11:35 AM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #302

blusterXY wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you just wrote is the equivalent of a climate change denier writing: "The major weakness of the paper isn't that there are studies suggesting climate change exists, but it doesn't convincingly argue why these difference are relevant to environmental policy." The author doesn't need to "prove" the science he references is real any more than I have to "prove" that climate change exists in order to discuss it. At a…

> What you just wrote is the equivalent of a climate change denier writing: I think if you want your argument to be more convincing, it would be nice to spend less effort on trying to brand the opponents "climate change denier", which sounds like a thinly veiled attempt to capitalize on a tribal thought-terminating cliche - basically a highbrow structural equivalent of calling someone a Nazi - if you're in any way li…

> There is also zero reason to consider comparing somebody do anti-vaxxers or any other outgroup a rational argument.

I took it as an argument by analogy. A more analytical approach like listing logical errors and fallacies wouldn't go over well either. I'm curious how someone else would phrase those points without neutering them.

Re: On managing outrage in Silicon Valley

#420

Post by humanrebar » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 11:37 AM UTC

andkon wrote: post #272

blusterXY wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you just wrote is the equivalent of a climate change denier writing: "The major weakness of the paper isn't that there are studies suggesting climate change exists, but it doesn't convincingly argue why these difference are relevant to environmental policy." The author doesn't need to "prove" the science he references is real any more than I have to "prove" that climate change exists in order to discuss it. At a…

You totally missed the point. So here it is again: even if all the research he cites is real and well-supported, he makes a logical leap that is not substantiated by any evidence he cites. There's nothing in his evidence about women's personality traits that can lead you to the conclusion that they're necessarily underrepresented in STEM and in computer science. There's also no support for his conclusion that Google…

> ...he makes a logical leap that is not substantiated by any evidence he cites

Where does he do that? If I recall correctly, he mostly wanted to discuss the company culture. There were policies that were mentioned, but only to support his position that the company culture was supported by company policy.