Live data from Hacker News

The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

gizmodo.com

421–430 of 660 posts

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had come across that study/story before, and consider it one of the great successes in combating discrimination that I have ever heard! Blinding the auditions is brilliant, because it isn't a "bias for bias" approach. It doesn't attempt to combat one bias by intentionally introducing another bias. It just removes the jury's ability to be biased, by concealing the musician's sex. Because of this, the results of that…

I believe they could! With all that technology? Shoot. All we had was a stage and a screen to work with. I will say that in another study it was found that the sound of women's dress shoes unconsciously biased juries. So we all (even men) walk to the stage on a carpet strip to mute that sound, or we play in stocking feet or soft shoes. Taking the screen away at the end is its only flaw. I will say something that a lo…

I can't speak to anything related to interviewing because I don't do interviews. Part of the reason I don't do interviews is because I have very low confidence in my ability to quickly tell who is good. Most of my colleagues that I respect the most (I work at Google) didn't make a strong impression on me when I first met them, or even within a few days. I feel like it takes days or weeks for me to get a sense of how much I like someone's work. So I definitely feel unsatisfied with the interviewing approach in general, but I don't have any practical ideas about how to improve it. "Work with someone for days or weeks first" isn't practical.

I get your point that there still could be biases if you can recognize a musician's sound. I should have been more clear about what I meant by "perfect". What I meant is just that this intervention (adding screens to auditions) almost certainly didn't create any bias, it only removed it. It may not have removed 100% of it, but it didn't combat the bias by introducing a counter-bias.

Can you recognize a coder's work by their style? Definitely to some extent. One aspect of working on a shared code-base with a whole bunch of engineers is that uniformity of style is a significant plus (makes code easier to read when it's consistent), so many of the differences that might show a "personal flare" are removed. But still, there is plenty that could belie a person's coding style.

I think there are way too many programmers out there, however, for this to be an issue in interviews. Estimates say there are something like 2-4 million software engineers in the US. Compare this with orchestral musicians: it looks like about 60 orchestras in the US work 40+ weeks per year; if we estimate 100 players per orchestra this is 6,000 full-time orchestra spots in the USA (you might have better numbers on this). If you specialize this by instrument, it might be more like 240 full-time orchestral oboists in the whole country. It seems much more likely that you could recognize a specific person with those odds.

(By the way, I'm a musician too. :) Though not in the orchestral world, and not full-time. I'm a singer (small ensembles mainly), though I did a lot of collaborations with orchestras as a boy growing up in Boychoir).

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sex is in fact a binary difference, transgender folk are a tiny proportion of the population.

"Truth values are in fact a binary difference, fuzzy logic is a tiny portion of mathematics." "Light switches are in fact a binary difference, dimmer switches are a small portion of all switches." "Life is in fact a binary difference, brain death patients are a tiny portion of all patients."

In the context of there being measurable differences between the sets of males and females, 99% is binary enough.

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#424

> Microaggression training wat? They now train people in microaggressions at work? Is the "training" mandatory?

Of course it's mandatory ... unless you don't care about silly little things like bonuses and promotions.

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#425

This guy claims that women are more neurotic and talkative than men; and that they prefer thinking about aesthetics; and that women are more "cooperative." The subtext is that this is the reason we shouldn't support women becoming software engineers. Uggghhh.

You either fail at reading comprehension or you are being dishonest.

Nowhere does the author say we "shouldn't support women becoming software engineers". His argument is simply that women are, on average, less inclined to become software engineers because of innate psychological differences, which explains the unbalanced gender ratio in tech. He suggests we should stop all forms of "positive" discrimination in the form of employment quotas that are aimed to correct the gender imbalance, and instead select individuals based on their merit.

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ha. The Evolutionary Psychology wiki is probably a good start, but if you're skeptical of evolution I'm not confident anything I'd link would convince you.

Why? Evolutionary psychology (even if true) is completely unenlightening. Anyone can be an evolutionary psychologist!: "Men do [thing] because they evolved to." "Women think [this] because women who didn't did not pass on their genes."

Not going to engage further if your summation of Evolutionary Psychology is that it's "unenlightening".

I can't stand this bizarre trend on the Left that holds up "science" as a vanguard in one context but dismisses it in another if it's politically convenient.

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#427

TL;DR Some guy not only speaks his mind, but has the balls to actually write his thoughts down. The completely predictable response from "forward thinking progressives" follows.

Are not those people also just speaking their mind?

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#428
post #7

It’s interesting that the author considers the conceptual framework of microaggressions spurious, while describing his negative experiences as a conservative Googler in terms of what a feminist might describe as microaggressions. To further undermine his own point, he asserts that several harms against conservatives have been caused by these microaggressions. The difference between effective negative feedback and har…

Summers was put in a struggle session and fired for pointing out an obvious hypothesis that has psychometric backing. Your ideology is ascendant. Congrats. But please don't tell me destroying someone's earning capacity is a micro aggression. And know, this can't last. This strange moral fad will pass: our modern Lysenkoism is about to be killed by cognitive genomics. The lies require constant maintenance while the tr…

Thank you for introducing me to the term Lysenkoism.

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#429
Wow, this paper is a textbook example of begging the question. The author makes a number of completely unfounded generalizations about women and men, then goes on to use those as a basis for protesting against Google's corporate diversity programs.

I wonder if the author would like to keep walking out on his very weak limb, and claim that African-Americans are under-represented in tech because of their genetic characteristics.

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Evolutionary psychology (even if true) is completely unenlightening. Anyone can be an evolutionary psychologist!: "Men do [thing] because they evolved to." "Women think [this] because women who didn't did not pass on their genes."

Not going to engage further if your summation of Evolutionary Psychology is that it's "unenlightening". I can't stand this bizarre trend on the Left that holds up "science" as a vanguard in one context but dismisses it in another if it's politically convenient.

Because Evolutionary Psychology is not science. It makes no predictions. It has no theories. It is untestable. It entirely relies on just-so stories.
Post reply on HN