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

#421

Post by mistermann » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 5:25 PM UTC

Delmania wrote: post #233

Jabanga wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe these comments defend discrimination against women? I'm trying to understand how one could see it that way. I see both of these statements as unquestionably true, and the sexism accusation as stifling the type of free expression needed for rational dialogue. If facts are sexist, then the definition of sexism being used is wrong.

It's subtle, but yes. These 2 lines essentially state that as women are more interested in people, there are some roles they might not be able to perform. A little further down he makes a similar claim that since women look more towards work life balance, technical and leadership roles may not seek out leadership roles as much as men. This can be used again to claim women don't belong in those roles. This is also bul…

> These 2 lines essentially state that as women are more interested in people

In the aggregate, this is objectively true based on my observations, and you can see this exact same sentiment passionately expressed by feminists.

> ...there are some roles they might not be able to perform.

This part is your mind playing tricks on you. You have certain beliefs, and you are trying to find anything to confirm them.

You have misunderstood what the author was saying, I would suggest because you are not trying to understand it, but rather are trying to find examples to substantiate your worldview.

> Strip away his science and his words

....leaving us....your imagination?

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

#422

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 5:25 PM UTC

mistermann wrote: post #419

sp332 wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Status is the primary metric that men are judged on, pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. - Defeatist. If society pushes men into leadership, then there's nothing we can or should do about it? > Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbag…

I don't see any reference to discrimination against women in any of that. Could you possibly pick one of the points and explain to me how it is discriminatory against women?

[deleted]

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

#423

Post by TACIXAT » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 5:27 PM UTC

Delmania wrote: post #171

From below (I wanted to make sure this didn't get hidden under a downvoted comment): >I fail to understand how a memo calling for MORE diversity can get headlined as "anti-diversity memo" on all big media outlets. Do journalists even do independent research anymore or are they just regurgitating whatever reuters send their way without scrutiny? The author is referring to psychological diversity, in other words, Googl…

>To invoke Goodwin's Law, perhaps we should be more sympathetic to the viewpoints of Nazis? How about white supremacists?

Honestly, I would argue yes (with a big asterisk on your word choice of sympathetic). You need to engage with people and discuss their views in order to change them. Most people when attacked will double down on their views. If you can engage with those people, present evidence, and change their opinions then you are doing something meaningful to remove a piece of hate from the world.

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

#424

Post by sp332 » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 5:27 PM UTC

mistermann wrote: post #214

Delmania wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things > Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be and we shouldn’t deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this).

Those comments in no way "defend discrimination against women". Serious question: does your mind think they actually do? This might be a good illustration of why people differ so much on the same objective facts, the human brain automatically adds additional context (that isn't necessarily physically present) into perceptions.

If the status quo is to discriminate, and someone defends the status quo knowing that it's sexist, that person is defending a sexist position.

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

#425

Post by coryfklein » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 5:27 PM UTC

monochromatic wrote: post #72

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…

> backed by links > PhD in sexual neuroscience > female There's a LOT that's new here, relative to Damore's memo.

> backed by links

I regularly see psueodo-science blog posts that are "backed by links". Let's pick one of Soh's claims that are backed by a link:

> 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, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields tend to be dominated[1] by men.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19883140

Soh uses [1] to claim that Holland Categories and STEM interest have a causation for employment in related fields. In fact, the article merely supports the claim that women have statistical preference for certain Holland Categories and STEM interests.

So why did she use this as a reference to support her claim about employment in the field? It's certainly a reasonable logical step to make, but the citation should be moved back one sentence.

Besides, I'm very curious how that source controlled for cultural influences. Women are regularly discouraged from expressing STEM interests culturally, so it's no surprise to me that they don't express a preference towards it.

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

#426

Post by mistermann » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 5:29 PM UTC

Delmania wrote: post #245

mistermann wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those comments in no way "defend discrimination against women". Serious question: does your mind think they actually do? This might be a good illustration of why people differ so much on the same objective facts, the human brain automatically adds additional context (that isn't necessarily physically present) into perceptions.

See my explanation, it's subtle, he doesn't outright say to discriminate, but he does imply it.

> he doesn't outright say to discriminate, but he does imply it

The truth you are missing about the world is contained right within that statement. I recommend printing it out and hanging it on your wall as a reminder, and let your mind chew on it for a few months. Resist the urge to draw conclusions, just mull it over, you might be surprised.

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

#427

Post by daughart » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 5:31 PM UTC

deepnotderp wrote: post #226

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…

>Only difference being that the author of this article has a PhD in sexual neuroscience Original evil evil author had a PhD/MS in Biology from Harvard

He studied mathematical biology. A PhD/MS should never indicate expertise outside of the field of study.

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

#428

Post by coryfklein » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 5:33 PM UTC

jorgemf wrote: post #411

coryfklein wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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? Without more information maths says you probably have a bias. I am assuming your company is big enough and the pool of candidates represents the 40/60. I not sure I understood your point, can you explain it more?

Bringing it back to the manifesto: he used the gender difference as an argument against special programs to hire more women, but this should only apply if Google has already achieved the optimal ratio.

His argument is moot if Google still does need further optimization in its gender ratios. I don't know what the real-world ratio is for this problem, but it appears the author of the manifesto doesn't either?

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

#429

Post by kuschku » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 5:34 PM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #401

kenjackson wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If I already had several cases due to hiring discrimination against women breathing down my neck, and this person would at the worst point in time publish an article that casts a shadow over every hiring process he has ever been involved in, yes, I'd definitely fire him.

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

#430

Post by sp332 » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 5:34 PM UTC

mistermann wrote: post #419

sp332 wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Status is the primary metric that men are judged on, pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. - Defeatist. If society pushes men into leadership, then there's nothing we can or should do about it? > Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbag…

I don't see any reference to discrimination against women in any of that. Could you possibly pick one of the points and explain to me how it is discriminatory against women?

I put a comment after each quote. Sorry if the notation wasn't clear.