Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

gizmodo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 660 posts

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

#441

Post by rhizome »

twh270 wrote: post #122
smhost wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is incredibly disingenuous. > Much of the left considers simple disagreement to be micro-aggression... Tone down on the hypocrisy. If you want your side's arguments to be evaluated fairly, don't make ridiculous oversimplifications of the other side's positions.

It's hardly a 'simplification' when people on the left regularly use the kind of speech I described to attack people who disagree with them. The right is just as guilty, but the comment I responded to was giving the left a pass on it, which is what I object to.

They weren't giving the left a pass on it, they said the offended-right was using the same language.

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

#442

Post by Veratyr »

rhizome wrote: post #440
Veratyr wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First situation that comes to mind is in a conversation where the coworker has raised the subject in conversation: "I've been working out a lot the last few months. I managed to lose a lot of weight and I think I look good." "Yeah, you looks great, that work definitely paid off." The coworker brought it up, which indicates that they're comfortable talking about it and the comment is a celebration of the coworker's ac…

The Google example is none of those.

You asked for an example after already seeing that one, clearly giving it to you again would just lead to pointless debate so it makes sense to give you a new one.

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

#443

Post by dyno12345 »

brians wrote: post #131
mAritz wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. There are claims that for example men are better at spacial reasoning (imagining/navigating a 2d/3d space, constructing physical things in their head before acting on it). Women are supposedly better at putting themselves into the perspective of other people, both emotionally as well as logically. Or so I've heard. I'm sure there have been studies on these topics though, and I think that's what your paren…

Boys are encouraged to build and to play ball. Girls are encouraged to perform and to play tea. Why would we expect the stereotypical difference to be biological at all? I'm sure there are some differences in tendencies, but I'm not at all sure they'll avoid being swamped by environmental effects, socialization, and individual variation.

Lots of studies have shown that girls that happen to have received prenatal male hormones show strong preferences for more typically boy's toys and play behavior in spite of any degree of social pressure.

There are lots more but here are a few:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12760514

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15693771

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12414881

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

#444

Post by tbrownaw »

Pulcinella wrote: post #406
SamReidHughes wrote: post #300

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."

"Truth values are in fact a binary difference, fuzzy logic is a tiny portion of mathematics."

Metastable states[0] are a tiny portion of all logic values. They exist and are inherently unavoidable, but somehow massively complicated systems that fundamentally rely on the assumption that values are either 0 or 1 still work.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metastability_in_electronics

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

#445

Post by agarden »

bmn__ wrote: post #87
Hnrobert42 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. I was willing to give him a fair hearing until he listed a handful of differences between men and women that he ascribes to biology without any factual support. And therein lies the unconscious bias against which he is railing. To him, there is no question that men and women, on average, are fundamentally different in ways that affects their ability to and interest in work in tech. I agree with him that folks s…

> I was willing to give him a fair hearing until he listed a handful of differences between men and women that he ascribes to biology without any factual support. You've been punked, Gizmodo journalism at its finest! Kate Conger withheld the factual support so that to a not-careful reader it looks like the original poster just makes stuff up. ctrl + f: "Two charts and several hyperlinks are also omitted." Note the pa…

Have you seen the charts and hyperlinks? I was quite puzzled that they would be left out.

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

#446

Post by TheAceOfHearts »

Hnrobert42 wrote: post #16
Quarrelsome wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is bad with the good. The suggestion that men and women ARE different is taboo. The premise that the differences between them are social as opposed to literal is a much easier way to force the same point (and IMO more correct but I respect I lack the science to be certain). This person lacks tact and the way they view the entire political sphere as just left/right is ultimately of concern. Way too simplistic ou…

Yeah. I was willing to give him a fair hearing until he listed a handful of differences between men and women that he ascribes to biology without any factual support. And therein lies the unconscious bias against which he is railing. To him, there is no question that men and women, on average, are fundamentally different in ways that affects their ability to and interest in work in tech. I agree with him that folks s…

FWIW, it's not clear if the original writeup includes links to sources backing his claims.

FTA: The text of the post is reproduced in full below, with some minor formatting modifications. Two charts and several hyperlinks are also omitted.

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

#447

Post by abalone »

Also ridiculously racist. Really!

Amidst his rambling "evolutionary psychology" argument concerning the gender gap he also protests racial diversity programs.[1] And his explanation for that? Are black people also bad at programming because of evolution? It's buried here:

"Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ and sex differences)." (emphasis mine)

So non-whites are doing worse in engineering because they're dumber, according to science. Seriously, does dressing these views up in pseudo-academic prose make them any less racist?

[1] "Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race"

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

#448

Post by agarden »

grey-area wrote: post #99
danieltillett wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having personally experience the effects of different levels of testosterone I find it hard to believe any claim of the differences between men and woman at the population level not at least in part being biological.

There is a long way between claiming there are no biological differences between men and women (of course there are), and the specific claims of differences in the article (which are remarkably specific and tailored to areas of male behaviour the author clearly valorises, e.g. status driven = good, empathy = bad).

I did not get "status driven = good, empathy = bad" from the article.

In his section titled "Men's Higher Drive for Status", the author suggests that status-driven is bad:

"We always ask why we don’t see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.

"Status is the primary metric that men are judged on[4], pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. 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, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths."

And then in a footnote:

"Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents how much the employees sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around power."

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

#449

Post by [deleted] »

Pulcinella wrote: post #419
Hasknewbie wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the author is implicitly referring to more than simply unpleasant interactions at work. As someone who is neither American nor conservative, I have to give it to them that there is a level of virulence from some on the left that is far beyond mere microagression, but is not acknowledged as such: there are continuous attempts to ban some speeches on campuses. If a ban fails it is picketed (which is OK), someti…

So what you are saying is that there should be safe spaces for conservatives to express themselves? That conservatives should be welcomed for their diversity? That conservstives should be given a participation trophy and honored for their special snowflake ideas?

[deleted]

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

#450

Post by TRUMPISYOURPREZ »

abalone wrote: post #447

Also ridiculously racist. Really! Amidst his rambling "evolutionary psychology" argument concerning the gender gap he also protests racial diversity programs.[1] And his explanation for that? Are black people also bad at programming because of evolution? It's buried here: "Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ and sex differences)." (emphasis mine) So non-whites are doi…

Asians seem to be doing quite well in STEM and score higher than whites on IQ tests.
Post reply on HN