Live data from Hacker News

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

gizmodo.com

461–470 of 660 posts

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

#461

I believe the gap is more cultural-made than sex-made. Basically there are the same differences of capabilities between two random males and between a random male and a random female.

If you are talking about IQ the data would support you, the problem comes when you look at standard deviation and we see men have a slightly higher standard deviation which leads to the extremes on both sides being overwhelmingly male. It's not something we need to worry about much in day to day interactions because you wont notice it but in hyper selective environments it might become an something people notice.

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

#462

I fail to understand the outrage but attribute that to the fact that few bothered to read the document before allowing themselves to be outraged by it - such is the shallow, feeling-fueled, hysteria-laden media cycle of today. The doc presents a point-of-view, grounded in reality. Furthermore it's not "anti-diversity", but rather anti-discrimination - specifically 'positive 'discrimination which it discredits while p…

The argument basically proceeds as follows: 1) Gender differences exist 2) ??? 3) Differences in representation are explainable by gender differences The problem with the "???" step is that it's unrigorous handwaving. "Women prefer working with people." Okay, so that's why the majority of accountants are women? That's why STEM fields that don't involve people at all (math, biology) actually have quite a lot of women,…

The argument basically proceeds as follows:

1) Gender differences exist

2) ???

3) Differences in representation are explainable by gender differences

Really? I read it as

1) Gender differences exist

2) Differences in representation may be at least partly due to gender differences.

3) Differences in representation should not be taken as automatic proof of bias.

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

#463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

...but that obviously isn't true. by every single metric, there is more variation within genders than between genders: physical fitness, intelligence, personality, interests, etc. gender is a totally artificial, socially constructed way to organize people.

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

#464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IQ variance might explain part of the difference in nobel prize winners, but is minuscule at average IQ in tech (~90th percentile).

Yet Marie Curie was the first person to receive two prizes. In fact, she was the only person who received two science Nobel prizes for 61 years.

That really doesn't invalidate the statistical argument. She was one person.

A better counter-argument would have been to focus on how historically women have been actively and passively discouraged from entering the sciences at practically every level of education. This more clearly has a causal role with Nobel rates and likely played a large role in the disparity.

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

#465
post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you reasoning is going like this: 1. There is problem X 2. Possible cause of problem X is the reason Y 3. In fields where we are sure reason Y is rampant, we have successfully solved problem X by attacking instances of Y 4. In the field F, we have had no comparable success doing the same, despite all efforts. 5. Therefore, it is obvious that reason Y is much worse in F than everywhere and we should double and trip…

by the way, not sure if you are correct about composers. You are definitely correct about composers who are featured and given public prizes. In music school, there seemed to be an equal number of women composition students. All the composing professors were men, with one or two exceptions in certain places in the United States. The decision-makers were always men, ultimately. But that is changing today, just like it…

Unfortunately none of these stories about "suspicious authorship" are plausible at this point, since the issue has been so heavily politicized. It is necessary for political purposes for there to have been more female composers in the past, therefore we will invent a different past as necessary.

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

#466
post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I realize this is getting off topic, but can you explain why you think that, "All available evidence strongly suggests that Charles Murray is in fact a racist"? I've read The Bell Curve and listened to a debate where Murray argued in favor of universal basic income. I came away from both thinking that he's been totally misrepresented. I just reviewed my notes for The Bell Curve to make sure I hadn't mis-remembered th…

The SPLC is not a reliable source, but I think what they have to say about Charles Murray checks out.

If, as you've just admitted, the SPLC is not reliable, why do you think it checks out?

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

#467

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?

I am going to pretend my previous post was poorly written so as not to offend your sensibilities.

When political activists, regardless of who they are and what they're against, want to ban a meeting because someone they disagree with is going to make a speech there, when they invade a venue with bullhorns so loud people have to leave, when they're sending death threats, or starting physical altercations, or setting things on fire, they're not behaving like progressives or conservatives, but like fascists. Regardless of what side of the aisle they're claiming to be from. Physical suppression of opposing speech is in fact textbook fascism.

There are legitimate ways to protests people and ideas you disagree with in a democratic society: boycotting an event. Writing against it. Picketing or demonstrating/counter-demonstrating. Rest assured you don't have to give them any trophy.

But what adults do is, and I know this is going to sound shocking, they talk to each other. Noam Chomsky debated William F. Buckley. William F. Buckley debated Gore Vidal (and famously lost in the eye of the nation by precisely failing to uphold civilized discourse). Malcolm X debated Martin Luther King Jr, and Martin Luther King Jr debated James J. Kilpatrick. Here in 2017 Cenk Uygur debated Ben Shapiro (...yes, this does not have the same ring to it as 1960s debates).

It is quite embarrassing that, almost 60 years ago, Doctor King could debate a segregationist on live television, while a visible segment of today's youth is reduced to hysterically yelling into a bullhorn (or worse) until people are forced to leave, just because of the perceived slight that someone is going to give a speech.

As a European who knows political trends tend to spill over across the ocean (both ways. We're still sorry for having given you a case of Acute Thatcherism, America), I am quite worried to see fascists not being opposed and denounced by the left simply because this time they are advancing under the mask of progressivism.

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

#468

I agree that giving someone an unfair advantage because of their gender or race is a form of discrimination. Gender and race are just two of many factors that individuals might struggle with when it comes to their career and life. If you're an introvert, short, fat, nerdy-looking or you have a weak posture; there's no support group to offset your shortcomings and all the insidious ways in which they will sabotage you…

Don't give unfair advantages based on gender/race, but do prioritize finding individuals of diverse gender/race whom meet your criteria. It will make you more successful in the long run.

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

#469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, we're in presence of solid research finding a) similar sex differences in toy preferences in monkeys as in human children, and b) sex differences visible within 2 days after birth (references here : https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/wh... ) As you justly said, we're in Occam's razor country. So, do you think the 2 observations above are more easily explained by socialization, or biology ?

So basically here's what I see: One side points out that gender parity is overwhelmingly better in other STEM fields, that in modern science those fields are all themselves largely defined by software and technology, that there's a clear history of women being excluded from other professions, and that those professions later and enduringly corrected those problems, and that gender parity in CS has sharply decreased o…

[deleted]

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

#470
post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem with the "???" step is that it's unrigorous handwaving. Probably because nobody actually knows right now what actually causes the differences and how. The case that is caused exclusively by entrenched sexism - somehow driven by people graduating from the same institutions who have been fighting sexism for decades now, and by the same people who repudiate and denounce sexism on every corner - also does n…

Well, overall, the share of women in computer sciences has been decreasing for the past years, but it didn't use to be like that. Up until the mid-80s the share was in line with (or higher) than other study areas. NPR talks a bit about the subject, including how personal computers were initially marketed at young men. It's a good read. http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-...

I find it a bit hard to believe marketing of computers alone explains such spectacular drop in one specific area - was physics or chemistry marketed to girls in 80s? Also, how exactly marketing for boys made half of the girls drop the field - as opposed to no marketing? That sounds like too big an effect. Also, one of the ads (other one is unreachable) shows both boys and girls behind the computer and a woman leading the computer class (BTW, famous Apple 1984 ad also featured a woman in a role clearly meant to be associated with the product). How that alone should cause half of the girls to go away? True, nerd usually meant boy. But wasn't it true for physics or chemistry or biology or many other things too? I mean, to identify the key factor you need to do two things a) find that the factor is present when the effect is present (parents buy computers more for boys) and b) find that the effect is not present when the factor is not present (parents do not buy more chemistry sets, physics books, math books, etc. for boys than for girls). I don't see the second part was done. Without it, I think the link can not be established.
Post reply on HN