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

#461

Post by snowwrestler » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 6:19 PM UTC

creshal wrote: post #241

snowwrestler wrote: post #33

The article hides a common but incorrect assumption. Look at this paragraph: > 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, technolog…

> The assumption here is that employment in STEM industries fundamentally and solely involves "mechanically interesting things". It's not. Read the original memo. He especially mentioned that women gravitate to the more social jobs in STEM environments, but Google's diversity programs were trying to force them into the "code monkey" jobs instead, to spread them more evenly. > Strong technology is important for succes…

I was writing about the article linked here. But since you mention the memo, I'll say this.

The current state of science suggests associations between gender, brain development, and career preferences. But women who are applying to Google for coding jobs are clearly stating their own individual career preferences. People apply for jobs they want.

Using population studies to try to contradict clearly expressed individual preferences is nonsensical; that's not how statistics works. It's like the old joke about the guy who carries a bomb onto a plane for safety, because "what are the chances that there are TWO bombs on one plane?"

And obviously associative data about preferences doesn't tell us anything about individual capability or qualifications.

Finally, if you actually ask women in STEM fields why they left or are considering leaving, career preferences are not the only answer. One also hears about disrespect, harassment, abuse--the glass ceiling. Again, this is real data that can't be lightly set aside just because it doesn't fit a narrative of biological determinism.

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

#462

Post by Delmania » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 6:22 PM UTC

mistermann wrote: post #421

Delmania wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There is no imagination, he might be citing scientific research, but this is no different that similar essays written by other technologists who don't agree with feminism and lean conservative and libertarian. ESR is a prime example, and this essay reminds me of his work. However,

>Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be

The line immediately before states that women tend to be more people-oriented than object-oriented. The line between these 2 states is crystal clear: women are more people oriented than men, and there are limits to how people oriented certain roles and the company can be, therefore, women will not have the same opportunities as men. If you want to take his words at face value, go ahead, but his entire essay is for Google to stop programs aimed at gender inclusion.

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

#463

Post by Delmania » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 6:24 PM UTC

Jabanga wrote: post #440

Delmania wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, there are some roles they might not be able to perform. That's absurd. You're not even interpreting his comments at face value. You're attributing a subtext to them that only exists in your imagination. >Strip away his science and his words, he's a misogynistic techbro What an absolutely hateful and sexist comment. It amounts to: "strip awa…

You're correct, it is a hateful, sexist comment, and I won't take it back or apologize for it. The "angry white male stereotype" has been at the heart of programming for a long time; misogyny has been at the heart of programming for a long time. As eloquent and research based as this paper is, it's just another in that long line of thinking.

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

#464

Post by mistermann » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 6:26 PM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #430

mistermann wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I saw that, I just don't see anything advocating discriminating against women. Advocating to not discriminate for women is not the same thing as discriminating against women. I think for a lot of people this distinction doesn't matter.

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

#465

Post by Delmania » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 6:27 PM UTC

Jabanga wrote: post #440

Delmania wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, there are some roles they might not be able to perform. That's absurd. You're not even interpreting his comments at face value. You're attributing a subtext to them that only exists in your imagination. >Strip away his science and his words, he's a misogynistic techbro What an absolutely hateful and sexist comment. It amounts to: "strip awa…

> That's absurd. You're not even interpreting his comments at face value. You're attributing a subtext to them that only exists in your imagination.

Really? The first bullet point is "women are more people oriented". The second bullet point is that there are limits to how people oriented specific roles or even Google as a whole can be. If you want to take his words at face value, go ahead, but the belief that there are some roles than women cannot do due to their differences is consistent with the rest of his essay.

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

#466

Post by biggerbistro » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 6:27 PM UTC

alokitr wrote: post #452

biggerbistro wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that not what a diversity program amounts to? If the candidate was superior on merit alone then market forces would reward those companies that ignored race and gender in their hiring decisions and punish the racist/sexist ones that were passing up perfectly good candidates. If all existing companies are racist/sexist then the potential entrepreneur that starts a competitor and scoops up all the "ignored talent" w…

I sincerely don't think diversity programs amount to that. And if you know any that do, call them out because they are not diversity programs, they are "discrimination" programs in essence. As a side note, I think you expect too much from talent in this specific case. There have been more than one companies that have hired excellent talent only to succumb to the market forces.

I'm curious as to why you don't think diversity programs are not exactly that: discrimination programs. Enforcing quotas assumes (usually incorrectly) that there is an equal supply of talent within the underrepresented minority group and that it is simply bias on the part of the hiring managers that prevents equal numbers of blacks/women/hispanics/whatever from being hired. Putting pressure on companies for not having more minority representation is being discriminatory against (usually) white males, as there are limited spots available at a given company.

If you start with the potentially incorrect assumption that your hiring practices are biased in favor of one group over another then doesn't it make more sense to address this bias directly rather than enforcing quotas? Having your hiring process audited and getting rid of any bad weeds seems like a good start. I've seen firsthand manager who have said outright "we can't hire him, we need to hire a woman this time" after interviewing what seemed to be a good candidate.

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

#467

Post by mistermann » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 6:29 PM UTC

Delmania wrote: post #462

mistermann wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

There is no imagination, he might be citing scientific research, but this is no different that similar essays written by other technologists who don't agree with feminism and lean conservative and libertarian. ESR is a prime example, and this essay reminds me of his work. However, >Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be The line immediately before states that women t…

> There is no imagination

> If you want to take his words at face value, go ahead

Very interesting, to me.

> his entire essay is for Google to stop programs aimed at gender inclusion.

Is anyone disputing that? This conversation is beyond confusing.

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

#468

Post by jorgemf » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 6:29 PM UTC

coryfklein wrote: post #428

jorgemf wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

His argument was that given A and B they were choosing B because is a woman, regardless of the skills for the position. Some people here also say the gender diversity programs in google are only for sourcing people, that the hiring process is the same (in which case the author of the doc is wrong in his assumptions).

Also another argument from him was that 50/50 is impossible to achieve and if you do you are being unfair and lowering the bar for one of the classes.

The real ratio in unknown, but some people here commented that you can get some approximation taking into account the graduates, the statistics about the applications etc. But for sure the ratio is not going to be 50/50 and positive discrimination is still discrimination.

So, as you said, if you don't know the real ratio why do you have positive discrimination policies? You might be doing it wrong. I think this is the discussion he wanted to bring, review the diversity programs because they can harm the company creating an artificial proportion far from the reality. Given that some other actions could be made like adding more "female skills" to the positions for example. Instead of starting a discussion of this issues based on his biological theory most people pointed at him as a sexits and other stuff. And Google shut him up firing him. So now noone will raise any concern because you can be fired.

To sum up: the big issue is that they are not having the conversation we are having here now, regardless of who is right or wrong.

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

#469

Post by mistermann » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 6:31 PM UTC

Delmania wrote: post #465

Jabanga wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>These 2 lines essentially state that as women are more interested in people, there are some roles they might not be able to perform. That's absurd. You're not even interpreting his comments at face value. You're attributing a subtext to them that only exists in your imagination. >Strip away his science and his words, he's a misogynistic techbro What an absolutely hateful and sexist comment. It amounts to: "strip awa…

> That's absurd. You're not even interpreting his comments at face value. You're attributing a subtext to them that only exists in your imagination. Really? The first bullet point is "women are more people oriented". The second bullet point is that there are limits to how people oriented specific roles or even Google as a whole can be. If you want to take his words at face value, go ahead, but the belief that there a…

> but the belief that there are some roles than women cannot do due to their differences is consistent with the rest of his essay

The only way I can think of how one could come to this conclusion is a lack of either:

- knowledge of what a statistical average is

- capacity for basic logical thought

You are mixing up your imagination with reality.

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

#470

Post by foolrush » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 6:32 PM UTC

Jabanga wrote: post #457

foolrush wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feel free to explore what truth is. Hint: You will end up in epistemology. It is also clear you have never read a Postmodern text in your life.

You're confirming my statement: truth to post modernism doesn't exist as the term is conventionally defined. It is only one particular group's frame of reference and therefore only a device in pursuit of power struggles between groups. From this perspective, there can be no such thing as science, as the term is conventionally understood (the pursuit of an impartial and universal truth).

Who do you think defined notions of truth? Scientists? Or were scientists philosophers interested in epistemology?

No, not being a smart ass. "Science" as we know it today is an invention. It hasn't been around forever. It is relatively new. Yes it is political. Yes it is epistemological. Yes it is ideological.

In terms of social sciences, it is far harder than we like to think.

What we choose to measure, how we choose to measure it, what we choose to ignore, diversity of contexts, etc. are political and ideological decisions.

If you would be interested in reading a rather dense and difficult text, Foucault's Discipline and Punish might be of interest.