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

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

theglobeandmail.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 684 posts

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

#471

Post by mistermann »

sp332 wrote: post #424
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.

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.

Exactly, which is what the manifesto is fighting against.

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

#472

Post by mistermann »

Delmania wrote: post #456
mistermann wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Keep trying.

I would offer you the same advice, for your benefit I hope you take it.

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

#473

Post by Chris2048 »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #305
Chris2048 wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's fine by me. I just have to adjust my trajectory. And silence your mouth? There is a big difference between "I'm fine with this" and "Anyone who isn't should be fired".

If I disagree with somebody, I can grab a megaphone and shout in their face, hit them, or try to start a civilized discussion. If I'm not mistaken, he was fired for breaching the company's civil code of conduct. That's different than being fired for an idea. If I started onto my company's social intranet and posted essays citing references about why something should change, I'd probably face equal back lash because i…

> he was fired for breaching the company's civil code of conduct.

We've yet to hear details of what this really mean, and if this CoC is applied fairly. It sounds like the violation i a) based on a particular interpretation of the memo, or b) based on the subjective offense of other employees. This sounds like the "cultural fit" loophole of the left.

> That's different than being fired for an idea

Is it? Have all the ideas you want, just don't express them, even in forums than are specifically for that purpose? Why isn't the leaker being punished?

> If I started onto my company's social intranet

There are plenty liberal/left essays floating about the google intranets, this is not you average employer.

> he created a hostile atmosphere

Did he? The leaker, and those who misrepresented the content of the memo seem to be implicit in that.

> This resulted in bad press

So does any whistle-blower. But again - He did not leak the memo.

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

#474

Post by virgilp »

There was a joke in communist times about the 5 commendments. I guess James Damore just learned them:

1. Thou shalt not think

2. If thou thought, thou shalt not speak

3. If thou spoke, thou shalt not write

4. If thou wrote, thou shalt not sign

5. If thou signed, thou shalt not act surprised.

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

#475

Post by AnthonyMouse »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #65
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…

I personally never called it out for sexism. I called it out for regressive-thinking as a solution based on plain fact. I can only be brief right now, but it's starting to get to me how so many people in an innovative sphere seem to have such a hard time with this. To me, it seems like it shouldn't be a second thought. If the main argument is that women do not [by nature of our scientific understanding] have minds tu…

> If the main argument is that women do not [by nature of our scientific understanding] have minds tuned to engineering prowess to the extent that men do for whatever cause, then just how does that itself prescribe that we should stop pushing for an expansion there?

It doesn't. There are just different ways to get there.

One way is to eliminate unjust barriers that discourage females from participating in the industry. Another way is to explicitly discriminate against males. The second category has been used in practice and people reasonably object to it.

Not creating bias against men doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't eliminate any existing bias against women.

But it's also possible that even if we do strike down all the unjust barriers, most women would still prefer to be veterinarians or nurses or psychologists. Are we then supposed to pass laws to coerce them to become programmers?

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

#476

Post by hefty »

skoocda wrote: post #459
typicalbender wrote: post #38

As an additional perspective, here's an interview from James' perspective[1]. The interviewer is clearly fairly bias and holds the same viewpoint which is unfortunate but I think hearing James' perspective on the purpose of the document is interesting. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agU-mHFcXdw

Here's the full interview[1] - the above comment linked a shortened version. For reference, this is Dr. Jordan Peterson, the University of Toronto professor who was fired a few months ago for his stance on using gender pronouns. He's a strong proponent of free speech, which he touches on in this discussion. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU

> was fired a few months ago for his stance on using gender pronouns.

He wasn't fired. The university sent him two warning letters and then backed down from taking any action. He's still teaching psychology there.

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

#477

Post by jshevek »

wyclif wrote: post #30
abhi3 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I flagged it. How many times do we need to have the same repetitive discussion? This topic is crowding out other quality submissions.

Stop flagging articles you don't agree with that discuss science. It's not how HN is supposed to work. According to the HN guidelines, flagging is for spam or off-topic submissions. This is neither.

The circumstances surrounding James Damore's "google memo" are a fairly clear indicator that we have a growing subculture of absolute ideological intolerance, especially in the tech industry.

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

#478

Post by omikun »

vowelless wrote: post #388
omikun wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one told me . I'm still trying to figure it out. But mainstream gender equality says there should be a roughly equal split while the memo says the split should be something else and implied it should be more men than women by citing reasons for why there currently are more men than women. Oh, am I not allowed to form an opinion on what should be? Please correct me if I am wrong but perhaps your opinion is no one s…

I didn't mean to be antagonistic. Apologize if I came off that way. Part of the discussion around the memo indeed is having an open discussion about what things should be like. Of course I would like to see more women in tech and also make sure everyone is comfortable. My gf is also in tech. My only qualm is that many people seem to axiomatically take the position that a 50/50 split should be the case. I just don't s…

I should apologize too. I was just a bit flustered.

50/50 split might be naive. It assumes men and women should be equally represented and that makes liberally minded folks feel good. But what's the alternative? Status quo? A different and arbitrary split? I don't see any good arguments against equal representation.

The current diversity initiative is biasing towards 50/50 and the memo guy didn't like it but didn't suggest what it should be, only that it should be less because biology. You can see why some people might read that as a first step back to status quo.

Personally, I feel 50/50 is a good first approximation. Maybe it's really 70/30, but no one knows and there aren't any studies to back any up.

Oh wait there is: Bear, Julia B., and Anita Williams Woolley. "The role of gender in team collaboration and performance." Interdisciplinary science reviews 36.2 (2011): 146-153.

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

#479

Post by omikun »

jorgemf wrote: post #322
omikun wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are missing the trees for the forest. Your argument is on individual skills in a distribution within a gender. Have you considered how gender distribution within a team may affect productivity? This is the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Even if we hire more of group B and we end up with a lower average of a particular skill in the team, if productivity goes up as a result, then it is still a good hir…

First your comment of missing the trees for the forest didn't add anything to the discussion. 1) If you hire more from group B other company cannot hire them. So you will have imbalance in another place. You don't solve the problem but move it to another company. 2) Skills usually are related. If you need some set of skills for a position I don't see how not having them is going to increase the productivity. 3) I nev…

1) Are you saying there aren't enough qualified women to hire? I agree. Hiring more women then creates competition which would increase their pay and make their jobs more attractive to more women. What's the problem?

2-4) I get the feeling we're probably on the same side but maybe arguing for it differently. I think tech positions already need "female" skills (however sexist that may sound) but we just ignore it in favor of programming abilities as if we all work in silos. That's just my opinion.

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

#480

Post by jshevek »

abhi3 wrote: post #26
UK-AL wrote: post #5

Please don't flag the article if you simply disagree. The key to changing minds is understanding the other side. Not shutting them out of the conversation.

I flagged it. How many times do we need to have the same repetitive discussion? This topic is crowding out other quality submissions.

Crowding out? Hardly. Are you opposed to allowing people to have this discussion?
Post reply on HN