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

481–490 of 684 posts

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

#481

Post by panda88888 »

jorgemf wrote: post #468
coryfklein wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 un…

The on-site Google interview process has 2 steps. The first is the usual, get grilled by 4/5 engineers on technical issue, that is broken up by a lunch with hiring manager in the middle. The feedback from interviews are submitted with candidate application to a hiring committee, whom makes a hire/no-hire decision.

Would the diversity program at Google encourage the committee members to looks for biases against female/minority candidates and compensate accordingly? In essence, giving the said candidate more benefit of the doubt than male/Asian candidates? All candidate passed the technical bar, but may be treated differently based on their ethnicity/gender at the hiring committee, with preference for minority/female candidates.

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

#483

Post by Delmania »

mistermann wrote: post #469
Delmania wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Logical thoughts? "Women are X" "There are limits to how well certain positions and Google can support X".

So, what exactly am I supposed to draw from this? You're insistent I am wrong, but you're offering no explanation as to why I am wrong. I don't disagree that women are more sociable than men. I disagree this means certain roles within the company cannot support that trait.

Further down: "Women value work life balance" "Men are status achievers" "Because of that, men will appropriately be in leadership and technology roles, also women suffer anxiety more." Side note, convenient he leaves out that women are statistically able to deal with stress better than men. His conclusion is that rather than creating programs that encourage women to enter leadership positions, leave that to the men and give women access to part time roles.

If you want to say I am wrong, so be it, disagreement is fine, but you have yet to counter anything I have said with an opposing understanding, just ad hominen attacks and criticism.

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

#484

Post by Delmania »

mistermann wrote: post #471
sp332 wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The manifesto is asking to END those programs and create "separate but equal" institutions. Are we reading the same manifesto?

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

#485

Post by sctb »

rmc wrote: post #307
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…

> So why aren't the management layers of tech companies composed of mostly women? Because why people say "men and women are just interested in different things", they really mean "women are interested in, and better at, looking after babies, and men are better at everything else".

Please don't troll like this here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#486

Post by mistermann »

Delmania wrote: post #483
mistermann wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Logical thoughts? "Women are X" "There are limits to how well certain positions and Google can support X". So, what exactly am I supposed to draw from this? You're insistent I am wrong, but you're offering no explanation as to why I am wrong. I don't disagree that women are more sociable than men. I disagree this means certain roles within the company cannot support that trait. Further down: "Women value work life ba…

> You're insistent I am wrong, but you're offering no explanation as to why I am wrong.

The explanation was in my previous comment.

I will give you another hint: you are misinterpreting the meaning of "women" in your excerpted quotes.

> If you want to say I am wrong, so be it, disagreement is fine, but you have yet to counter anything I have said with an opposing understanding, just ad hominen attacks and criticism.

I don't think there's a way to reply that will satisfy you, there is a crucial part of objective perception that you are lacking.

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

#487

Post by jorgemf »

omikun wrote: post #479
jorgemf wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

> Hiring more women then creates competition which would increase their pay and make their jobs more attractive to more women.

Women are one of the groups you can hire. Salaries would only increase if you force the companies to have a higher number of women that they are really are (supply/demand).

> 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.

Exactly this. What I am saying is that the solution might be to put those skills in written for those job positions and taking them into account in the hiring process. I think we are not doing it now. Also creating programs to teach everybody that other skills are also valuable for the job, and not because we don't have them we should under valuate who have them. I think something like this was the goal of the person who wrote the doc, but unlikely us, they fired him before open a discussion like we are doing now. In the first comments it seemed that we were having different opinions and look now, it wasn't really the case.

Sorry for the "female skills" sentence. I only wanted to explain it in an easy way. Those skills I refer like empathizing or social skills are more frequent in women but they are in men too.

EDIT: to make clear my position about the salaries: same position = same salary (no discussion here, if you want different salaries justify that person should be in a different position with more/less salary)

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

#488

Post by panda88888 »

dionidium wrote: post #216
hackinthebochs wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, the societies are too different to draw such conclusions. In less gender egalitarian societies a women without income is at the mercy of a sexist society. In more gender egalitarian societies, there is more social support and safety for women at lower economic levels. So in these less gender egalitarian societies, the drive to secure income is much greater and thus you would expect women to take lucrative…

Yes, this is exactly how it plays out. This isn't proof , in itself, but it does seem to have predictive power as a theory: "Galpin investigated the percent of women in computer classes all around the world. Her number of 26% for the US is slightly higher than I usually hear, probably because it’s older (the percent women in computing has actually gone down over time!). The least sexist countries I can think of – Swe…

It's the same concept as FU money. In societies with poor gender equality, having financial independence is a crucial and powerful defense against societal injustice.

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

#489

Post by mistermann »

Delmania wrote: post #484
mistermann wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, which is what the manifesto is fighting against.

The manifesto is asking to END those programs and create "separate but equal" institutions. Are we reading the same manifesto?

We're reading the same document, but what you don't realize is your brain is adding additional context and information that is simply not in the document. Therefore, you are confused about what the author is saying.

Can you give me some indication that you understand what I'm talking about? You don't have to agree, just a sign that you know what I'm saying. I'm wondering if your brain maybe censors certain sorts of ideas, such that you effectively don't even "see" them.

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

#490

Post by deepnotderp »

daughart wrote: post #427
deepnotderp wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Then it's a good thing that he cited sources (that got removed by Gizmodo, Motherboard, etc.)
Post reply on HN