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

491–500 of 684 posts

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

#491

Post by monochromatic »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #450
monochromatic wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And didn't the president promise to pay the legal defense of supporters of his who committed violence on his behalf to intimidate a free press? Not to my knowledge. Are you talking about when he (perhaps jokingly) said: > So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them. I will pay for the legal fees.

> So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them. I will pay for the legal fees. Biden could say that at a state dinner and nobody would blink twice

Nobody has a sense of humor when it comes to President Trump.

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

#492

Post by lawtguy »

Some additional data taken from the National Center for Education Statistics (https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_318.30.a...)

Bachelor's degrees by sex from 2013-2014:

Mathematics, general: 43.9% earned by women (7,420 out of 16,914) Chemistry, general: 47.7% earned by women (6,556 out of 13,730) Physics, general: 18.7% earned by women (1,124 out of 6,002) Computer Science: 14.5% earned by women (1,914 out of 13,220)

It seems like all of the gender differences pointed out about women in the diversity memo would apply equally to Physics and Computer Science as they do to Mathematics and Chemistry, but they gender ratio of Mathematics and Chemistry degrees is much closer to 50/50. So why the big difference?

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

#493

Post by panda88888 »

kenjackson wrote: post #208
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…

The issue with the original article was two-fold: 1. It used strawman arguments. Notably that the world is looking for a 50/50 split in gender ratios. Most reasonable people believe that even in ideal equilibrium state that this is not the expected outcome (although I'm sure there exist some people that push for 50/50 or greater). But that the current ratio is not the ideal equilibrium state. The author of the paper…

> 1. It used strawman arguments. Notably that the world is looking for a 50/50 split in gender ratios. Most reasonable people believe that even in ideal equilibrium state that this is not the expected outcome (although I'm sure there exist some people that push for 50/50 or greater). But that the current ratio is not the ideal equilibrium state. The author of the paper seems to point out that 50/50 isn't likely the expected ratio -- and then jumps to trying to dismantle affirmative action.

What is the expected outcome? It's somewhat of a rhetorical question, but I am curious. I guess it's somewhere between status quo and 50, but how do we know if we have reached equilibrium?

If anything, isn't status quo an equilibrium based on all current inputs to the system? So at what point do we stop tweaking inputs to the system and declare done? I would love to hear some kind of target/KPI that the Google diversity initiative is trying to hit.

Edit: also, if we don't know what the expected outcome is, how do we know when the process has been over compensated and is actually skewed in the other direction?

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

#494

Post by notacoward »

program_whiz wrote: post #107

I have a question to further this debate. Would people consider it sexist to administer a completely automated test of technical and personality questions which was used by an unbiased program to hire only the best qualified candidates? What would you say if the results were essentially the same as the status quo? By the Article's Author's account, she believes that we would probably maintain the status quo with such…

> What would you say if the results were essentially the same as the status quo?

OK, I'll bite. I'd say that's both surprising and interesting. Then I'd ask why the status quo is even relevant. "Best qualified" at the time of taking the test might not mean "most productive a year hence" when a candidate's circumstances might have kept them from reaching their full potential. Indeed, circumstances might have kept them from making it as far as the test at all. When there are statistically valid predictors of these things likely having happened, why couldn't - or shouldn't - Google take advantage of that knowledge? Also, no individual test can account for the common phenomenon of diverse teams outperforming monoculture teams. Hiring the best individuals is not the same as building the best teams.

Thus, even if such a "unicorn test" could exist, and even from the most hard-hearted "Google shouldn't consider social justice" perspective, the test would only be one input for selecting candidates. There would still be sound business focused reasons for overriding its results some of the time.

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

#495

Post by kthejoker2 »

highfiveui wrote: post #283
foolrush wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realize that science is ideological, epistemological, and political? Edit: I appreciate all of the vote downs. Empiricism is as guilty in choosing models according to power dynamics as any ideological endeavor. See phrenology. To suggest science isn't political and ideological is absolutely delusional.

Is science not about finding the truth above all else?

Mm .... Maybe?

Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions has the most relevant writing on this.

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

#496

Post by panda88888 »

agarden wrote: post #309
megous wrote: post #36

What I find interesting about all this is how many people take personal offense from statistics. (and conclusions drawn from statistics) The author seems to put an effort into explaining statistical distribution and what it means and what not. He's explicit that statistical observations can't be used to judge particular individuals. Draws a graph of overlapping distributions to drive the point home even more. I'm not…

> It's not personal by definition. In my own experience, when one tries to talk with a woman in an impersonal way about something that is personal to her, she will tend to find that very offensive. Infuriating even, because one is ignoring her emotions, treating them as if they don't matter. And to her, her emotions really matter. From talking to others and based on what I've read, things tend to trend this way. In f…

Bigot! Are you saying women can't have rational discussions regarding controversial topics that affects them?!?! grabs pitchfork

/s

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

#497

Post by daughart »

deepnotderp wrote: post #490
daughart wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

As said elsewhere in this thread:

Anyone who wants to use "science" in this way needs to read "The Golem" by prominent sociologists of science Collins and Pinch. It's a short, enjoyable read. One of the things you'll learn is that science can only ask the questions humans want to ask, and science often says exactly what people want it to say.

https://www.amazon.com/Golem-Should-About-Science-Classics/d...; online link: http://cstpr.colorado.edu/students/envs_5110/collins_the_gol...

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

#498

Post by jorgemf »

panda88888 wrote: post #481
jorgemf wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I know how is the process from the external point of view, but, what is the feedback they submit? Here is where the bias of the hiring process could be (like only considering skills more likely to be in men).

> Would the diversity program at Google encourage the committee members to looks for biases against female/minority candidates and compensate accordingly?

I don't know, and I would want to know how the really work. One girl here commented she was hired by one of this programs, so at least I know the candidate know he/she is in on of this programs when they apply. Other girl commented that she heard in one of her interviews (I don't know the company): "+1 point because you are a girl and diversity make us pay less taxes". I wouldn't be surprised if something like this also happens internally at Google. A googler also said the hiring process is the same for everybody, but giving the evidence of the document I don't think is exactly the same.

I cannot say more. I do not have more information. If you find it, let me know.

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

#499

Post by panda88888 »

biggerbistro wrote: post #368
omikun wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're confusing the way things are versus the way things should be. Evolutionary biology explains the way things are. Diversity measures combats that with the goal of getting us to the way things should be. There are a host of reasons why things are the way they are now. The memo tries to offload some of that to biological explanations and cites studies. Then he makes a leap of faith and recommends the should based…

Actually, diversity measures make things worse by promoting below-average candidates unfairly based on their superficial attributes (skin color, sex etc). This actually achieves the opposite of what is intended as it reduces fitness selection of whatever genes make someone good at/interested in STEM topics. By going against meritocracy you are harming the vulnerable groups by giving them a crutch to rely on.

In the case of Google, I don't think the bar is being lowered for any candidate, since there are so many candidates to select from. If anything, it's more likely that qualified non-diverse candidate are rejected for random reasons at a higher rate than qualified diverse candidates, because interviewers and hiring committee aren't on the look out for biases.

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

#500

Post by daughart »

Jabanga wrote: post #434
foolrush wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realize that science is ideological, epistemological, and political? Edit: I appreciate all of the vote downs. Empiricism is as guilty in choosing models according to power dynamics as any ideological endeavor. See phrenology. To suggest science isn't political and ideological is absolutely delusional.

That is the postmodern anti-science belief, which assumes that truth is not really truth. It is just a device used in power struggles between identity groups. It's so extreme that there was actually paper published on feminist glaciology [1]. This is not science. It is just dogma and actually hostile to the principle of science as a pursuit of objective truth carried out by people of good faith. [1] http://journals.s…

You should read a little about the history and sociology of science.
Post reply on HN