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

51–60 of 684 posts

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

#51

Post by tothepixel »

and0 wrote: post #39
jamesrcole wrote: post #15

What disturbs me most about this incident is how many people's first instinct, when faced with views they strongly disagree with, is to try and suppress those views and the person speaking them. Not to engage with the argument or to try and argue against it, just to shut the other person down. It's a totalitarian kind of response.

Some people may have reacted that way. I think you're very intentionally trying mischaracterize people rolling their eyes the same way they always do as some sort of ignorant knee-jerk reaction. I read the memo entirely. It was half-baked, ideologically, but also creepy. I've heard what it had to say a million times before and it's still stupid.

TIL science is creepy

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

#52

Post by alkonaut »

dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #46
alkonaut wrote: post #10

Why can't the memo be both sexist and science? Arguing that there are differences between genders that make one gender unsuitable for a task can be as scientific as you want, it's still sexist. It's no different from doing the same but replacing gender with race - it's racist no matter how carefully and scientifically you worded it. It's almost as if the person writing this article believes that if the manifesto is f…

Science by definition can't be sexist. In science there is no place for prejudices, beliefs and biases - only facts. It's human attitudes interpreting these facts that can be sexist, racist and so on. Second, the author didn't argue there are differences between genders or sexes that make one unsuitable for a given task. That's one of the most gross and unfair misrepresentations of the memo.

> Science by definition can't be sexist.

Of course. But depending on context the use and quoting of it sure can. I'm sure there is plenty of evidence of physical difference betweeen races, and there are reasonable ways to use those scientific results - and there are racist ways of using them. Doesn't change that

> Second, the author didn't argue there are differences between genders or sexes that make one unsuitable for a given task.

Wow I read the whole thing (which is rare) and that was what really jumped out. I wonder what I misunderstood.

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

#53

Post by jamesrcole »

and0 wrote: post #39
jamesrcole wrote: post #15

What disturbs me most about this incident is how many people's first instinct, when faced with views they strongly disagree with, is to try and suppress those views and the person speaking them. Not to engage with the argument or to try and argue against it, just to shut the other person down. It's a totalitarian kind of response.

Some people may have reacted that way. I think you're very intentionally trying mischaracterize people rolling their eyes the same way they always do as some sort of ignorant knee-jerk reaction. I read the memo entirely. It was half-baked, ideologically, but also creepy. I've heard what it had to say a million times before and it's still stupid.

> I think you're very intentionally trying mischaracterize people

That's a pretty strong accusation. What is your evidence for that claim? Show me what I wrote that attempts to do that.

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

#54

Post by root_axis »

> Scientific studies have confirmed sex differences in the brain that lead to differences in our interests and behaviour.

This is obvious and not the point of contention. The crux of the other side's disagreement is in the assumption that differences in brain chemistry attributable to sex necessarily account for all or the majority of the differences we observe in career distributions. I think the insane reaction to this memo is unfortunate because the author does appear to make an earnest effort to discuss this topic, but the memo's defenders are not doing the argument any favors by arguing against the weakest version of the opposing argument.

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

#55

Post by blusterXY »

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…

What astonishes me is that Google's VP of Diversity knows so little about the underlying science of her vocation that she confused statements of clinical fact (with the science even referenced in footnotes!) with personal attacks on women.

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

#56

Post by Smaug123 »

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…

What's the proportion of people who work their way up to management from code-monkey, versus being hired directly into a management role?

If it's highly skewed towards "promoted from code-monkey", then there's a big barrier to entry if you're the kind of person who loves managing and dislikes code-monkeying.

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

#57

Post by piokoch »

I am always surprised that well educated people who are definitely not "creationists" but consider evolution as a way human kind developed are ready to ignore evolution when it comes to gender.

Clearly man and woman are different physically and mentally as for millenias they played different roles. Why "gender people" keep ignoring that and are claiming that sex is not something inborn and is a "cultural" phenomena is hard to understand.

For me gender studies are just new incarnation of Lysenkoism. Lysenko strongly belived (and thousands of soviet scientist) that weeds could spontaneously evolve into food grains because is should cooperate with communistic party.

Those who were against that obvious stupidity and claimed that genetics is the way to understand plant evolution were fired or put to jail or executed.

Similarly absurdal ideas were brought by soviet lingustics - if any one wants to have good fun, there is no better reading then Stalins's "Linguistics".

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

#59

Post by verulito »

smrtinsert wrote: post #35

Cognitive differences observed in GENERAL != bad engineers for ALL. The memo was a rambling incoherent mess.

My company has an anonymous internal forum and I don't even like asking simple HR questions on there! I once complained about my disuse of my dependent care FSA going unnoticed. That's as far as I'm willing to go.

A touchy subject like this from someone with a technical background to a large group of people... I guess Google has a lot of employees and it was bound to happen eventually but seriously, how do you hit send on something like this without some twinge of anxiety?

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

#60

Post by blub »

kuschku wrote: post #22
jamesrcole wrote: post #15

What disturbs me most about this incident is how many people's first instinct, when faced with views they strongly disagree with, is to try and suppress those views and the person speaking them. Not to engage with the argument or to try and argue against it, just to shut the other person down. It's a totalitarian kind of response.

It's the natural reaction after getting attacked by right-nationalist /pol/ trolls for years. You can't discuss with the trolls, you can't argue with them, you can only shut them down. Naturally, if someone honestly makes the same argument that the trolls copied, the reaction is also the same.

The problem with this thinking is that many of us are not extremists and genuinely want to know what the scientific truth is.

And if someone prepares a text which is logically sound (but remains to be seen if scientifically sound) supported by references then it's completely a different game.

And when journalists and other people criticise that text with ad-hominems, jokes and invectives but ZERO arguments, that's no longer enough.

I'm afraid that the critics of this manifesto will have to put in the hard work and prove that it's wrong. The tactic of shouting the author down, as they do with typical trolls won't work in this case.

But the really bad news is that it never did work. Those people that were shouted down continued to hold the same ideas except they hid them and acted silently.

Post reply on HN