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

Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

backreaction.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 872 posts

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#51

Post by stale2002 »

Johnny555 wrote: post #27
l33tbro wrote: post #12

Okay, slipping into my bomb-squad EOD suit to comment on this topic. But, seriously, the more I read about Damore, the more it seems like this was a cunning plan to get fired and then sue the roller-hockey pants off Sergey Brin and Co. While much has been made of a Harvard education being no substitute for social intelligence, Damore is no slouch and really does just seem like a disgruntled employee who devised an al…

While his plan may be to sue, what grounds do you think he can sue for? There's no right to free speech in the work place. If he was fired for something he wrote on his private blog, or discussed with coworkers at an off-site bar, that might be different. If he does sue, Google will have little problem showing that the employee, through his memo, has created a hostile workplace for women at Google.

California has very strong employee protection. Yes, even though it is "at will" there are still some very strong protections.

For example, in California it is illegal to fire someone for "political activity", which this memo, debateably, may have been.

It is also illegal in California to fire someone for bringing up workplace concerns (this falls under union/worker organizing laws).

Finally, and most ironically, it is illegal to fire someone for bringing up discrimination concerns, EVEN IF those concerns turn out to be false/not illegal/not discrimination.

This guy, debateably, was bringing up discrimination concerns.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#52

Post by etchalon »

pacala wrote: post #44
mirimir wrote: post #4

This is an excellent discussion. I especially love this comment: > I believe for example if it wasn’t for biases and unequal opportunities, then the higher ranks in science and politics would be dominated by women. Hence, aiming at a 50-50 representation gives men an unfair advantage. I challenge you to provide any evidence to the contrary. Because arguably that's where gender differences highlighted in Damore's memo…

Feel free to work towards changing "bias" towards the distribution you think is more proper and see if it indeed proves the point of "the higher ranks in science and politics would be dominated by women". You'll need a concrete way to measure and quantify "bias". No, workforce representation is not a measure of "bias". That is the unproven hypothesis and using it is merely circular reasoning. Meanwhile, consider that…

Institutional discrimination programs aimed at countering the effects of institutionalized discrimination.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#54

Post by jorgemf »

bendmorris wrote: post #43
mirimir wrote: post #4

This is an excellent discussion. I especially love this comment: > I believe for example if it wasn’t for biases and unequal opportunities, then the higher ranks in science and politics would be dominated by women. Hence, aiming at a 50-50 representation gives men an unfair advantage. I challenge you to provide any evidence to the contrary. Because arguably that's where gender differences highlighted in Damore's memo…

>I believe for example if it wasn’t for biases and unequal opportunities, then the higher ranks in science and politics would be dominated by women. Hence, aiming at a 50-50 representation gives men an unfair advantage. This makes zero sense considering the reality that women are underrepresented. "Aiming at 50-50 representation" could at best lift the disadvantaged group closer to 50% representation. It could in no…

She means that aiming to 50-50 doesn't represent the skills set. As women are more skilled for that job they should have more representation (based on the biological theory). If it is a 50-50 you are promoting men in the positions when you shouldn't. (the disadvantaged group here are the men)

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#55

Post by mberning »

mpweiher wrote: post #37

Certainly much better than a lot of the outrage that's been going on. A couple of nits: > I know most of Google’s work is people-centric. Hmmm...is that really so? Last I checked a lot of Google's code output and value-generation is backend-y, with very little interaction with humans. Google is also notoriously bad-mediocre at UX, though this has improved lately. > Assuming that job skills and performance can be dedu…

I felt the same. But I think some of it can be forgiven. I don't think the author is a professional developer and doesn't seem to know just how much a development job could be "head down writing code".

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#56

Post by [deleted] »

mpweiher wrote: post #37

Certainly much better than a lot of the outrage that's been going on. A couple of nits: > I know most of Google’s work is people-centric. Hmmm...is that really so? Last I checked a lot of Google's code output and value-generation is backend-y, with very little interaction with humans. Google is also notoriously bad-mediocre at UX, though this has improved lately. > Assuming that job skills and performance can be dedu…

[deleted]

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#57

Post by mirimir »

fweespeech wrote: post #30
mirimir wrote: post #4

This is an excellent discussion. I especially love this comment: > I believe for example if it wasn’t for biases and unequal opportunities, then the higher ranks in science and politics would be dominated by women. Hence, aiming at a 50-50 representation gives men an unfair advantage. I challenge you to provide any evidence to the contrary. Because arguably that's where gender differences highlighted in Damore's memo…

> I'm reminded of Richard Morgan's Black Man aka 13. He argues that men basically don't play well in groups ;) Damore would be a perfect example of that. There is a time and a place for your beliefs, but the workplace isn't that. ;)

Right. His 13s are basically super males. Engineered for combat. But too much blowback. Not all black, however.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#58

Post by tetromino_ »

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #28
mberning wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mother nature does seem to roll the dice more when it comes to men. People then look at the outliers to the right and scream sexism while completely ignoring all the outliers to the left. There are many more profoundly stupid men than women. Men are incarcerated at a higher rate. Men kill themselves at 3x the rate of women. Yet this is quietly accepted.

This implies suicide and homicide are done primarily by stupid people by rhetoric?

Yes. Committing homicide is an irrational and maladaptive (i.e. stupid) thing to do in a peaceful 21st century society. Committing suicide is an irrational and maladaptive thing to do in almost all situations in history.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#59

Post by etchalon »

ramensea wrote: post #31
lloydde wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is not how "affirmative action" works. "Affirmative action" states that if you have two "equally" qualified candidates If you can quantify candidates' capabilities, please start your money printing press.

Then then why would affirmative action lead to less capable employees?

There's shockingly little evidence it does, which is something AA opponents want to avoid talking about.

There's a perception it does, based on anecdotal evidence.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#60

Post by reitanqild »

fweespeech wrote: post #30
mirimir wrote: post #4

This is an excellent discussion. I especially love this comment: > I believe for example if it wasn’t for biases and unequal opportunities, then the higher ranks in science and politics would be dominated by women. Hence, aiming at a 50-50 representation gives men an unfair advantage. I challenge you to provide any evidence to the contrary. Because arguably that's where gender differences highlighted in Damore's memo…

> I'm reminded of Richard Morgan's Black Man aka 13. He argues that men basically don't play well in groups ;) Damore would be a perfect example of that. There is a time and a place for your beliefs, but the workplace isn't that. ;)

Not even when the employer has asked?

I understand this was written in response to a request from someone else, probably HR.

Post reply on HN