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

501–510 of 684 posts

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

#501

Post by daughart »

pygy_ wrote: post #258
sp332 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if other countries have more equal representation in tech, India and Malaysia for example, then doesn't the biological argument fall apart? The difference isn't between men and women but between America and other countries.

Not necessarily. These populations may have, for genetic reasons, a smaller gendered difference in tech interest. The "young males prefer trucks, young females prefer dolls" split is also found in chimps FWIW. Interest drives practice and practice drives skill.

It would truly be strange if genetic divergence over approximately 100,000 years (between these populations) ended up affecting a behavioral trait that has only been important for about 100 years in one of these populations. Well, it might not be strange if humans had the same generation time as insects. But for a species with generation time of 20 years, this is a very unlikely hypothesis IMO.

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

#502

Post by and0 »

mistermann wrote: post #455
and0 wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2143285-memo-to-all-tec... Is probably the best response I can find at the moment. A few days back my Twitter was full of medium posts responding to specific points, but Twitter is not great about finding these things. I agree with the linked article 100%, which states that there is plenty of scientific evidence that states the contrary, and there is plenty of science done about c…

Thanks for the article, but it is far from a substantive rebuttal, at best I would call it an opinion piece, with its "proof" based on logical errors and assumptions. > There's a "chicken or the egg" question that needs to come with every assessment of behaviors of groups vs societal expectations and pressures on those groups. People in power, like yourself presumably (despite your insistence of having "no particular…

Good luck.

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

#503

Post by daughart »

blusterXY wrote: post #55
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.

The fact that you equate a few studies with "clinical fact" shows you do not understand how science works.

http://retractionwatch.com

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

#504

Post by daughart »

Jabanga wrote: post #193
Delmania wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things > Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be and we shouldn’t deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this).

Do you believe these comments defend discrimination against women? I'm trying to understand how one could see it that way. I see both of these statements as unquestionably true, and the sexism accusation as stifling the type of free expression needed for rational dialogue. If facts are sexist, then the definition of sexism being used is wrong.

Both of those statements, even if true, say absolutely nothing about the relative abilities of men and women to write software.

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

#505

Post by MattLeBlanc001 »

peoplewindow wrote: post #290
danso wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did the memo's author think that Google's current hiring practices were flawed? I mean, what empirical evidence? Were there teams full of "diversity" hires that were performing below par?

Well, did you read it? He lists the following: "* Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5] * A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates * Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate * Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scru…

I was just thinking, since I'm one of those "diversity" candidates that never made it to an interview. does it mean that I'm a worse candidate, because even though my profile is favoured as you highlighted I've never made it to an interview.

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

#506

Post by clavalle »

Jabanga wrote: post #432
clavalle wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author of the memo framed his argument in exactly this way. To quote the memo: "As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”" T…

No, postmodernism and feminism are rooted in Marxist ideology. Marxist intellectuals shifted to postmodernism in the 1970s after it became impossible to deny that Marxist doctrine had led to authoritarian police states and democides all over the world. Postmodern ideology changes Marxism's fixation on capital with a fixation on power, and replaces income-class with race/gender/income-class identity groups. It's extre…

And here I thought I was just a capitalist who believes that people should all be given an equal shot to choose their own path in life and that how things have been does not necessarily dictate how things should be.

Turns out I'm a hateful, dogmatic, sexist racist as well as a malevolent nihilist, postmodern feminist, and a Marxist to boot.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Those -isms really snuck up on me (they really are an insidious bunch, aren't they?). Good thing there are people out there that know way more about people's position and why they have them than they do themselves. Otherwise, we may have to picture the world we want to live in and work toward it without thought to all of the pseudo-cruft attached to specific iterations of ideas throughout history in various places and times by specific individuals that some people might highlight and promote as The One Truth of an Idea to further their own political agenda. It's all very obvious, now that you bring it up.

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

#507

Post by daughart »

brighteyes wrote: post #219
foolrush wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the record, the "facts" cited in her post are indeed questionable. A decent sociological analysis has been making the rounds, including https://ifstudies.org/blog/five-facts-about-women-and-men-in... and https://ifstudies.org/blog/what-the-google-engineers-manifes... among others, including a presenter at Google https://twitter.com/histoftech/status/894418661741649920 Even a brief analysis of sociology would reve…

There are reasonable arguments on both sides, which rational people can debate. That's the bigger point here. Not that there is a slam dunk argument on the side of biology or society, but that we don't know where the exact truth lies, and we need to be open to discussion about it in order to find out. As scientists have been saying all along, both biological and societal factors matter. What I hope we can all agree i…

I think it's perfectly reasonable to fire someone for expressing personal opinions counter to company policies. How is this not a classic example of culture fit?

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

#508

Post by dsfjksdf »

snowwrestler wrote: post #461
creshal wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The assumption here is that employment in STEM industries fundamentally and solely involves "mechanically interesting things". It's not. Read the original memo. He especially mentioned that women gravitate to the more social jobs in STEM environments, but Google's diversity programs were trying to force them into the "code monkey" jobs instead, to spread them more evenly. > Strong technology is important for succes…

I was writing about the article linked here. But since you mention the memo, I'll say this. The current state of science suggests associations between gender, brain development, and career preferences. But women who are applying to Google for coding jobs are clearly stating their own individual career preferences. People apply for jobs they want. Using population studies to try to contradict clearly expressed individ…

Give me the real data about women claiming to leave because of harassment, please. Anecdotes are not data - harassment stories might just get disproportional attention. At the moment every Tech harassment story refers to Ellen Pao, even though her claims were dismissed in court. If there are so many stories to choose, why don't the media outlets pick some more convincing ones?

And even assuming harassment is the reason women leave, I'd maintain that is actually female privilege. They can leave if their job sucks. Men have annoying jobs, too, but they can not leave as easily.

One of the mainstay of feminist narratives is that they never mention the baseline. The story would be "women leave because of harassment", implying that men never get harassed. To discern if harassment is a major factor for fewer women in CS, at the very least one would have to compare the plight of women to the plight of men.

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

#509

Post by mistermann »

and0 wrote: post #502
mistermann wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the article, but it is far from a substantive rebuttal, at best I would call it an opinion piece, with its "proof" based on logical errors and assumptions. > There's a "chicken or the egg" question that needs to come with every assessment of behaviors of groups vs societal expectations and pressures on those groups. People in power, like yourself presumably (despite your insistence of having "no particular…

Good luck.

If you find yourself having similar problems with numerous people, you might want to consider the possibility that perhaps you should consider viewing the world from a different perspective. It's not easy, but it's possible.

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

#510

Post by lawnchair_larry »

pconner wrote: post #74
UK-AL wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would think the author would encourage women to apply, but discourage making interview pass rates biased towards one group or the other.

Interview pass criteria are not based on the gender/race of the candidate. The criteria are the same for all candidates for the same role. The goal of diversity/inclusion programs is to find more diverse candidates to interview in the first place. Edit: referring to Google specifically

This is at odds with the claim that minority applications get a second pass. Even in the absense of discrimination, this provides a statistical advantage.

There are also programs to find more applicants, but this isn't critical of those programs.

Post reply on HN