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

541–550 of 684 posts

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

#541

Post by root_axis »

occultist_throw wrote: post #515
dpark wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You talk about Republicans essentially being more inclusive and then trot out "RINOs" as an example. RINO is a disparaging term used specifically to exclude and shame certain Republicans. In what way do you imagine that this demonstrates that Republicans support diversity of thought?

It was the word I could think of that expressed the sentiment. Would you prefer "Moderate centrist Republicans"? Or... you know, the term everyone knows. Republican in Name Only. There's also DINO as well.

You're just proving his point further. RINO is literally a pejorative designed to marginalize "moderate republicans". Pretty much nobody uses the term DINO. "Everyone knows" the term RINO because conservatives consistently bash anyone who doesn't embrace rigid conservative idealism. Pejorative nicknames are a common rhetorical tactic used by conservatives, "RINO", "SJW", "Feminazi" "Cuckservative"... liberals don't do this. Of course, you'll say that liberals will use terms like "racist", "fascist" "sexist", "bigot" but those are english words you can look up in the dictionary (and it is common for conservatives to use these terms as well when saying that 'liberals are the real bigots/fascists/racists/sexists!!'), whereas conservative pejorative nicknames are invented by provocateurs with the intent to humiliate their intellectual opponents.

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

#542

Post by mistermann »

dang wrote: post #531
mistermann wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Would you please stop posting personally condescending remarks toward people you disagree with? Regardless of how wrong they are, or seem, you're degrading the quality of the site by doing this. Admittedly there is a whole lot of degrading going on in the current conflagration, but you've done this a whole bunch of times and it's definitely not helping.

Ok, I shall try to adopt a turn-the-other-cheek approach going forward.

I am somewhat curious why you've singled me out though, considering the specifics of the conversations I'm involved in.

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

#543

Post by jdcarter »

MattLeBlanc001 wrote: post #505
peoplewindow wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Google is famous for nixing qualified candidates for all kinds of nonsensical reasons. I would never read anything into failing to get an interview or offer letter there.

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

#544

Post by weddpros »

dTal wrote: post #306
weddpros wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is Google fired this guy for distributing WRONG information. Wrong is the important word here. If the information is right, it completely changes the case, and the guy was fired for Wrong reasons. I hope he'll sue and win his job back (yes, I think Google needs this guy more than ever).

Nah, he was fired for drawing negative attention to Google. Whether he was right or not is irrelevant; if you publicly criticise the company you work for, on a "controversial" topic, getting fired is the expected outcome.

An internal memo isn't really the same as "publicly criticizing the company".

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

#545

Post by SippinLean »

Jabanga wrote: post #534
SippinLean wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You notably skipped over the majority of my comment, and only added more unfounded sweeping generalizations comparable to your similar ranting about feminists elsewhere. >The question is if there is more to consider in social constructs than simply evolutionary biology.

Of course there's more to consider than evolutionary psychology.. No one disputes that. What many postmodernists, especially feminists, dispute, is that evolutionary psychology has some explanatory power for human behaviour. And the reason is simple: it contradicts the narrative that systemic racism/sexism is the only possible explanation for race and gender based differences in outcomes.

Yeesh, more dogma. Is it possible that the truth is more nuanced? You conflate sexual symmetry with gender equality.

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

#546

Post by rbehrends »

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…

> 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.

It's not the biological claims, it's the conclusions he draws from it.

Here's the thing. Let's stipulate that all the biological (and esp. neuroscience-related) claims are 100% true. What follows?

Let's look at nursing. Clearly, it should be a male-dominated profession, right? The work-life balance (all the night shifts) is horrible and the stress is high (lives in the balance and all that). This is a profession that women should not want, right?

Same for accounting. Few professions are less about people and more about things. No room for "gregariousness". Again, a man's job.

In contrast, management positions (at least mid-level leadership positions) should be a great fit for women. All about interacting with people and that "gregariousness".

Obviously, this is not how the real world works. My point is that we're dealing with wishy-washy criteria here that you can use to argue whichever way your personal biases lie. They are inherently unfalsifiable and hence, unscientific. It's like the story about the blind men and the elephant [1], drawing bold macrosociological conclusions from fairly raw biological and psychological data.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

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

#547

Post by dragonwriter »

Jabanga wrote: post #536
dragonwriter wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It makes a statistical observation that refutes the notion that sexism is the cause of gender disparity in the STEM fields. It does no such thing, because: (1) STEM fields, especially applied rather than theoretical ones, involve people as much as things (2) While in some STEM fields gender disparities are apparent from fairly early in career progression, that's not true of all STEM fields; in some (many of them ar…

>STEM fields, especially applied rather than theoretical ones, involve people as much as things This doesn't negate my point. You're correct that I oversimplified: some STEM fields are indeed less 'biologically geared' to men. But the principle remains: biologically established differences in interest can very plausibly explain the differences seen in gender representation in some STEM fields. It is the assertion of…

> That alone says nothing about the presence or absence of systemic discrimination.

And, you'll note, I never claimed it did: I cited it as a fact about the gender imbalance in STEM which is not explainable by the facile “men like dealing with things while women like dealing with people” explanation which you described upthread as being, on its own, a refutation of the idea that gender imbalances in STEM are in any part due to systemic discrimination (which could only be true if it explained all aspects of STEM gender imbalance and left no room for systemic discrimination.)

Were it offered merely as a factor which explained some subset of the gender imbalances in STEM, that would be more reasonable.

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

#548

Post by [deleted] »

nyxtom wrote: post #246

The base of her argument rests on this: "In fact, research has shown that cultures with greater gender equity have larger sex differences when it comes to job preferences, because in these societies, people are free to choose their occupations based on what they enjoy." Jim Flynn's study has unequivocally proven that raising the standards of modern introduction and access to equal education, living standards, and nut…

[deleted]

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

#549

Post by danso »

imminentviolet wrote: post #537
danso wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I did read it. You can check my comment history where I've even linked to that exact section you cite: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14953398 I asked for empirical evidence that these initiatives had led to bad results at Google. If the biological research so directly contradicts Google's aims with these diversity initiatives, then we should be able to measure the negative impact, no? That Google has had t…

What's the problem with scrutiny? If these policies are based on premises that aren't true, wouldn't it be better to discard them in favor of policies that are based on premises that are true? How would we do that without a discussion?

Sorry, why do we assume that those premises are true? And which premises in particular, because much of that memo consists of begging the question and/or the author's personal opinion. For example, in the TL:DR: "Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety." Uh, OK. Obviously "shaming into silence" is not in any part of Google's stated mission. But I guess that's because it's an unconscious bias, and if only Google were truly woke, they'd realize that, right?

Or how about:

> We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue [sic] affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and whiner

So the memo's author is apparently a prophet of truth but can't even use Google (or Bing, if you will) to look up the times that men have sued on allegations of discrimination? If there weren't law that protected men, those lawsuits would not be brought to court by a competent lawyer, nevermind won (as in the case of Hooter's):

- http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Yahoo-lawsuit-Marissa-May...

- https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4-3-14.cfm

- http://www.nytimes.com/1997/10/01/us/hooters-settles-suit-by...

- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/01/2...

- http://thegrapevine.theroot.com/white-men-sue-diddys-revolt-...

- http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/08/02/court_rules_...

So given the memo's author inability to look up simple case law, you'll have to excuse my hesitance in not accepting that all of his premises are either true or relevant to Google's diversity efforts. Which is why I ask for any empirical evidence that would support his allegations that Google's hiring processes chase diversity in a way that is harmful to the company's performance or even in a way that is unreasonable. Given that Google's stock seems to be still doing quite well, that it still seems to be hiring people of the author's political mindset (including, obviously, the author himself), and that Google's demographic numbers are not anywhere near reaching parity with overall demographics, I'd say the burden of evidence is on the memo's author.

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

#550

Post by Jabanga »

SippinLean wrote: post #545
Jabanga wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course there's more to consider than evolutionary psychology.. No one disputes that. What many postmodernists, especially feminists, dispute, is that evolutionary psychology has some explanatory power for human behaviour. And the reason is simple: it contradicts the narrative that systemic racism/sexism is the only possible explanation for race and gender based differences in outcomes.

Yeesh, more dogma. Is it possible that the truth is more nuanced? You conflate sexual symmetry with gender equality.

It seems people are fiddling and being their agreeable selves while Rome burns. A Google engineer was just fired, with deafening applause from a multitude of voices, for penning a memo that enumerated numerous facts related to gender based differences in human behaviour and put forth a reasonable opinion on diversity policy that is grounded in said facts.
Post reply on HN