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

561–570 of 684 posts

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

#561

Post by mmirate »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #560
mmirate wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> left side brain good, right side brain bad We're programmers/engineers, not painters/artists. Hence I don't see where that statement doesn't hold absolutely true for us. (Except perhaps for management, team leads and entrepreneurs.)

My friend, engineering's primary purpose is empathic in nature. Have a quick look at new pursuits such as: http://www.engineering.cornell.edu/magazine/features/empathy... https://phys.org/news/2015-11-empathy-faculty.html I could discuss this at length because it's a subject that really interests me, and I'm severely biased because I started out in the humanities with my main pursuit being an understanding of the hum…

As I understand, you're saying that empathy is vital for assessing requirements. That's precisely why I mentioned management and team-leads as being likely exceptions.

(But each manager or lead usually has more than one report, so there are likely very few managers/leads compared to everyone else. Hence the general sentiment.)

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

#562

Post by danso »

weddpros wrote: post #551
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…

"we should be able to measure the negative impact, no?", or "how to get fired from Google in 20s" ... as the memo just proved ... Management could have put him in charge of gathering and analyzing data to prove or disprove his memo. They fired him instead => they don't care about data => the memo was right, management is biased

Or because they believed his manifesto to be both bullshit and a legal liability. Especially as the company -- which Damore accused of using its "money to water only one side of the lawn [i.e. women's]" -- fights off a possible class-action lawsuit [0] and an ongoing federal investigation [1] alleging discrimination against women.

Again, why should Google put the guy who lacks basic research skills (again, being ignorant of anti-discrimination cases brought by men) to be in charge of gathering and analyzing data?

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/08/google-wo...

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/07/google-pa...

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

#563

Post by clavalle »

Jabanga wrote: post #554
clavalle wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's your point of view (and likely the author would agree with you). Let me explain mine. I see the memo and the citations it trots forth, not as an authoritative treatise with well sourced, scientifically sound backing, but as a cherry picked hodge-podge of descriptive science (where the citations were, in fact, scientific publications - many were blog posts and opinion pieces) abused to support a prescriptive fr…

The article that is linked here is written by a PhD in sexual neuroscience, and defends the claims made in the memo as scientifically valid. Instead of responding to the memo, and proving the assertions contained in it wrong, Google's executives fired him, and Google VP Daniele Brown justified the reaction by claiming that the memo advanced "incorrect assumptions about gender". And you claim this is not an expression…

You are just repeating yourself.

Let me ask this: what difference does the statistical differences found between genders in the general population matter for any small subset of that population?

If I had test scores from 1-1000 with 1 being the worst and 1000 being the best for a million people that match a normal distribution and I told you that I have a set of 10 that I picked non-randomly but I don't tell you how, what can you tell me about that sub-set of 10?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

What does it say about how that set of ten will do on the next test given only that you know the test will be an iteration on the last with some differences?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

So, why would it matter if, statistically, females exhibit certain behaviors more or less than males in the general population when applied to the subset that apply and work for Google?

Same. Answer.

What disturbs me (having Google stock, as many do) is how a person that doesn't understand this basic fact got past the Google hiring process and ended up an employee.

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

#564

Post by david38 »

rbehrends wrote: post #546
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…

Very little of nursing is like that. Most nursing doesn't have lives in the balance most days. It does require being somewhat social with patients though.

You are forgetting one huge thing. Lots of women doing something make it automatically attractive to women just because it'll be common in their circles.

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

#565

Post by sctb »

Jabanga wrote: post #554
clavalle wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's your point of view (and likely the author would agree with you). Let me explain mine. I see the memo and the citations it trots forth, not as an authoritative treatise with well sourced, scientifically sound backing, but as a cherry picked hodge-podge of descriptive science (where the citations were, in fact, scientific publications - many were blog posts and opinion pieces) abused to support a prescriptive fr…

The article that is linked here is written by a PhD in sexual neuroscience, and defends the claims made in the memo as scientifically valid. Instead of responding to the memo, and proving the assertions contained in it wrong, Google's executives fired him, and Google VP Daniele Brown justified the reaction by claiming that the memo advanced "incorrect assumptions about gender". And you claim this is not an expression…

You've been posting like this over and again. It amounts to waging ideological battle on a site that exists for thoughtful and considerate intellectually interesting discussion. Please don't, it's not what we're here for.

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

#566

Post by rbehrends »

david38 wrote: post #564
rbehrends wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Very little of nursing is like that. Most nursing doesn't have lives in the balance most days. It does require being somewhat social with patients though. You are forgetting one huge thing. Lots of women doing something make it automatically attractive to women just because it'll be common in their circles.

> Very little of nursing is like that.

You can make the same argument about IT. My point is not that what I'm saying is true, but that (like the macrosociological claims in the paper) it sounds plausible, yet is unfalsifiable and hence, unscientific.

> You are forgetting one huge thing. Lots of women doing something make it automatically attractive to women just because it'll be common in their circles.

I am not forgetting anything. My argument was in essence a reductio ad absurdum. If you want to advance a social argument why women are over- or underrepresented in certain professions and why Damore is therefore wrong, that would be an entirely separate argument. You're welcome to make it on your own, but I don't think the memo is worth that much of a time investment myself.

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

#567

Post by Jabanga »

clavalle wrote: post #563
Jabanga wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article that is linked here is written by a PhD in sexual neuroscience, and defends the claims made in the memo as scientifically valid. Instead of responding to the memo, and proving the assertions contained in it wrong, Google's executives fired him, and Google VP Daniele Brown justified the reaction by claiming that the memo advanced "incorrect assumptions about gender". And you claim this is not an expression…

You are just repeating yourself. Let me ask this: what difference does the statistical differences found between genders in the general population matter for any small subset of that population? If I had test scores from 1-1000 with 1 being the worst and 1000 being the best for a million people that match a normal distribution and I told you that I have a set of 10 that I picked non-randomly but I don't tell you how,…

>what difference does the statistical differences found between genders in the general population matter for any small subset of that population?

With all due respect, this is an absurd question. Statistical differences between the genders in the general population will very plausibly cause differences in the representation of each gender in a particular field, like computer science.

Do I really need to elaborate more on why this is the case?

To claim that the causes of gender differences are a settled science, that agrees with the postmodernists and feminists, and so assuredly that an opinion based on a different interpretation deserves to be punished and otherwise ignored, is absolute nonsense.

If anything, the social constructionist position on gender differences has been thoroughly discredited by the experimental evidence, to the point where the media and Google's reaction to the memo is, without a doubt, an expression of anti-scientific dogma.

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

#568

Post by Jabanga »

sctb wrote: post #565
Jabanga wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article that is linked here is written by a PhD in sexual neuroscience, and defends the claims made in the memo as scientifically valid. Instead of responding to the memo, and proving the assertions contained in it wrong, Google's executives fired him, and Google VP Daniele Brown justified the reaction by claiming that the memo advanced "incorrect assumptions about gender". And you claim this is not an expression…

You've been posting like this over and again. It amounts to waging ideological battle on a site that exists for thoughtful and considerate intellectually interesting discussion. Please don't, it's not what we're here for.

There is nothing to debate against, unfortunately. If I'm being repetitive, it's because the justifications for the firing are so utterly baseless.

Also, if the upvote/downvote ratio is any indication, many people appreciate my contributions, even if they're not agreeable.

One final point I'd add is that this is an explicitly ideological issue. A Google engineer was fired for violating Google's corporate ideology (on diversity and gender). There is no way to address the issue in a meaningful way without addressing said ideology.

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

#570

Post by Chris2048 »

and0 wrote: post #297
mistermann wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A massive popular backlash against a shitty idea isn't "trying to shut it down". If the backlash is devoid of logic and facts, consisting mainly of character attacks and shaming....ya, that's "shutting it down". And if that's not enough, how about being fired from your job? It's amazing how differently people perceive the very same facts.

The backlash is not devoid of logic and facts. Again, a shitty argument does not merit a thesis on it's shittyness from everyone who dismisses it, and there are plenty of in-depth critiques that you would've sought out if your agenda was to actually look into it and better yourself. Also, Google firing him did not shut the argument down. He can happily draft more memos or expand on it. Google Docs is free.

> there are plenty of in-depth critiques

Can you link to one?

Post reply on HN