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

561–570 of 872 posts

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#561

Post by afpx »

avn2109 wrote: post #444
jamesrcole wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot of questions here - did he create the group? - how long had the group existed before he posted the memo? - was Google as an organisation ok with that group existing? - is there anything wrong with there being discussion surrounding the value of PC viewpoints? - What other sorts of lists exist at Google, and what sorts of viewpoints to they cover?

Any group like that is surely an HR honeypot, either by design or ex post facto.

It's fascinating to me that Google even has places to express opinions. When I was in my 20s and 30s, the workplace was just the place where you did work. There was no room for self-expression. You worked, you got paid, you went home. Seems like it opens the door for trouble - a false sense of individual rights when there are very few.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#562

Post by mpweiher »

KirinDave wrote: post #521
mpweiher wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. First, the section is "Non-discrimnatory ways to reduce the gender gap". You cannot reduce the "gap" by aiming at the women who are already at Google. This should be obvious. They are already there. To make a dent in the gap, you need to attract more women who currently do not choose to work in tech or not at Google. So nothing he writes is about his colleagues at Google, or by extension women who are already in…

> You cannot reduce the "gap" by aiming at the women who are already at Google. This should be obvious. They are already there. To make a dent in the gap, you need to attract more women who currently do not choose to work in tech or not at Google. So nothing he writes is about his colleagues at Google, or by extension women who are already in or interested in tech. It is about potentially attracting those who are not…

> current hiring policies

And he made it clear that he didn't think they were producing "false positives", so every woman hired was qualified.

> There are so many potential sources of preference

Yes. Biology is one.

> gender stereotypes

http://www.spsp.org/blog/stereotype-accuracy-response

[Stereotype Accuracy Is One Of The Largest And Most Replicable Effects In All Of Social Psychology]

> [verbal/math scores correlate for women] Sources

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/wh...

> the only way you're going to be competitive

> and not drag down the standard of my organization

> is by pairing up with another person

Huh??? Where did you get that from? Pleaaze.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#563

Post by [deleted] »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #549
kentrado wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Mad at someone for saying you're genetically predisposed to be less capable of individual action? He never said that. Could you cite the portion where he literally says women are less capable?

Do the last two bullet points of his tl;dr count?: * Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. * Discrimination to reach equal representation is [...] bad for business. Which I read as, "woman aren't as good, that's why they don't already work here, if we hire more of them, they'll not be able to do the job as…

[deleted]

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#564

Post by akvadrako »

kaden wrote: post #530

I find it hilarious that this guy was somehow okay with using disparate, unrelated facts to create detached conclusions to make a contrived political point, and when the obvious solution is to fire him because of his toxic, baseless beliefs that disrupt a working environment it's suddenly about free speech? That's delusional. You out right take an unreasonable course of action, "predict" that there will be negative o…

What language is this?

I can barely understand what point you are trying to make; why don't you just come out and say it?

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#565

Post by Lukasa »

PeterisP wrote: post #369
Lukasa wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Should white NBA players be offended by that statement? The answer is obvious: they shouldn't as that only means they were the ones on the tail of the genetic distribution and made it anyway or maybe even they overcome disadvantages to get there. I don't know: I'm not an NBA player and have no idea what the experience of becoming one is like. But there is a difference in kind here. He didn't say "Men are better sui…

Have you read the memo? By saying "stop saying that women are worse at coding" you are putting words in his mouth, as the memo states a very, very different thing i.e. that women are less likely to choose coding for various reasons, including biological ones. There's a world of difference between these two arguments. And there is solid evidence for that difference, and it should be brought up, and asking to stop the…

> Have you read the memo? By saying "stop saying that women are worse at coding" you are putting words in his mouth, as the memo states a very, very different thing i.e. that women are less likely to choose coding for various reasons, including biological ones. There's a world of difference between these two arguments.

I wasn't replying to the memo, I was replying to bluecalm, and bluecalm said this:

> Now I say: women are in general less likely to be interested in tech and less likely to become good programmers because they are, on average, less competitive and less likely to devote themselves to solitude practice which is often necessary to become a very good coder.

Note "less likely to become good programmers". I feel pretty comfortable with my response given that.

> and expressing all kinds of possible viewpoints should be facilitated.

I disagree. Many kinds of possible viewpoints construct hostile work environments, and should be forbidden. It is simply not necessary to allow a workplace to tolerate all views. We don't allow people to cover their cube in swastikas, walk around greeting all their colleagues with "heil hitler", and to push for the dismissal of all their Jewish colleagues in an attempt to reduce the influence of the hidden Jewish conspiracy running the world.

If Mr Google had wanted to write this on his personal blog I wouldn't have cared at all. But he didn't do that: he wrote it at work, in his professional capacity, and posted it for his co-workers to see. Guess what: speech at work is something that can get you fired. See Colin Kaepernick for evidence.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#566

Post by kaden »

akvadrako wrote: post #564
kaden wrote: post #530

I find it hilarious that this guy was somehow okay with using disparate, unrelated facts to create detached conclusions to make a contrived political point, and when the obvious solution is to fire him because of his toxic, baseless beliefs that disrupt a working environment it's suddenly about free speech? That's delusional. You out right take an unreasonable course of action, "predict" that there will be negative o…

What language is this? I can barely understand what point you are trying to make; why don't you just come out and say it?

The language is English. The point is pretty clear. Why don't you elaborate on what you're confused by?

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#567

Post by steveeq1 »

GVIrish wrote: post #223
steveeq1 wrote: post #26

> That leaked internal memo from James Damore at Google? The one that says one shouldn’t expect employees in all professions to reflect the demographics of the whole population? I don't see how this is an unreasonable argument to make. There is a dearth of male kindergarten teachers, for instance. This doesn't mean the school is being "sexist". It might just mean that certain genders tend to be attracted to certain t…

> I don't see how this is an unreasonable argument to make. There is a dearth of male kindergarten teachers, for instance. This doesn't mean the school is being "sexist". It might just mean that certain genders tend to be attracted to certain types of professions. If that's all the manifesto said, this wouldn't be a story. I am a minority in tech and I certainly didn't see a lot of people like me in my Computer Scien…

> But when you start wading into the, 'Women are biologically less well-suited for this work...' is where you get into problems.

But women ARE biologically less suited for certain types of work. Women, for instance, are weaker than men (yes, there are exceptions. . .). Which would make them less efficient for, say, construction work.

From what I understand, the guy used scientifically valid sources to make his claim. I'm not saying that what he's saying is true, but it's sourced well enough for it should be discussed without him getting fired.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#568

Post by humanrebar »

mnglkhn2 wrote: post #532
humanrebar wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have an excellent point, but your use of the phrase "diverse candidates" misses the concern that the most important diversity is in thought and culture, not just predetermined demographics. A "diverse candidate" in reality may not look like an official "diversity candidate".

Another question is what makes you think that all whites think the same and therefore it will narrow the spectrum of ideas? This assumption is never discussed and always accepted as true. Why is that? Why are all the whites (or white males) identical in their thinking?

It's clearly not true. Hiring a Slavic man would, in abstract, be an increase in diversity in a lot of shops. They're likely Caucasian, though. One response is that it's important to officially value historically disadvantaged groups, but many Slavic groups are historically disadvantaged.

So, in a weird way, diversity initiatives come from a very ethnocentric (American) perspective.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#569

Post by ramblerman »

KirinDave wrote: post #544
ramblerman wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He didn't say it the fault of feminists, only that this was probably going to be the result. And It's exactly why public debate should be had. To come to a better solution in the middle, rather than create fringes on the sides. Your reaction here is just more of the 'Shock and Awe' and hurt feelings that doesn't really help push the agenda.

> He didn't say it the fault of feminists, only that this was probably going to be the result. So what we all should do is forgive these men their outrageously outdated and somewhat dehumanizing viewpoints and calmly explain to them that currently they are benefitting from a system called patriarchy that has normalized male dominance. We should then calmly suggest that btw, people who are not visually and immediately…

The irony is that all the things you argue against him for, his small worldview, not willing to come to his senses, are what you are doing yourself.

You are kicking and screaming against anything that upsets your viewpoint on this issue.

And we actually agree on the most important facet (as do most people) that any discrimination based on age, gender, or race is absolutely not tolerated.

But how to achieve this in the real world is not a walk in the park. For example, positive discrimination is not a fair system in my opinion. I would think focusing on making the interview process blind is better. So can we argue on these specifics or am I just a bully and a bigot for holding a different opinion?

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#570

Post by KirinDave »

2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #260
KirinDave wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He says women will benefit from making coding more social. Pair programming. Remember?

At this point I would like to see an itemised list of James Damore's points on gender and women's interpretations of them. This is the pair programming text in full: > Below I'll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I > outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women's > representation in tech without resorting to discrimination. Goog…

Pair Programming is not a technique to improve social contact in software. It's a technique to improve product reliability and give more practical mentorship opportunities.

We might argue James says women are asking for good mentorship opportunities herr. So why do women benefit from this specifically (and that's okay) but other mentorship program are considered unfair in this rubric?

You say "we need pair programming" when reliability is difficult to gaurantee. Not because you're feeling lonely. It seems an awful lot like he's suggesting that women are especially in need of experienced minders.

Post reply on HN