Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge • Hacker News Board

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#591

Post by berberous » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 5:41 AM UTC

T2_t2 wrote: post #574

berberous wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are looking at the wrong case, this is the correct one and contains a link to the Advice Memo, which is dated January 16: https://www.nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-205351 This is what an Advice Memo is: "The NLRB analyses referred to are NLRB Advice Memos, which are prepared by the Office of the General Counsel (GC), a division within the NLRB, to respond to requests for advice from various NLRB Regions across the country…

Well played! How on earth did you find that? and why did Google return the other one? In any case, THANKS!

If you Google 'NLRB advice memo', one of the top hits is a page NLRB maintains of a feed of new memos, sorted by date. A google one is at the top.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#592

Post by ncallaway » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 5:43 AM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #576

ncallaway wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn't say that. The lawyer who wrote this memo argued that Google had wide latitude in determining what qualified as sexual-harassment. They had a policy that pre-dated this incident such that those statements qualified. The NLRB didn't determine that the statements were offensive. They determined that Google was operating in a reasonable manner when Google decided that those statements were offensive.

Perhaps it would be helpful if we cite the statements we're referring to. Which statement do you interpret as saying "Google had wide latitude in determining what qualified as sexual-harassment"? In at least one statement which I've quoted here too many times already ("so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be unprotected"), the lawyer who wrote this memo expressed their own opinion that these statements we…

> the Employer determined that certain portions of the Charging Party’s memorandum violated existing policies on harassment and discrimination

> The Employer has a legitimate, lawful policy prohibiting race and sex discrimination and harassment in its workplace.

> An employer’s good-faith efforts to enforce its lawful anti-discrimination or anti-harassment policies must be afforded particular deference in light of the employer’s duty to comply with state and federal EEO laws

> Where an employee’s conduct significantly disrupts work processes, creates a hostile work environment, or constitutes racial or sexual discrimination or harassment, the Board has found it unprotected even if it involves concerted activities regarding working conditions

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#593

Post by rayiner » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 5:47 AM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #551

rayiner wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is the assumption that being cooperative is somehow a liability rather than a strength in a profession that's much more about cooperation than other engineering fields. ( E.g. the trope that software is more complicated than an aircraft carrier because unlike in software, the toilet doesn't have modes of interaction with the steam launcher.)

Where does he claim it's a liability? As far as I remember I claim that this difference means that men and women generally make different choices. Can you point to where he says it's a liability?

His ultimate conclusion is that biological differences explain, at least by enough to reconsider diversity efforts, the difference in self selection into programming. Given that conclusion, your reading is even less charitable than mine. Under that reading, he’s literally just throwing out an unrelated difference between men and women, then asserting that’s why men disproportionately choose programming. Classic: premise -> ??? -> conclusion.

Reading his memo charitably, I think he’s assuming that cooperativeness contraindicates for programming preference, so at least he has a complete chain of reasoning, even if that assumption is wrong:

Women -> cooperative; cooperative -/-> programming; women -/-> programming.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#594

Post by ThomPete » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 5:52 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #593

ThomPete wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where does he claim it's a liability? As far as I remember I claim that this difference means that men and women generally make different choices. Can you point to where he says it's a liability?

His ultimate conclusion is that biological differences explain, at least by enough to reconsider diversity efforts, the difference in self selection into programming. Given that conclusion, your reading is even less charitable than mine. Under that reading, he’s literally just throwing out an unrelated difference between men and women, then asserting that’s why men disproportionately choose programming. Classic: prem…

Can you please be specific.

Point to exact quotes, not your own interpretation of what he writes.

That makes it easier to discuss.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#595

Post by ThomPete » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 5:54 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #571

ThomPete wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a profession, there is hardly a better one to be in for women. It's one of the highest paid, most flexible and equal opportunity professions there are. All the biggest tech companies go out of their way to encourage women to the point where they favor women rather than men. What industry does better when you look at it on a whole? No one is claiming it's perfect but it's hardly filled with clowns IMO.

Law. Medicine. Accounting. And yes, our entire profession is clownish. We produce shitty, unreliable software using ad-hoc methods no two teams agree about, our management processes are folkloric, our hiring procedures random. At the very peak of our profession, on teams building the most important and widely used software, we are at best working around those problems.

Neither law nor accounting are better than the tech industry when you put everything together. Medicine might be as good and is already having record level of females.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#596

Post by jakelazaroff » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 5:55 AM UTC

PricelessValue wrote: post #577

dejawu wrote: post #210

The way this whole thing played out makes me sad, because the guy did bring up a good point - current-day social justice leaves little avenue for well-meaning but unaware (perhaps through privilege) people to start conversations and learn about the reasons and motivations for certain efforts such as affirmative action and changes in vocabulary. Damore was indeed punished for speaking out, just as he feared. Then he s…

> Then he started retweeting Breitbart articles and selling "Goolag" t-shirts and threw his credibility out the window What does that have to do with his credibility or his arguments? His arguments stand on its own merits. Externalities has no bearing on argument. If he said 1+1=2 and then retweeted a breitbart article, does that mean 1+1 no longer equal 2?

Given that Breitbart, Stephen Molynieux, etc, all basically support the least charitable interpretation of the memo (that women are genetically less predisposed to engineering), his active association with them makes the claim that the memo was a good-faith attempt to improve diversity rather hard to swallow.

Examples:

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/14/haidt-google-memo-c...

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/15/heres-why...

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#597

Post by Consultant32452 » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 5:56 AM UTC

psyc wrote: post #509

hluska wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea and honestly, at this point, I don't really care. For some reason, politics has become a game of zingers and one liners. Actual respectful discourse has gone out of style. Hell, I hopped over to Twitter to defend ThomPete against a very tasteless tweet. I dreamed that maybe, just maybe I could be involved in a conversation that revolved around mutual respect and well worded arguments. Instead, there wa…

I'm right there with you. I'm in my 40s, and to me, your dialog is the normal and expected way for adults to discuss. I truly don't understand this brave new world of 'you're either with us, presenting a unified, jargon-tastic front, or you're a nazi/marxist'. So I mostly just don't speak to anyone anymore.

They're coming for you next. Soon behaving ethically will be insufficient, you'll be required to make public statements in support of the party or be presumed to be with the enemy.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#598

Post by stcredzero » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 5:57 AM UTC

wslack wrote: post #569

stcredzero wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But he wasn't asking questions. The document wasn't an invitation to explain where he was mistaken. It was precisely that. By all accounts he was given feedback on his ideas before the final memo went out. By his own account. In the very text he says that opposition to these ideas demonstrates bias and he therefore dismisses the very idea of being wrong. Quote, please. This wasn't some intellectual debate. No, the re…

The reactions that were most amplified likely included some namecalling, but I saw a lot of well-reasoned and detailed takedowns of the pseudoscience in the memo. My guess is that both sides look at the worst of the other to justify themselves.

The reactions that were most amplified likely included some namecalling, but I saw a lot of well-reasoned and detailed takedowns of the pseudoscience in the memo.

[citation needed]

Among the "pseudoscience" in the memo is one of the most important results in psychology of recent years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKmyO3hbOz8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Ge...

The study cited as "The Scandinavian Paradox" was across 55 countries and is one of the statistically strongest results in the social sciences, flat-out.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#599

Post by leereeves » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 5:57 AM UTC

ncallaway wrote: post #592

leereeves wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps it would be helpful if we cite the statements we're referring to. Which statement do you interpret as saying "Google had wide latitude in determining what qualified as sexual-harassment"? In at least one statement which I've quoted here too many times already ("so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be unprotected"), the lawyer who wrote this memo expressed their own opinion that these statements we…

> the Employer determined that certain portions of the Charging Party’s memorandum violated existing policies on harassment and discrimination > The Employer has a legitimate, lawful policy prohibiting race and sex discrimination and harassment in its workplace. > An employer’s good-faith efforts to enforce its lawful anti-discrimination or anti-harassment policies must be afforded particular deference in light of th…

This seems like an interesting discussion to continue, weighing the deference the memo mentioned to the employer's policy against the fact that they ultimately make their own determination (which they must, of course, make to avoid abusive or spurious claims of harassment). Sadly, I'm too tired to continue right now. Perhaps another time.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#600

Post by Majora320 » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 5:57 AM UTC

bduerst wrote: post #407

whataretensors wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a despicable thing to destroy someone over an idea, despite the contents of that idea. I think tech workers are easy targets. For instance, we've all heard about the need for diversity in tech, but never hear about accredited investors being < 6 % female and < 1 % black.

I think what this Advice memo is about isn't the idea itself, but how he poorly he handled the idea. The disruptive way he handled the idea is not protected from being fired in an at-will employment company. Google even worded that in the termination: >Your post advanced and relied on offensive gender stereotypes to suggest that women cannot be successful in the same kinds of jobs at Google as men. I want to make cle…

Gender stereotypes are sometimes supported by fact (even if they may primarily came into being by anecdote or plain ____ism). When they are, it is not fair to dismiss someone as "advancing gender stereotypes" whenever they make an "on average"-type claim (based on evidence) that happens to align with a gender stereotype; the problem comes when you forget the "on average" part of it (which he did not seem to).