Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

gizmodo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 660 posts

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#61

Post by [deleted] »

smb06 wrote: post #45
eintagsfiege wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you know about women in CS in Iran? How many of them end up working in CS? I wouldn't jump to conclusions just because you find such outliers. Some weird mechanisms might be driving such numbers (like people not being given a choice what to study, people being forced to study something useful because they can't afford to study literature or gender studies for fun, women studying just to meet men to marry, men…

> I wouldn't jump to conclusions just because you find such outliers. Some weird mechanisms might be driving such numbers

[deleted]

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#62

Post by [deleted] »

smb06 wrote: post #45
eintagsfiege wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you know about women in CS in Iran? How many of them end up working in CS? I wouldn't jump to conclusions just because you find such outliers. Some weird mechanisms might be driving such numbers (like people not being given a choice what to study, people being forced to study something useful because they can't afford to study literature or gender studies for fun, women studying just to meet men to marry, men…

> I wouldn't jump to conclusions just because you find such outliers. Some weird mechanisms might be driving such numbers

[deleted]

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#63

Post by DuskStar »

Hnrobert42 wrote: post #16
Quarrelsome wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is bad with the good. The suggestion that men and women ARE different is taboo. The premise that the differences between them are social as opposed to literal is a much easier way to force the same point (and IMO more correct but I respect I lack the science to be certain). This person lacks tact and the way they view the entire political sphere as just left/right is ultimately of concern. Way too simplistic ou…

Yeah. I was willing to give him a fair hearing until he listed a handful of differences between men and women that he ascribes to biology without any factual support. And therein lies the unconscious bias against which he is railing. To him, there is no question that men and women, on average, are fundamentally different in ways that affects their ability to and interest in work in tech. I agree with him that folks s…

There are actually a few studies showing gender differences in infants and monkeys. (males preferentially looking at/interacting with mechanical things, females faces/dolls) From that, you can assume that there are at least some biological differences in behavior between the sexes - and thus differing workplace representation is not necessarily 100% derived from social pressures. And if that's the case, achieving a 50/50 Female/Male split in every profession might not be desirable.

So I must agree with the author on his assertion that men and women are mentally different. I'm not sure that those differences would cause women to be less interested in CS, but it isn't quite as unsupported a position as you'd think.

EDIT: There's also the possibility that IQ variances differ between genders - with males having higher variability - and thus more males at the upper (and lower!) ends of the range. If CS attracts primarily high IQ individuals, that would also result in a gender gap. (this is what I'd assume he meant with the reference to IQ in "Why we're blind") https://sci-hub.cc/10.1016/j.intell.2006.09.003

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#64

Post by eintagsfiege »

smb06 wrote: post #45
eintagsfiege wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you know about women in CS in Iran? How many of them end up working in CS? I wouldn't jump to conclusions just because you find such outliers. Some weird mechanisms might be driving such numbers (like people not being given a choice what to study, people being forced to study something useful because they can't afford to study literature or gender studies for fun, women studying just to meet men to marry, men…

> I wouldn't jump to conclusions just because you find such outliers. Some weird mechanisms might be driving such numbers

Well do you know anything about what is going on in Iran? Then please share.

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#66

Post by mcguire »

factsaresacred wrote: post #5

I fail to understand the outrage but attribute that to the fact that few bothered to read the document before allowing themselves to be outraged by it - such is the shallow, feeling-fueled, hysteria-laden media cycle of today. The doc presents a point-of-view, grounded in reality. Furthermore it's not "anti-diversity", but rather anti-discrimination - specifically 'positive 'discrimination which it discredits while p…

"Grounded in reality?"

Could we get some sources for these claims?

In particular, I'd like to see values and standard deviations for "On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways."

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#67

Post by freyir »

Kenji wrote: post #40
DonbunEf7 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not mandatory. However, when I was at Google several years ago, it showed up on my calendar, it was not optional, my manager said that I was expected to attend, and I attended. But it's not mandatory.

If my boss told me I am expected to attend a "microaggression training" I would quit instantly. Oh wait - that wouldn't happen because I don't work at a libero-fascist place. I have no time for bullshit, I need to get stuff done.

You sound like a real high performer.

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#68

Post by mAdamTus »

He started out well, but about halfway through meandered into bullshit. Bad data, cherry picked data, incorrect incorrect understanding of the science, incorrect conclusions -- he even referenced the Cultural Marxism Conspiracy theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marx...

By the time we hit "why we're blind" he's gone fully off the rails.

I sympathize with him -- and even agree with several points, but he did himself a huge disservice here.

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#69

Post by defen »

skywhopper wrote: post #50
amiga-workbench wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see what's micro about losing your job for wrongthink.

Who has lost their job for wrongthink?

Nobel Prize winner James Watson

Nobel Prize winner Tim Hunt

Harvard President Lawrence Summers

are the three that immediately come to mind.

Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

#70

Post by remarkEon »

grey-area wrote: post #43
factsaresacred wrote: post #5

I fail to understand the outrage but attribute that to the fact that few bothered to read the document before allowing themselves to be outraged by it - such is the shallow, feeling-fueled, hysteria-laden media cycle of today. The doc presents a point-of-view, grounded in reality. Furthermore it's not "anti-diversity", but rather anti-discrimination - specifically 'positive 'discrimination which it discredits while p…

I fail to understand the outrage but attribute that to the fact that few bothered to read Rather than assuming those who disagree with you are shallow and hysterical (a contentious word choice, given the subject), perhaps consider why others might be outraged, you could try some empathy (though I know the article warns us against empathy). The doc presents a point-of-view, grounded in reality. Furthermore it's not "a…

Sorry, but there's a whole host of psychological research that has long established behavioral differences between male and female. I find this new rejection on the Left of what are simply basic observations of biologically formed behaviors to be extremely bizarre. I'm really struggling to understand it because to me it seems like the same kind of science rejection we'd see on the Right if we were talking about climate change.
Post reply on HN