The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science • Hacker News Board

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

#61

Post by computerex » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 2:24 PM UTC

alkonaut wrote: post #10

Why can't the memo be both sexist and science? Arguing that there are differences between genders that make one gender unsuitable for a task can be as scientific as you want, it's still sexist. It's no different from doing the same but replacing gender with race - it's racist no matter how carefully and scientifically you worded it. It's almost as if the person writing this article believes that if the manifesto is f…

You are confused about what sexism is. Sexism is a prejudice based on lack of evidence and reasoning. Saying that women are inferior to men is a sexist remark.

Saying that on average, women prefer working in people oriented roles whereas men prefer working in mechanical/technical roles is not sexist, because this is a fact supported by real evidence.

The author's point about societies with the most gender equity having bigger gender gaps really drives this point home. In societies where there is gender equity, people aren't compelled to behave a certain way and instead gravitate towards the roles they really want to take.

Real, verifiable, reproducible truths are not sexist or racist. They are truths. The fact that the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalenjin_people#Sport dominate sprinting is supported by empirical evidence and also science.

So to be clear, racism and sexism are terms used to describe prejudices, lies and falsehoods about a gender or race. These terms shouldn't be used to describe real, empirically shown gender or race differences.

We as humans are all equal in worth, but that doesn't mean we are all the same.

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

#62

Post by peoplewindow » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 2:24 PM UTC

danpalmer wrote: post #23

EJTH wrote: post #3

I fail to understand how a memo calling for MORE diversity can get headlined as "anti-diversity memo" on all big media outlets. Do journalists even do independent research anymore or are they just regurgitating whatever reuters send their way without scrutiny? Debate me instead of downvoting please. Downvoting is like forfeiting a discussion and shows that you question your own narrative.

As far as I could tell from the coverage (I couldn't get past the first few paragraphs of the memo), it asks for more diversity in terms of right-wing/conservative thinking, and for Google to stop encouraging women to apply. On the surface – that's asking for both more and less diversity, however Google rejects the idea that conservative views (that are compatible with Google's HR policies) are discouraged, which wou…

It's very odd that you admit you didn't actually read the document. Does it cause you physical pain or something?

You then judged it based on a bunch of re-tellings, believe it says something it doesn't and that this is somehow virtuous and worthy of proclamation. Kind of discouraging.

It didn't say Google should stop encouraging women to apply. That's simply not true. It did say it should stop giving women specific non-encouragement based advantages, like letting them proceed even after failing an interview when a man would have been dropped. It also said lots of other things. Why don't you read it yourself, and then judge it based on that?

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

#63

Post by riffraff » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 2:24 PM UTC

major505 wrote: post #42

Welcome to the left. Where we are democratic, and suport free-speech, as long as agrees with our views. :)

does the right differ? Is it non-democratic, against free speech, or happily accepts contrarian views?

I doubt being close minded is specific to any political group.

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

#64

Post by alkonaut » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 2:24 PM UTC

blub wrote: post #24

alkonaut wrote: post #10

Why can't the memo be both sexist and science? Arguing that there are differences between genders that make one gender unsuitable for a task can be as scientific as you want, it's still sexist. It's no different from doing the same but replacing gender with race - it's racist no matter how carefully and scientifically you worded it. It's almost as if the person writing this article believes that if the manifesto is f…

Sexism relates to prejudices, discrimination. It's a negative word. And no one argued that an entire gender is unqualified for a task. Where do you come up with all this stuff?!?

OK: let me rephrase - he argues that women (for example) have lower stress tolerance and are more neurotic, and that could be a reason for the lack of women at the top. He never says outright that these properties actually make women unfit for those jobs, however.

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

#65

Post by 52-6F-62 » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 2:25 PM UTC

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…

I personally never called it out for sexism. I called it out for regressive-thinking as a solution based on plain fact.

I can only be brief right now, but it's starting to get to me how so many people in an innovative sphere seem to have such a hard time with this. To me, it seems like it shouldn't be a second thought.

If the main argument is that women do not [by nature of our scientific understanding] have minds tuned to engineering prowess to the extent that men do for whatever cause, then just how does that itself prescribe that we should stop pushing for an expansion there?

Humans never evolved to fly, yet we do it all the time. By the same logic, if we weren't evolved to do it, we should probably just put our planes away because it's bad for us. Same with communicating long distances and sharing knowledge on a planet-wide scale. I mean, they've caused problems themselves after all. I think we should put all these silly, limit-pushing ideas and practices aside and just go back to smashing rocks together. The ground has rocks. We all have two hands. It can work for us.

TL;DR Why is a fact being accepted as sound basis for a totally disparate theory on why we should stop trying to exceed our limits? This guys post wasn't science. He used science to reason out a way to revert to a state of community where he stands to gain more. There was another theory like that, I can recall. I think it started with an 'e'.

edit: Wanted to add, a PhD of neurosexuality is probably one of the last people I would consult on philosophy, humanism or any kind of larger social issue. It's not exactly her scope. It does help to have an expert on the subject chime in on the science, though. It will help at least dispose of that less useful side of the discussion.

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

#66

Post by koonsolo » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 2:25 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #33

The article hides a common but incorrect assumption. Look at this paragraph: > As mentioned in the memo, gendered interests are predicted by exposure to prenatal testosterone – higher levels are associated with a preference for mechanically interesting things and occupations in adulthood. Lower levels are associated with a preference for people-oriented activities and occupations. This is why STEM (science, technolog…

> So why aren't the management layers of tech companies composed of mostly women?

From my experience, women in technology have a higher chance of reaching manager level than men. I worked with plenty of female managers, and their people and communication skills were the reason that got them in those positions. Women with families, women working 4/5th.

So yes, I do think they can rise up with those skills, from a European perspective.

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

#67

Post by malnourish » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 2:25 PM UTC

major505 wrote: post #42

Welcome to the left. Where we are democratic, and suport free-speech, as long as agrees with our views. :)

Welcome to the internet. Where we make generalizations about large swaths of people.

This could keep up until the end of time. I'm an incredibly liberal person in most regards but I find suppressing unwanted speech to be disgusting at a base level.

I think it's unfair to make that generalization; further, it contributes to the false dichotomy that exists through "left/right" politic.

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

#68

Post by alkonaut » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 2:25 PM UTC

lanevorockz wrote: post #19

alkonaut wrote: post #10

Why can't the memo be both sexist and science? Arguing that there are differences between genders that make one gender unsuitable for a task can be as scientific as you want, it's still sexist. It's no different from doing the same but replacing gender with race - it's racist no matter how carefully and scientifically you worded it. It's almost as if the person writing this article believes that if the manifesto is f…

You are reading things that are not written there, take a breath and read it without bias. It talks about predisposition and how when you look into a collective you observe differences.

Right: I explained what I meant in another reply.

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

#69

Post by AlexandrB » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 2:26 PM UTC

major505 wrote: post #42

Welcome to the left. Where we are democratic, and suport free-speech, as long as agrees with our views. :)

I think you mean "Welcome to modern politics". Suppressing free speech you don't agree with is a time-tested tradition of most mainstream political thought. However, it's most disappointing to see from people you otherwise agree with.

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

#70

Post by tenaciousDaniel » Wed, Aug 09, 2017, 2:26 PM UTC

megous wrote: post #36

What I find interesting about all this is how many people take personal offense from statistics. (and conclusions drawn from statistics) The author seems to put an effort into explaining statistical distribution and what it means and what not. He's explicit that statistical observations can't be used to judge particular individuals. Draws a graph of overlapping distributions to drive the point home even more. I'm not…

Also interesting is that it's one of the things social justice activists constantly criticize others for. I can't count how many times I've heard the following: "when we say men are privileged, we don't mean any and all men are privileged to the same extent." Or "when we say white people are racist, we're not talking about every single individual white person."

And it makes sense. Yet when it comes time for someone to say "the statistical average for career interests in females tends to lean away from technology", all observable nuance is thrown to the wind.