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

601–610 of 660 posts

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

#601

Post by dionidium »

tptacek wrote: post #599
ggreer wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before Scott Alexander started http://slatestarcodex.com/ , he wrote this post http://squid314.livejournal.com/323694.html : > I declare the Worst Argument In The World to be this: "If we can apply an emotionally charged word to something, we must judge it exactly the same as a typical instance of that emotionally charged word." Scott's post is full of examples, many of which I'm sure you'll agree are bad arguments.…

There are clearly people on this thread who think that it's possible to believe in the supremacy of white people over black people without all the ugly baggage of "white supremacy". I. Don't. Care. I don't care if a white supremacist believes that Asians might be superior to whites. I don't care if a white supremacist thinks anyone who would wear a hood and burn a cross belongs in jail. These things simply don't matt…

'There are clearly people on this thread who think that it's possible to believe in the supremacy of white people over black people without all the ugly baggage of "white supremacy".'

No. There are clearly people on this thread who don't believe that statistical population differences tell us anything about supremacy.

Were we to throw off all the baggage of the entire phrase, the word "supremacy" still has an ordinary meaning in ordinary English. A statement about population differences is plainly not a statement about "authority, power, or status."

The only person in this thread who has argued that population differences imply supremacy is you. Over and over again. This is your word. I don't know how else to tell you that I don't even support your premise.

If you were anyone else, I would already have stopped arguing with you. But you are a person of authority in this space. Your tactics here are dangerous. I'm begging you to consider that.

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

#602

Post by tptacek »

dionidium wrote: post #601
tptacek wrote: post #599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are clearly people on this thread who think that it's possible to believe in the supremacy of white people over black people without all the ugly baggage of "white supremacy". I. Don't. Care. I don't care if a white supremacist believes that Asians might be superior to whites. I don't care if a white supremacist thinks anyone who would wear a hood and burn a cross belongs in jail. These things simply don't matt…

'There are clearly people on this thread who think that it's possible to believe in the supremacy of white people over black people without all the ugly baggage of "white supremacy".' No. There are clearly people on this thread who don't believe that statistical population differences tell us anything about supremacy . Were we to throw off all the baggage of the entire phrase, the word "supremacy" still has an ordina…

I don't know whether you're writing normatively about positions you actually hold or descriptively about the positions of others, which makes it very difficult to engage what you're saying directly; everything has to be written through a layer of indirection.

So let me just come out and ask: on the matter of race and intellect, what is it you believe? Can you be specific about those beliefs in the context of American "white", black, and Asian people?

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

#603

Post by dionidium »

tptacek wrote: post #602
dionidium wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'There are clearly people on this thread who think that it's possible to believe in the supremacy of white people over black people without all the ugly baggage of "white supremacy".' No. There are clearly people on this thread who don't believe that statistical population differences tell us anything about supremacy . Were we to throw off all the baggage of the entire phrase, the word "supremacy" still has an ordina…

I don't know whether you're writing normatively about positions you actually hold or descriptively about the positions of others, which makes it very difficult to engage what you're saying directly; everything has to be written through a layer of indirection. So let me just come out and ask: on the matter of race and intellect, what is it you believe? Can you be specific about those beliefs in the context of American…

Recall that this entire subthread is the result of your claims about Murray. I am not an expert in the field, so I don't have strong opinions about the competing explanations for group differences in IQ. What I'm fighting against/for isn't any particular claim about intelligence, but rather your framing of one particular claim.†

I do strongly hold the position that a genetic explanation, should one exist, says absolutely nada about policy, "supremacy," how we should treat each other, or really anything else. I also strongly believe that a good faith inquiry into this question (and acceptance of whatever the science reveals) is a pursuit orthogonal to "white supremacy. This is so obvious to me that I feel silly even rebutting it.

Again, I'm not advancing one particular explanation for group differences. I'm opposing your treatment of the implications of one of those possible explanations.

Further, as I stated elsewhere in this thread, the statement "white people are smarter than black people" as a summary of population differences is statistically and biologically illiterate. This way of talking about these issues is unscientific and obfuscatory and it has no place in serious conversations on this topic.

† My personal opinion, as a non-expert, is that the differences are probably explained by a complicated mix of factors, but that genetics likely play some role. If this seems wishy-washy, it's because it is. I'm including this footnote only to avoid the accusation that I'm dodging your question. My opinions here aren't worth much. Frankly, I doubt yours are, either, unless you've got a second career you haven't mentioned in your profile.

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

#604

Post by sobani »

rocky1138 wrote: post #153
skywhopper wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who has lost their job for wrongthink?

There was also that scientist involved in the Mars landings that wore an anime shirt.

I only know of the case of a Matt Taylor, who was part of the Rosetta project (land a probe on a comet) that was branded a sexist for wearing a shirt given to him by a woman.

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

#605

Post by sobani »

zimpenfish wrote: post #588
rifung wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I find it amusing that I only have to concern myself with "respect for my coworkers" if my opinion is different from the liberal side on some cause célèbre I can see why you would think this because as far as I can tell a large majority of Googlers are liberal, but I don't believe this is the case? I'm pretty sure if you went around saying Trump supporters are racists or something you would also quickly get reprima…

> Indeed I had to call some people out for being really insulting to conservatives because that is really not okay either Slightly off-topic but I don't understand this viewpoint. The conservative stance, as best I can tell from following politics, generally involves enriching the 1% whilst actively wanting to hurt the less well off and minorities. To me, that does not warrant politeness and pleasantries.

Aren't those Republican voting miners from Ohio or something (I'm from Europe) part of those conservatives? If not, who exactly are those conservatives you're talking about?

As an outside observer I always equaled conservative with Republican. Can you explain why this is not the case?

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

#606

Post by tptacek »

dionidium wrote: post #603
tptacek wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know whether you're writing normatively about positions you actually hold or descriptively about the positions of others, which makes it very difficult to engage what you're saying directly; everything has to be written through a layer of indirection. So let me just come out and ask: on the matter of race and intellect, what is it you believe? Can you be specific about those beliefs in the context of American…

Recall that this entire subthread is the result of your claims about Murray. I am not an expert in the field, so I don't have strong opinions about the competing explanations for group differences in IQ. What I'm fighting against/for isn't any particular claim about intelligence, but rather your framing of one particular claim.† I do strongly hold the position that a genetic explanation, should one exist, says absolu…

I'm sorry, you'll have to forgive me, but I'm still in the dark as to what it is you actually believe. Help me understand the difference you see between observations about population aggregates in studies versus observations about "races".

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

#607

Post by dionidium »

tptacek wrote: post #606
dionidium wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recall that this entire subthread is the result of your claims about Murray. I am not an expert in the field, so I don't have strong opinions about the competing explanations for group differences in IQ. What I'm fighting against/for isn't any particular claim about intelligence, but rather your framing of one particular claim.† I do strongly hold the position that a genetic explanation, should one exist, says absolu…

I'm sorry, you'll have to forgive me, but I'm still in the dark as to what it is you actually believe. Help me understand the difference you see between observations about population aggregates in studies versus observations about "races".

I'm sorry, but if you're still in the dark about what I believe, then I think you're willfully so. I have to be honest: I didn't really think you were arguing in good faith in the beginning, but I was hopeful that you might be brought into a reasonable back-and-forth.

I no longer believe that's possible.

Edit: Just to make this explicit: I don't have any eccentric or unorthodox views about the differences between "races." I haven't advanced any such views here, nor do I hold them privately. tptacek's implication, of course -- and this happens in every single one of these conversations -- is that I'm concealing some detestable opinion about race. That's why there's always this persistent pleading to clarify what you actually believe. I've stated quite clearly what it is that I believe. No more or less. If I haven't been clear, then we'll just have to attribute that to my failings as a communicator and call it a day.

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

#608

Post by tptacek »

dionidium wrote: post #607
tptacek wrote: post #606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, you'll have to forgive me, but I'm still in the dark as to what it is you actually believe. Help me understand the difference you see between observations about population aggregates in studies versus observations about "races".

I'm sorry, but if you're still in the dark about what I believe, then I think you're willfully so. I have to be honest: I didn't really think you were arguing in good faith in the beginning, but I was hopeful that you might be brought into a reasonable back-and-forth. I no longer believe that's possible. Edit: Just to make this explicit: I don't have any eccentric or unorthodox views about the differences between "ra…

That is a strange response to a straightforward question, but I can't say I'm unhappy to see this weird little thread die here.

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

#609

Post by rhizome »

TheLilHipster wrote: post #574
rhizome wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Google example is none of those.

> The Google example is none of those. Right. Its a comment on a thread, it has zero context. You don't know whether it was or wasn't appropriate based on the context. You're jumping on the "unprofessional" bandwagon without investigating further. An "affirmative stance" if you will. You don't see the irony? This is why I avoid gender politics like the plague, the debates are not grounded in logic and rationality.

There's plenty of context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14938427

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

#610

Post by rhizome »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #26
rayiner wrote: post #19

The intellectual contortion required to get from the premise to the conclusion is actually quite impressive. > On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because: > They’re universal across human cultures Except the gender ratio in science/engineering is anything but universal across cultures. 70% of science/engineering students in Iran are women: ht…

Agreed, it is a common trap of people who are 'smart' to assume their own reasoning is valid even without external confirmation. I appreciated that they included sources for their reasoning but I expect that if that was posted to the politics list inside Google it was probably sliced and diced several times. It apparently generated quite a bit of conversation there and my guess is a couple of 'centithreads' at least.…

Agreed, it is a common trap of people who are 'smart' to assume their own reasoning is valid even without external confirmation

Increasingly identified as "Engineer's Disease."

Post reply on HN