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

621–630 of 660 posts

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

#621

Post by Allower »

tptacek wrote: post #162
smsm42 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem with the "???" step is that it's unrigorous handwaving. Probably because nobody actually knows right now what actually causes the differences and how. The case that is caused exclusively by entrenched sexism - somehow driven by people graduating from the same institutions who have been fighting sexism for decades now, and by the same people who repudiate and denounce sexism on every corner - also does n…

Read what Rayiner wrote more carefully. Computer science is unique among STEM fields --- even mathematics --- in its gender imbalance. The "???" here has a name: it's called "special pleading". It's not hard to see why people would get angry at a special pleading intended to excuse gender disparities.

Where is the excuse making? There is a question being raised. Why are you so fervent about silencing the questioner rather than refuting their assumptions?

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

#622

Post by jorgemf »

fatbird wrote: post #550
jorgemf wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've seen no one suggest that the professions have significantly shifted in nature due to an influx of female brains Here you have it: https://youtu.be/cVaTc15plVs?t=1851 Most people in the video are scientists and work in the topic.

I see that it's an extended attack on the nurture side from the nature side based on the fact that, despite years of concerted government effort, significant gender divisions remain at the professional level in Norway. I'm not disputing these facts. I'm not seeing that it asserts that the influx of women into the medical or legal professions has substantially changed how those professions are practiced. If women thin…

> If women think differently than men, wouldn't a significant increase in the number of women in a profession show up as a change in the general model of the profession?

It makes sense but I think the problem is that women do not get leadership roles very often, so they cannot change things. The two theories about why this happen is, first, the oppression of the women and the glass ceiling [1]; second, the women avoid confrontation and stress which are typical in leadership roles.

I like the idea of changing things to include more diversity. I don't know if it can apply to everything but I think it should be an option to explore. Pair programming is a good idea, another good idea is to have more meetings to discuss the processes and getting feedback from projects. Definitely a more emphatic mind will help a lot for this. I don't think this is economically viable in small companies, but Google could give it a try.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_ceiling

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

#623

Post by 0xbear »

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.

You are mindlessly parroting liberal talking points. I'm not going to try to change your mind here, but do try to hear the actual conservative POV from an actual person offline, not what the democrats tell you it is.

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

#624

Post by grey-area »

renaudg wrote: post #71
grey-area wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I doubt the author has faced ostracism Here's one of his colleagues threatening to quit "if HR does nothing in this case" : https://twitter.com/rakyll/status/893287112732291072 > here are some things that the author believes which are not true You've left out "on average" (which is stated no less than 7 times in the document). It does seem to be all supported by research : https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabbl…

That's not ostracism.

The research you linked talks about girls not women and is worryingly slanted. Here's a rebuttal based on other research:

https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/slideshow/embed_code/key/3...

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

#625

Post by defen »

jacobolus wrote: post #539
defen wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobel Prize winner James Watson Nobel Prize winner Tim Hunt Harvard President Lawrence Summers are the three that immediately come to mind.

Summers lost his job as university president because he alienated a significant portion of the faculty by making dramatic political decisions without buy-in from the rest of the community. (Firing popular administrative staff, diverting budget from long-running projects with internal political support, getting in aggressive fights with influential faculty members, etc.) Overall he made for a divisive and relatively i…

Do you think he would not have been fired for his comments if he had been popular / well-regarded in his role as president? What does it mean that you can basically be terrible at your job but not get fired until you express a minor deviation from orthodox thought?

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

#626

Post by nileshtrivedi »

taysic wrote: post #321
haberman wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that "???" is unrigorous handwaving. And I don't think it purports to be rigorous; from the document: "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." (emphasis mine). "May" and "in part." I don't think this purports to be a proof. Is this argument any more rigorous? 1. There is a non-50% representation bet…

Who says we need 50% women in tech? Has Google released a statement on this? While I have seen some inflammatory articles on the subject I don't know that many woman care if there are 50% woman in tech. I can tell you as a female engineer, I just hope that women know it's open to them and feel comfortable joining the field. I don't care about convincing uninterested people. Instead here are some of the issues Google…

> Who says we need 50% women in tech?

Almost every diversity activist: https://twitter.com/sehurlburt/status/894409695057764352

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

#627

Post by sctb »

renaudg wrote: post #583
adrienne wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These people never want to acknowledge the fact that programming used to be near-universally "women's work", right up until dudes decided it was cool and stole it from us. CS admissions used to be more than 40% women!

[flagged]

Would you please post civilly and substantively or not at all?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#628

Post by sctb »

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.

Like we've asked you before, if you're about to post unsubstantive inflammation like this please don't post at all.

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

#629

Post by jacobolus »

defen wrote: post #625
jacobolus wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Summers lost his job as university president because he alienated a significant portion of the faculty by making dramatic political decisions without buy-in from the rest of the community. (Firing popular administrative staff, diverting budget from long-running projects with internal political support, getting in aggressive fights with influential faculty members, etc.) Overall he made for a divisive and relatively i…

Do you think he would not have been fired for his comments if he had been popular / well-regarded in his role as president? What does it mean that you can basically be terrible at your job but not get fired until you express a minor deviation from orthodox thought?

Yes, that is correct. I don’t think the same comments would have gotten him removed as president if he hadn’t already otherwise lost political support from many in the faculty. Obviously even a widely supported and popular university president making such tactless comments would have still created a public firestorm, but I don’t think it would have been an insurmountable problem.

I think he would have been removed (or removed himself) as university president sooner or later regardless given his other political blunders, but it might have taken a few years longer. As I mentioned, the comments about sex differences provided a convenient excuse and rallying point for his critics.

I wouldn’t say he was “terrible” at his job. Naïve, undiplomatic, and bull-headed, with good intentions but without enough political skill to persuade his opponents to follow him or enough empathy to understand their objections and moderate his positions.

Disclaimer: I was a first year undergraduate at the time, and my understanding comes from talking to various people at Harvard during and after the controversy, including both critics and supporters of Summers. I wasn’t well enough connected to be the ideal first-hand source about this topic.

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

#630

Post by marknutter »

door wrote: post #244
stagbeetle wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment was one of the points argued in the memo. It's important to understand and prioritize intention or else: > increases [in our] our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offense and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. This means distinguishing between a well-meaning comment and a maleficent or predatory remark.

your intentions don't excuse inappropriate behavior. if you really didn't intend to say something that made someone feel disrespected, your response should be "Oh, I am so sorry, I won't make that kind of comment in the future", not "Well you're wrong for being offended." that kind of response is basically saying "your feelings don't matter, all that matters is what is going on in my head and not what I actually did…

As a person of grammar, I'm offended by the fact that you don't capitalize the first word in your sentences. It doesn't excuse your inappropriate behavior that you may not have intended it.
Post reply on HN