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

#621

Post by staticelf » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 1:03 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…

Well if your beliefs is that the statistics are incorrect, I guess these kind of people would be offended by people who are simply stating the facts.

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

#622

Post by jamesrcole » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 1:24 PM UTC

mcv wrote: post #603

jamesrcole wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you see hate, insults, name calling, claims that people shouldn't be allowed to discuss such topics, or should be punished for doing so? What about comments about how wrong it was to do something to incite a culture war (as if that was the memo author's intention. And presumably such commenters don't consider opinions they agree with to be 'inciting a culture war')? I didn't say anything about literally preventin…

It's hard to avoid hate and insults these days. It seems to have been normalised by the recent political shift to the far right. However, the main criticism I've seen directed towards the author of the manifesto, is that he contributes to creating a toxic work environment where women feel less welcome, which makes it hard to keep him employed in a company that wants women to feel welcome in engineering. Also that he…

> The views weren't suppressed, they were spread, and then criticised.

I didn't say they were suppressed. I said "try and suppress". Big difference. Also, what you say is equating "suppress" with "silence". They're not the same thing. I have read literally hundreds of comments, across HN and other forums, where people have made comments designed to suppress views they don't like (I've already given examples of the kinds of things I'm talking about, so won't repeat them here). Lots have literally said that people should not be allowed or should be punished for daring to even talk about such topics.

> Also that he doesn't understand the need for diversity in modern companies

If you've been reading these threads on HN, you'd know that many people would dispute that. Lots of people have argued that the memo is pro-diversity.

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

#623

Post by zimpenfish » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 1:25 PM UTC

peoplewindow wrote: post #601

52-6F-62 wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right that a number of scientists have come out to say his post was science. I'm saying that they are not the conclusive authority on the posters' intent. He is of course entitled to feel and think whatever he wants, but maybe a little old-fashioned advice would help here: measure twice, cut once. He clearly didn't think through the effects of posting a stern essay to a company-wide board on a subject that is…

If you insist on judging arguments by appeals to authority, which I agree is much faster than wading through all the research papers themselves, then there are no higher authorities on gender science than actual biologists who study the topic full time. Almost by definition, they are the most qualified. By all means be skeptical but you must have reasons. Otherwise you are no better than people who reject evolution b…

> there are no higher authorities on gender science than actual biologists who study the topic full time

Only one (Dr Soh) has supported him that I've seen thus far - she seems to have only got her PhD this year and she studies sexual paraphilia via fMRI (which doesn't have a great reputation.) Not exactly "full time gender science study".

By way of contrast, there's PZ Myers - PhD in Biology in 1985, been teaching since 1993 - who thinks Damore is an idiot.

https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2017/08/06/what-diff...

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

#624

Post by zimpenfish » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 1:55 PM UTC

computerex wrote: post #301

zzalpha wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just gonna copy another comment I made elsewhere: The problem is that the gender differences cited cannot, in aggregate, explain the 70/30 bias toward men in the industry. There's a real similarity to the global warming debate, here. There are many factors that affect global mean temperature. For example, over the very long term, the sun will get brighter. But that can only account for an astonishingly tiny fract…

> But no serious psychologist or sociologist would claim that those differences can account for the dramatic real world bias in the industry. It simply doesn't follow. What's your evidence for this? Debrah Soh, the author supposedly has a PhD in sexual neuroscience so one would think she is qualified to make comments about this. And although I can't confirm this myself, the article does say that societies with greate…

> Debrah Soh, the author supposedly has a PhD in sexual neuroscience

That's "sexual" in the sense of "sexology", not "gender", though. She studies sexual paraphilia ("why people are into what they’re into sexually"), not gender differences as they pertain to society.

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

#625

Post by zimpenfish » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 1:57 PM UTC

kerbalspacepro wrote: post #376

Beltiras wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Women used to be more prevalent in STEM fields. In the 80's there were actually more female programmers than males. Something changed in the mid 80's and the culprit might have been gender stereotypes in advertising. If the reason for less women in STEM is biological, they would never have outpaced males at any timepoint.

It may also have been the type of computing that was going on. Pre-80s computing involved mainframes, data entry... secretarial tasks. Post-80s computing involved building businesses, getting heavily involved in the science, and generally hiding out in a dark room programming alone for weeks at a time. What evidence is there for advertisement stereotyping being the causal factor? Wasn't advertisement stereotyping jus…

> Pre-80s computing involved mainframes, data entry... secretarial tasks.

...sending rockets to the moon...

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

#626

Post by snowwrestler » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 1:59 PM UTC

dsfjksdf wrote: post #617

snowwrestler wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think is the right number of people to be forced to leave a job they like and are good at, because of harassment? I tend to think "zero," but you do you, I guess. Anyway... https://www.elephantinthevalley.com http://www.kaporcenter.org/tech-leavers/ https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/technology/women-entre... Etc.

Thank you for the links. I don't think they are as convincing as you make them out to be (the second does not even talk about women specifically), but I don't have the time to discuss it further in all detail. Harassment is bad, but I don't think "unwanted sexual advances" should categorically count as harassment. It all depends (of course some advances can be harassment, but just because some attraction is unrequite…

Unwanted sexual advances in the workplace are always harassment.

There's a big difference between:

"Hey would you like to go grab lunch with me sometime?" (ok if not overly persistent)

vs

"You're hot, want to have sex with me sometime?" (never ok at work)

And I would suggest some introspection about why your bar to be convinced is so high. The persistent and sometimes aggressive disbelief that women face from male colleagues when they complain about harassment is a big part of the industry problem.

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

#627

Post by zimpenfish » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 2:04 PM UTC

deepnotderp wrote: post #226

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…

>Only difference being that the author of this article has a PhD in sexual neuroscience Original evil evil author had a PhD/MS in Biology from Harvard

He lied about having a PhD and his MS is presumably in "Systems Biology" (same as his claimed PhD), ie "the computational study of biological systems".

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

#628

Post by 52-6F-62 » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 2:08 PM UTC

peoplewindow wrote: post #601

52-6F-62 wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right that a number of scientists have come out to say his post was science. I'm saying that they are not the conclusive authority on the posters' intent. He is of course entitled to feel and think whatever he wants, but maybe a little old-fashioned advice would help here: measure twice, cut once. He clearly didn't think through the effects of posting a stern essay to a company-wide board on a subject that is…

If you insist on judging arguments by appeals to authority, which I agree is much faster than wading through all the research papers themselves, then there are no higher authorities on gender science than actual biologists who study the topic full time. Almost by definition, they are the most qualified. By all means be skeptical but you must have reasons. Otherwise you are no better than people who reject evolution b…

Then it seems we disagree on what the core issue is. I don't think it is a matter of gender science. I think he's using research in gender science to push an ideology that he's attempting to form grounds in his attached research.

I see it as a social issue primarily, with considerations that should include gender science, but not be based solely upon it.

For reference to my thinking on the matter I'll confer to one of my favourite scientists (as he is to many), Mr Feynman:

>> "Scientific knowledge is an enabling power to do either good or bad — but it does not carry instructions on how to use it. Such power has evident value — even though the power may be negated by what one does with it."

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

#629

Post by jshevek » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 2:20 PM UTC

mistermann wrote: post #542

dang wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you please stop posting personally condescending remarks toward people you disagree with? Regardless of how wrong they are, or seem, you're degrading the quality of the site by doing this. Admittedly there is a whole lot of degrading going on in the current conflagration, but you've done this a whole bunch of times and it's definitely not helping.

Ok, I shall try to adopt a turn-the-other-cheek approach going forward. I am somewhat curious why you've singled me out though, considering the specifics of the conversations I'm involved in.

He did also comment on and0's post as well.

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

#630

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 2:20 PM UTC

mistermann wrote: post #542

dang wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you please stop posting personally condescending remarks toward people you disagree with? Regardless of how wrong they are, or seem, you're degrading the quality of the site by doing this. Admittedly there is a whole lot of degrading going on in the current conflagration, but you've done this a whole bunch of times and it's definitely not helping.

Ok, I shall try to adopt a turn-the-other-cheek approach going forward. I am somewhat curious why you've singled me out though, considering the specifics of the conversations I'm involved in.

[deleted]