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

#631

Post by Hnrobert42 » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 2:24 PM UTC

peoplewindow wrote: post #90

52-6F-62 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tu…

The guy's post was science, according to scientists - 5 of them have now spoken up saying that. Maybe there'll be more. With respect to "why not try to solve it", it's a reasonable question. The guy answers that too - he is all for trying to solve it. He even makes suggestions about new ways to do it, like encouraging pair programming. But he feels the current solutions aren't working and are, in fact, causing bigger…

What does "it's science" mean? Do you mean to say it's fact based? Because that's not the same thing. Science is a careful application of the scientific method. Damore did not do that. Instead, it seems this author is using the term science instead of factual because a) it sounds more credible and b) alliteration.

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

#632

Post by 52-6F-62 » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 2:28 PM UTC

kerbalspacepro wrote: post #366

52-6F-62 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tu…

Wanted to add, an online commenter 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.

Straight, white male online commenter here. Studied philosophy and humanities earlier in my adult life, and still do privately. Just so that's cleared up.

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

#633

Post by Hnrobert42 » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 2:28 PM UTC

peoplewindow wrote: post #290

danso wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did the memo's author think that Google's current hiring practices were flawed? I mean, what empirical evidence? Were there teams full of "diversity" hires that were performing below par?

Well, did you read it? He lists the following: "* Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5] * A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates * Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate * Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scru…

If you believe women and/or minorities are biologically predisposed to underperform white males in tech, then it makes sense to offer them more help. That offer only increases "tension" if you don't believe the biological premise. So which is it? You can't have it both ways.

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

#634

Post by Hnrobert42 » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 2:32 PM UTC

peoplewindow wrote: post #602

danso wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I did read it. You can check my comment history where I've even linked to that exact section you cite: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14953398 I asked for empirical evidence that these initiatives had led to bad results at Google. If the biological research so directly contradicts Google's aims with these diversity initiatives, then we should be able to measure the negative impact, no? That Google has had t…

If there was any evidence as to the utility of these things, then the argument might look rather different. But the memo - as you already know - states that Google management presents no empirical evidence in support of its policies, so it's reasonable to assume the firm doesn't have any evidence in either direction.

For what do you lack evidence? The value of diversity, the value of programs designed to increase diversity, or the value of the specific programs at Google?

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

#635

Post by Hnrobert42 » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 2:37 PM UTC

weddpros wrote: post #551

danso wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I did read it. You can check my comment history where I've even linked to that exact section you cite: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14953398 I asked for empirical evidence that these initiatives had led to bad results at Google. If the biological research so directly contradicts Google's aims with these diversity initiatives, then we should be able to measure the negative impact, no? That Google has had t…

"we should be able to measure the negative impact, no?", or "how to get fired from Google in 20s" ... as the memo just proved ... Management could have put him in charge of gathering and analyzing data to prove or disprove his memo. They fired him instead => they don't care about data => the memo was right, management is biased

What? He is an engineer, not a social scientist. He lacks the qualifications to perform such a study. Why would Google pay him to do that?

Further, his job was to make more money for the company than he cost it. The negative publicity he generated, right or wrong, means he is no longer doing his job. Firing him meant the managers did theirs.

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

#636

Post by dsfjksdf » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 2:39 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #626

dsfjksdf wrote: post #617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

As I said, it depends on the circumstances, but I am sure a lot of "hey would you like to grab lunch sometime" end up as a number in those harassment statistics.

It is also a very one-sided narrative, omitting the advantages that being attractive also brings.

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

#637

Post by peoplewindow » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 3:06 PM UTC

pcnix wrote: post #590

weddpros wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"we should be able to measure the negative impact, no?", or "how to get fired from Google in 20s" ... as the memo just proved ... Management could have put him in charge of gathering and analyzing data to prove or disprove his memo. They fired him instead => they don't care about data => the memo was right, management is biased

That's hardly a good option. Google hired him as an engineer, to work with his team and build things. With this manifesto, he's made it very hard for his team to work with him, and alienated at least a third of his colleagues. Why would Google want to keep around an engineer in that situation? The firing is justified from the point of view of the company, they want someone that can contribute, and he's just effective…

Actually he hasn't made it hard for his team to work with him. Rather, they choose to make it hard for themselves to work with him, because they believe his views on politics and gender science make him a "bad person" who must be shunned to teach him a lesson.

The world is full of religious people, Trump supporters, conservatives, and people who agree that men and women are biologically different and that might affect their life choices. Adults can go to work and collaborate productively with these people.

Google is quite clearly now full of people who are not adults in this respect, and who feel it's totally OK to refuse to work with someone they never even met because of a memo they wrote on political and policy issues. And their management supports them in this.

From the companies point of view this may mean they are justified in firing him, but California law apparently disagrees - you aren't allowed to fire someone for their political affiliations, and that is true even if other employees are refusing to work with them. That would require you to fire those other employees, as they are the ones refusing to do their work unless a legally impermissible act is taken.

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

#638

Post by peoplewindow » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 3:11 PM UTC

zimpenfish wrote: post #623

peoplewindow wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

There were four others too. They published their views on a website (Quillette) that was immediately DDoSd off the internet - presumably by the sort of extremists who now control Google and who did not want anyone to see the evidence that Damore might have a point.

Damore is not an idiot. The people who are attacking him in these ways are though: it's pure anti-intellectualism.

And by the way, counting experts is not a valid way to decide things, it's just a heuristic.

Damore has 5 who point out that he isn't making the science up, but what actually matters is that there are hundreds of studies and papers that support his basic position. Dr Soh points that out. It's not just her opinion vs other people's opinions. It's the opinion of thousands of scientists who have published research that shows all sorts of preference differences between gender.

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

#639

Post by peoplewindow » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 3:14 PM UTC

52-6F-62 wrote: post #628

peoplewindow wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

Let me ask you this - what ideology is he pushing?

Damore's piece can be read as supporting one of two policies, depending on how you interpret it:

1. Adopt alternative approaches to increasing the number of women at Google.

or

2. Leave things alone and don't try to interfere with the outcome of the standard hiring process.

I think he argued more for (1), in which case his "ideology" would if anything be rather close to Google's standard ideology and it's only a debate about means rather than ends.

But if you read it as (2), e.g. because he says he doesn't support socially engineering tech to get a particular outcome, that's still not an ideology. Doing nothing is not an ideology, it's an absence of ideology.

So I find myself disagreeing with you on this basic point. It's Google and Damore's opponents who are pushing an ideology here. Not him.

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

#640

Post by peoplewindow » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 3:15 PM UTC

Hnrobert42 wrote: post #634

peoplewindow wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there was any evidence as to the utility of these things, then the argument might look rather different. But the memo - as you already know - states that Google management presents no empirical evidence in support of its policies, so it's reasonable to assume the firm doesn't have any evidence in either direction.

For what do you lack evidence? The value of diversity, the value of programs designed to increase diversity, or the value of the specific programs at Google?

Me personally? I don't care either way. The meta-debate is more important than gender studies.

Damore and Google? All three that you name.