Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

theglobeandmail.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

661–670 of 684 posts

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

#661

Post by depressedpanda »

zzalpha wrote: post #311
computerex wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Well, if we're going to just appeal to authority, I guess I'll do the same: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sexual-personalities/20... The article points out that for most of the biases cited in the memo, the differences are on the order of a few percentage points, which cannot account for the real-world outcomes we see. To quote: Still, I think it's important to keep in mind that most psychological sex differen…

I'm not sure anybody who has read studies about biological preferences claims that they explain the 70/30 population split. That would be ludicrous.

What nobody seems to consider is that an initial small biological difference may very well be amplified into a large cultural preference over time, due to network effects. A self fulfilling prophesy, if you will.

I'm just speculating here, but it seems plausible to me, at least.

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

#662

Post by foolrush »

foolrush wrote: post #658
Lestrange wrote: post #657

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The giants of postmodernism, like Jacques Derrida and Jean-Paul Sartre, were fanatically Marxist before they became postmodernists. They themselves described their philosophies as evolutions of Marxism. Derrida for his part described his outlook as carrying on the spirit of Marxism. The philosophy very openly calls for deconstruction of all existing values and power structures, and a radical rejection of what the mod…

I don't recall ever reading Derrida as a fervent Marxist. Sartre's somewhat predates postmodernist canon. Marx would be a bit of a grandfather in deconstruction. Hard not to move forward without acknowledging his presence[1]. > They themselves described their philosophies as evolutions of Marxism. Citation needed certainly in the case of Derrida. With that said, to have a peek at J's posts. Every single message is pr…

> The book was a crystalization of views he had developed over the preceding decades, when he had done the most to develop postmodernism.

Key point is that his readings of Marxism weren't central to his core tools of Postmodernism, nor is that reading indicative of any fervent Marxism from "before". Wrong on all counts.

> its progenitors were inspired by and attempted to build on top of Marxism to different degrees.

> and was formulated mostly by intellectuals that accepted several of the basic suppositions of Marxism.

Again, citation needed on the majority of the tenuous connections. You are being a tad too obsessive here.

Sorry, but being a green account to respond to my single post screams another J account. "The lady doth protest too much." The rest of your post? Equally misguided with nothing to do with Postmodernism, and less relating to the Foucaultian aspect I referenced.

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

#663

Post by radisb »

gspetr wrote: post #618
Mindcraft wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Discrimination is not by definition unfair, the context is important, or do you think aiding people in need but not those who aren't is unfair?. If you want to reach a balanced state from a unbalanced one, you need to discriminate to provide more for the people that are behind.

What we should provide is equality of opportunity (i.e. anyone should be given a fair and equal treatment in an interview) not equality of outcome (someone should be given a job, just because they represent a certain segment of population).

Exactly. I really can't understand why someone would fail to see this. Unless they have some other definition of equality. But I genuinely would like to hear other definitions and discuss the semantics of that word in the social context.

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

#664

Post by depressedpanda »

nodamage wrote: post #659
rwcarlsen wrote: post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems like a bit of a straw-man. The problem is that "equally qualified" is poorly defined. We all have biases (conscious and unconscious) - and we should be working to keep them in check and reduce bad discrimination (i.e. not based on "good" things like merit). I don't think anybody is arguing that they wouldn't want 50/50 hiring results given the repeated game of hiring between two hypothetically equally qual…

It is a hypothetical scenario but it illustrates the fundamental difference in perspectives: In scenario (1) otherwise qualified female candidates are overlooked during the hiring process due to systemic biases in the industry. Programs are instituted to reduce these biases. This puts men at a disadvantage (relative to the status quo), but actually merely equalizes the playing field. In scenario (2) there are not eno…

Don't we, in effect, have scenario 2? There are way more men compared to women who study computer science/engineering. Where I studied, only 4% were women.

That means it's impossible to achieve a 1:1 gender ratio for all companies. A few may succeed, but only by heavily biasing their recruitment against men, since their recruitment pool of women is so small in comparison. Given the 4% number above, there will by 30 great male candidates for every great female candidate.

I don't think the argument ever was that unqualified candidates got a job. Rather, the reality is that if several candidates are qualified, and one of them happens to be a woman, she must be the one who gets the job offer, if a company wants to aim for a smaller gender gap.

Is this fair?

To some people this may seem perfectly OK (everybody was qualified; after that, it's more important to reduce the gender gap). Others might think it isn't (it's unlikely that the best of the qualified candidates got the job). In my opinion, both viewpoints are valid.

What personally irks me, however, is that someone was fired for asking the question. That was decidedly unfair.

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

#665

Post by rwcarlsen »

nodamage wrote: post #659
rwcarlsen wrote: post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems like a bit of a straw-man. The problem is that "equally qualified" is poorly defined. We all have biases (conscious and unconscious) - and we should be working to keep them in check and reduce bad discrimination (i.e. not based on "good" things like merit). I don't think anybody is arguing that they wouldn't want 50/50 hiring results given the repeated game of hiring between two hypothetically equally qual…

It is a hypothetical scenario but it illustrates the fundamental difference in perspectives: In scenario (1) otherwise qualified female candidates are overlooked during the hiring process due to systemic biases in the industry. Programs are instituted to reduce these biases. This puts men at a disadvantage (relative to the status quo), but actually merely equalizes the playing field. In scenario (2) there are not eno…

Would you agree that it is possible that given elimination of all negative discrimination the gender representation in a particular industry/field might not be 50/50? Since we don't know what the non-discriminating ratio naturally would be, I have a hard time feeling like we would be serving justice well by shooting for an arbitrarily (if somewhat informed) selected ratio. Does the end justify the means?

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

#666

Post by depressedpanda »

kenjackson wrote: post #395
humanrebar wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So with part of all that is something you'd fire someone over? Before you say "hostile work environment", keep in mind that lots of people find firing someone for this to be hostile as well.

I don't work at Google so its hard for me to say what the environment is like. That said, I would not have published this memo, had I believed the content, on a public work forum. In general I avoid any sorts of things like that on protected classes at work. I would be open to going directly to HR to discuss it. I, for example, have done this to discuss team vs individual compensation at my job. While not the hot top…

Damore wanted to discuss a topic, and was fired after a vocal subclass reacted emotionally and called for his dismissal.

I think you might be wrong regarding which subclass is more powerful. It certainly wasn't Damore's.

The subclasses I refer to are not based on gender, but on opinion. If diversity based on superficial attributes is so important, why isn't diversity of opinion?

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

#667

Post by nodamage »

rwcarlsen wrote: post #665
nodamage wrote: post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a hypothetical scenario but it illustrates the fundamental difference in perspectives: In scenario (1) otherwise qualified female candidates are overlooked during the hiring process due to systemic biases in the industry. Programs are instituted to reduce these biases. This puts men at a disadvantage (relative to the status quo), but actually merely equalizes the playing field. In scenario (2) there are not eno…

Would you agree that it is possible that given elimination of all negative discrimination the gender representation in a particular industry/field might not be 50/50? Since we don't know what the non-discriminating ratio naturally would be, I have a hard time feeling like we would be serving justice well by shooting for an arbitrarily (if somewhat informed) selected ratio. Does the end justify the means?

Yes I would agree that we shouldn't expect all industries to have 50/50 gender representation, and in fact aiming for such a goal is misguided. However, I am not convinced that the status quo in the tech industry reflects a "natural ratio" so much as other factors (that are worth correcting).

Would you agree that, if the gender disparity in an industry is caused by factors outside of the "natural ratio", then correcting those factors does not necessarily imply perpetuating discrimination? Or put another way, if you are holding a race where person A starts at the 0-yard line and person B starts at the 25-yard line, and you make them start from the same place, you are not actually favoring person A and discriminating against person B, but merely equalizing the playing field?

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

#668

Post by radisb »

Delmania wrote: post #338
ObnoxiousProxy wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author mentions many many times throughout his memo that these are 'average' observations and by no ways representative of the entire female population. The author did not say that all women are more interested in people, merely that there is a higher proportion in comparison to the male population. The author suggests that when these average statistics propagate into life decisions and employment preferences, yo…

The author advocates for ending programs designed to get more females into technology and leadership positions because he views them as discrimination. His basis is precisely what you mentioned, that on average women are X. In his mind, the fact that men are more status oriented than women means that men will be disproportionately in leadership roles. That's "just the way it is" and we should accept it and create "se…

So, you believe that equality ,in this context, is a reality only if the distribution of gender in corporate employees reflects more or less the distribution in general population?

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

#669

Post by nodamage »

depressedpanda wrote: post #664
nodamage wrote: post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a hypothetical scenario but it illustrates the fundamental difference in perspectives: In scenario (1) otherwise qualified female candidates are overlooked during the hiring process due to systemic biases in the industry. Programs are instituted to reduce these biases. This puts men at a disadvantage (relative to the status quo), but actually merely equalizes the playing field. In scenario (2) there are not eno…

Don't we, in effect, have scenario 2? There are way more men compared to women who study computer science/engineering. Where I studied, only 4% were women. That means it's impossible to achieve a 1:1 gender ratio for all companies. A few may succeed, but only by heavily biasing their recruitment against men, since their recruitment pool of women is so small in comparison. Given the 4% number above, there will by 30 g…

> Don't we, in effect, have scenario 2? There are way more men compared to women who study computer science/engineering. Where I studied, only 4% were women.

I'm not sure, especially for a company like Google, I would assume they get plenty of great candidates of either gender such that hiring from either pool would not require reducing their hiring standards.

> I don't think the argument ever was that unqualified candidates got a job. Rather, the reality is that if several candidates are qualified, and one of them happens to be a woman, she must be the one who gets the job offer, if a company wants to aim for a smaller gender gap.

> Is this fair?

If under the status quo male candidates are hired the majority of the time over otherwise qualified female candidates, then the status quo is already unfair towards the female candidates. Working to correct the imbalance may be perceived as "unfair" to the group whose advantage is lost, but that doesn't necessarily mean it actually is.

> What personally irks me, however, is that someone was fired for asking the question. That was decidedly unfair.

Unfortunately his memo went much further than that. I mean, is someone who concludes that Google's hiring programs are "veiled left ideology that can irreparably harm Google" really interested in honest debate? Much of his writing comes across as a highly politicized rant that detracts from the actual topic.

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

#670

Post by rwcarlsen »

nodamage wrote: post #667
rwcarlsen wrote: post #665

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you agree that it is possible that given elimination of all negative discrimination the gender representation in a particular industry/field might not be 50/50? Since we don't know what the non-discriminating ratio naturally would be, I have a hard time feeling like we would be serving justice well by shooting for an arbitrarily (if somewhat informed) selected ratio. Does the end justify the means?

Yes I would agree that we shouldn't expect all industries to have 50/50 gender representation, and in fact aiming for such a goal is misguided. However, I am not convinced that the status quo in the tech industry reflects a "natural ratio" so much as other factors (that are worth correcting). Would you agree that, if the gender disparity in an industry is caused by factors outside of the "natural ratio", then correct…

I agree with most all of that. But I think that the policies I see the memo criticizing are not addressing the problem, they are addressing the symptom. Also, I think there are a lot of subtleties about "which yard line people start on" that makes knowing what the best/right thing to do is hard. People born to wealth didn't steal anything from people born with less. I would hope that people born with more would care to help and lift people with less, but I am less comfortable (not necessarily against) with using authoritarian means to take away by force things from the more fortunate and give to the less fortunate.

It is a hard problem, and I think most people want the same/similar outcome. We just need to acknowledge that we don't all know the best way to get there and be able to talk about it. I think that is what the memo writer was really saying is that these are important issues with lots of things to consider - we can't afford to silence voices - especially relatively rational ones.

Post reply on HN