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

671–680 of 684 posts

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

#671

Post by pygy_ »

daughart wrote: post #652
pygy_ wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could as well have diverged by accident. Sexual dimorphism in these kind of interest may not have any evolutional impact, but be affected by genes that were close to other genes that improve male fertility for example. The closer two genes are on a chromosome, the more likely they are to be selected together.

Your position is scientifically illiterate but I suppose it's worth pointing out why: It would require basically one gene to control these complex behavioral traits, which is implausible. Moreover, such a strong, population-specific, selective force on the human genome does not exist, which we know from population genomics studies. Therefore, what you are arguing here is factually wrong.

Ever heard of SRY ?

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

#672

Post by nodamage »

rwcarlsen wrote: post #670
nodamage wrote: post #667

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes there is definitely room for discussion on what the best approach should be. Unfortunately the author of the memo comes across as trying to push a specific agenda (multiple paragraphs condescendingly railing against "leftist ideology", for example) and misses the opportunity to actually discuss the merits of Google's hiring programs.

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

#673

Post by rwcarlsen »

nodamage wrote: post #672
rwcarlsen wrote: post #670

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes there is definitely room for discussion on what the best approach should be. Unfortunately the author of the memo comes across as trying to push a specific agenda (multiple paragraphs condescendingly railing against "leftist ideology", for example) and misses the opportunity to actually discuss the merits of Google's hiring programs.

Maybe. I personally didn't feel like it had a condescending tone. There is toxic culture on all sides which is probably what he was referring to (only on the left in his document since his audience was left-leaning) - rather the more reasonable ideas (which are often drowned out). It probably would have been better if he was a bit more careful, but given the amount of content in the document, it is difficult to walk the line of not offending anyone. I think he did a pretty decent job and hopefully lots of productive discussions will have their genesis with his memo and the stir it caused. There sure are a lot of people that think very differently about things :-)

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

#674

Post by kenjackson »

depressedpanda wrote: post #666
kenjackson wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Diversity of perspective is important, but not of opinion. You want to build strong opinions using many different perspectives. Random opinions are not interesting nor useful.

Should Google start hiring more flat Earthers too?

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

#675

Post by pygy_ »

pygy_ wrote: post #671
daughart wrote: post #652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your position is scientifically illiterate but I suppose it's worth pointing out why: It would require basically one gene to control these complex behavioral traits, which is implausible. Moreover, such a strong, population-specific, selective force on the human genome does not exist, which we know from population genomics studies. Therefore, what you are arguing here is factually wrong.

Ever heard of SRY ?

... and more generally homeobox genes, SRY was taken as a blatant example of a single gene that controls many different traits, both micro and macroscopic. There are plenty of others.

Even more generally, transcription factors, and the way they cascade.

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

#676

Post by platform13 »

peoplewindow wrote: post #637
pcnix wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 affec…

oh please... how he acts is their fault? are you serious?

if he was a white-supremacist who wrote a scientifically-backed manifesto about biological differences with his black coworkers, would you still be blaming the people who are 'shunning' him?

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

#677

Post by platform13 »

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

this 'logic' is mind-blowing

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

#678

Post by platform13 »

Hnrobert42 wrote: post #633
peoplewindow wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

uh, it's not either... if you believe women are socio-politically disadvantaged in the tech world, then it makes sense to offer them help

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

#679

Post by platform13 »

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).

equality of opportunity should mean that equivalent effort should yield equivalent results, right?

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

#680

Post by rwcarlsen »

nodamage wrote: post #669
depressedpanda wrote: post #664

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ca…

But Google (or any company) would want to hire the "best" candidates over "qualified" candidates wouldn't they? Is it best for Google and/or society if Google skips out on the best to only hire qualified people just because they are shooting for arbitrary group ratios? Did he really go "much further than [asking the question]"? Sure he comes from a particular political perspective. But will we condemn him for a couple sentences here and there out of his entire discourse? It was after all posted internally to a list where Google was explicitly soliciting opinions about their diversity program(s) from employees. I think Google and it's leadership handled this case highly unprofessionally and grossly misrepresented Damore's document in the way they referred to and described it. What would all those heavily criticizing him on the basis of not toeing the company line say if an equivalent "reverse" situation had occurred with a right-leaning corp and a left-leaning employee? I think most would feel the same way as right-leaners. A little more seeing from each others' perspective really could go a long way to improving the atmosphere around a lot of these issues.

I just realized my comment mostly consisted of questions. I have way more questions than answers.

Post reply on HN