Outraged about the Google diversity memo? • Hacker News Board

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#681

Post by reubeniv » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 4:53 PM UTC

tchaffee wrote: post #500

reubeniv wrote: post #289

I'm trying to understand his motivations, maybe it is just naivety, but that he wanted to talk about something that was bothering him, and didn't understand why he couldn't (or shouldn't) talk about it publicly seems fairly typical of a condition like aspergers, is it possible he simply has something like that? Either way the witch hunt needs to cease immediately.

This is actually the first reasonable defense of the guy that I've heard. If Google truly embraces diversity, they need to figure out a way to make room for the awkwardness and lack of empathy from those on the spectrum. But I don't see a witch hunt. People are debating whether or not he should have been fired. He's not going to jail, and he is highly employable. And he did violate Google's code of conduct, which is…

Unfortunately with the internet being the internet, especially on Twitter, people are digging through his history as we speak, maybe witch hunt is the wrong word, I'm not sure what else to call it. https://www.wired.com/story/james-damore-google-memo-harvard

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#682

Post by depressedpanda » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 4:54 PM UTC

aninhumer wrote: post #380

mpweiher wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting hypothesis, but apparently not what happened: "The trial found assigning a male name to a candidate made them 3.2 per cent less likely to get a job interview. Adding a woman's name to a CV made the candidate 2.9 per cent more likely to get a foot in the door." http://abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to...

It's an interesting result, but is it accurate to call this "blinding"? I feel like hiding demographics and actively deceiving people about demographics are different processes and should have different names?

Calling it "blinding" might not be accurate but, if anything, using deception, the study showed that men were discriminated against, not women -- contrary to what the initial hypothesis suggested.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#683

Post by KirinDave » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 4:55 PM UTC

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #644

_r_o_y_ wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There can be no discussion when you start with a bad premise. What can you argue with someone that says the other sex is inferior?

There can be no discussion when people attack a straw man instead of read the article. Nobody said anyone is inferior, at all.

That is obviously not at all clear, given the multi-national debate around this issue.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#684

Post by mistermann » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 4:56 PM UTC

tchaffee wrote: post #651

sersi wrote: post #597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main problem I see with that is that poll that says that a third of the employees didn't disagree with the memo. If there's such a large percentage that agree with it then it's time for discussion. It's not a minority opinion and that memo shows what a lot of people think but will not be afraid to express. So, instead of having open discussion on the topic which would help changing ideas, those opinions are being…

In my comment I quoted the CEO saying many parts of the memo are open to discussion. Discussion and debate comes with responsibilities, and one of the responsibilities per the CoC is that you do not intimidate or harass other employees. Is it unreasonable to say you are not allowed to intimidate or harass other employees? > be afraid to express. They should be afraid to express an opinion that violates the code of co…

> In my comment I quoted the CEO saying many parts of the memo are open to discussion.

It's open, but you'll be fired.

> Is it unreasonable to say you are not allowed to intimidate or harass other employees?

If talking about something is considered intimidation or harassment, which is the reality of the situation in USA 2017, then yes I consider it unreasonable.

All these do-gooders are going to reap what they sow in the long run, and it sure as heck isn't what they think it is.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#685

Post by dahart » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 4:56 PM UTC

tynpeddler wrote: post #656

dahart wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Politics, favorite foods, religion, dress sense and other ideas aren't innate. Gender, age, ethnicity and sexuality are. Hence swapping gender for politics doesn't work. That is incorrect. The word "gender" is defined as the social and cultural differences between male and female, as opposed to the biological ones. You also meant to say "sex" and not "sexuality". Sex is the innate biology of males & females. Sexual…

Your statement that "he complained about the plight of the conservatives at Google, and suggested that women as a group are innately less capable technologists," is not a fair recounting of his arguments. He claims that Google's internal cultural dynamic is hostile towards conservatives, and that Google's hiring policy towards women is inappropriately favorable. There is nothing innately contradictory about these bel…

Maybe you misread or misunderstood Damore's letter.

[Damore] "I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership."

He did exactly what I said - he complained about the plight of conservatives at Google, and he suggested that women as a group are innately less capable technologists. That's not just fair, it is, without judgement, completely factually accurate.

I didn't claim these two things are contradictory, that's your own straw man. I claim that one of them is wrong, and that if you swap them, one of them is still wrong.

I'm a little surprised how many people are defending him. He's got no expertise in these matters at all. Why are you so sure this is a good argument overall? What makes you confident in his interpretation of modern psychology and social issues?

His letter is specious - it sounds good for a bunch of reasons, and he has many valid points, but it's wrong overall. Programmers love arguments that favor consistency, and they're convinced it's always and forever more fair, but that's very often not true in reality. If society were already fair and if cultural sexism didn't exist, then not being extra sensitive to women might be the right thing to do. But the prevalence of cultural sexism is a fact, it exists just like racism does. We have to actively get rid of it before we can be consistent. Because it's there, suggesting that it's more fair to pay less attention to it is actually rationalizing sexism. What you're arguing for indirectly is to keep our level of sexism at the status quo, rather than fix it before we treat everyone exactly the same. Treating everyone exactly the same right now assumes there's no problem right now, but there is a problem right now.

> Damore never argues against using groups to make big picture, strategic decision.

Then I think your beef is with @nailer's comment above mine, and you can argue that with him. He said "Additionally Damore argued for assessing individuals as individuals rather than as tribe members and assuming discrepancy is down to bias - even if you did sub someone's chosen politics for their gender, Damore's proposed fix would still require you to assess the individual."

You are contradicting what he said.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#686

Post by HelloNurse » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 4:58 PM UTC

hackermailman wrote: post #528

cm2187 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether we agree with the memo or not, there was a very good point that guy made and that we should keep in mind, it's the paragraph with the two overlapping distributions. Even if you admit that all genders, races, any way you want to segment the population, do not have the same distribution, that doesn't mean anything to a person as an individual. For instance I think it's fair to say that black people are better a…

This ignores the fact that countries like Jamaica recruit their best athletes into track and field, whereas Australia or China would push those kids into something else. A more accurate statement would be black countries have better track and field coaching infrastructure considering Usain Bolt routinely washed out of race finals until he was picked up by pro coaching staff. It's the same reason Canada usually wins t…

If Jamaica does better than USA in track and field they must be doing something right, but what do you mean by generalizing to "black countries"?

There might be a bias towards track and field programs and careers in poor/small countries, thanks to cheap infrastructure and sustainability with very few athletes, and expensive sports that are practically reserved for relatively privileged people, e.g. swimming and horse riding, but confusing an athlete's race and their available opportunities is silly.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#687

Post by ksk » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 5:00 PM UTC

KirinDave wrote: post #142

Const-me wrote: post #113

IMO the best comment from there: Giulio Prisco said... The results of this incident are easy to predict. Now everyone at Google (and everyone in large tech companies, and everyone in academy) knows that they can be fired for expressing opinions that dissent from the party line. Of course they'll shut up for fear of losing their job and the means to support their family. But they won't change their position. If anythi…

It's mysterious to me how literally every action a feminist takes is somehow directly responsibile for all problems that befall them, with every action that might possibly hurt a man being somehow a catastrophe in the making. Not 3 weeks ago we had a thread here where a woman spoke up about harassment and people said it was exactly the wrong thing. Mad someone for touching your bum? Speak up. You spoke up? Now you're…

Is the brain exempt from being affected by genetics? All humans are genetically pre-disposed to be less capable of being racecar drivers or olympic athletes or physicists. Inherrantly what is it about being a programmer, that necessitates we assume that biology plays no part whatsoever? Note the use of the word biology as opposed to gender, because limiting the context to gender needlessly pits people against each other.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#688

Post by blarg1 » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 5:02 PM UTC

loxs wrote: post #443

kromem wrote: post #345

An interesting anecdote regarding gender bias and tech. In the very early stage of my company, we wanted to outsource some UX work. After an exhausting review of applicants on one of the freelance sites out there, we finally settled on a Pakistani woman who had the best balance of portfolio vs cost. At the initial Skype call, there was no video. And it turned out to be a guy speaking in a very high voice. We didn't r…

The Internet: where men are men, women are men, and children are FBI agents

hate when that happens.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#689

Post by mistermann » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 5:03 PM UTC

Brockenstein wrote: post #495

ramblerman wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He didn't say it the fault of feminists, only that this was probably going to be the result. And It's exactly why public debate should be had. To come to a better solution in the middle, rather than create fringes on the sides. Your reaction here is just more of the 'Shock and Awe' and hurt feelings that doesn't really help push the agenda.

Problem is most of this subject has been in public debate for decades, centuries even. The people trying to maintain the status quo are never going to give it up willingly. They're always going to cry when change comes and they aren't ready for it (IE when they're dead). At some point the debate has to be reasonably over and action expected. And some subjects don't have middle ground. Women being treated less than eq…

> And some subjects don't have middle ground. Women being treated less than equal isn't a middle ground sort of issue.

Which is why you need to have ongoing discussion, to determine if people are or are not being treated less equally. People who believe they are "right" but are unable or unwilling to defend that position with words ("the debate is over") should not be trusted, ever.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#690

Post by HelloNurse » Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 5:03 PM UTC

KirinDave wrote: post #570

2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point I would like to see an itemised list of James Damore's points on gender and women's interpretations of them. This is the pair programming text in full: > Below I'll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I > outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women's > representation in tech without resorting to discrimination. Goog…

Pair Programming is not a technique to improve social contact in software. It's a technique to improve product reliability and give more practical mentorship opportunities. We might argue James says women are asking for good mentorship opportunities herr. So why do women benefit from this specifically (and that's okay) but other mentorship program are considered unfair in this rubric? You say "we need pair programmin…

If you impose social contact, people are going to practice social contact and improve at social contact. It might not be what some relatively antisocial people want, but it seems like an important improvement for the whole team.