Live data from Hacker News

10 page anti-diversity screed circulating internally at Google

gizmodo.com

71–80 of 158 posts

Re: 10 page anti-diversity screed circulating internally at Google

#71

My impression when reading this was that the author intended it to be taken seriously. It is written with a decidedly "academic" tone. However, it is very light on actual research and evidence. Author says "Humans are inherently cooperative" is a bias on the Left. Where does this come from? More unsourced claims that strike me as suspect: "Respect for the strong/authority" is a bias on the Right. Women have more "Ext…

> However, it is very light on actual research

No, the research exists in some cases, but the content of an internal informal document obviously doesn't require a rigorous (redundant) academic format. If you can't Google, it probably wasn't intended for you anyway. The comment about women ranking higher (in general) for agreeableness is statistically true. However, the reasoning for why is up for debate and has been well considered...

A neuroscience/evolutionary theory in plain english: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewvqEqIXdhU

Re: 10 page anti-diversity screed circulating internally at Google

#72
post #67

Let's take gender, race, food preference out of the equation. Say a person with qualities A and another person with qualities B both interview at a company. Turns out that at the company (and in the industry in general, type Bs are a minority), and there's a movement to hire more of type Bs. If type A did better in an interview than type B, but the company ended up hiring a type B because of the whole diversity thing…

It doesn't make any sense in the context of an arbitrary type A and B free of historical baggage. The idea is that we type As have, on balance, experienced more "luck" and preferential treatment in our favor than type Bs because we are type As, so some artifically injected disfavor pushes the overall system closer to balance. It's fighting unfairness with unfairness in the opposite direction.

I was born to well-employed, college-educated parents in a stable marriage, moved to my childhood home specifically for its excellent school district, had plenty of quiet space and encouragement to do homework, funded through a top-5 university, etc. I've capitalized on those advantages and done quite well, but I didn't earn them. I don't mind when some of the competitive power I merely inherited is transferred to someone who inherited none. Probably they worked even harder, they just started lower.

Re: 10 page anti-diversity screed circulating internally at Google

#73

My impression when reading this was that the author intended it to be taken seriously. It is written with a decidedly "academic" tone. However, it is very light on actual research and evidence. Author says "Humans are inherently cooperative" is a bias on the Left. Where does this come from? More unsourced claims that strike me as suspect: "Respect for the strong/authority" is a bias on the Right. Women have more "Ext…

So the gender differences he talks about are very obviously coming from this meta-study:

http://sci-hub.cc/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x

He uses a lot of the same terminology as the paper, references big-5 personality traits etc, as well as the same personality dimensions like people-object axis.

The left vs. right stuff is clearly coming from Jonathan Haidt's Moral foundations theory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory

The author of the "manifesto/screed" is drawing pretty clearly from good research, but isn't linking to it or discussing it in context

Re: 10 page anti-diversity screed circulating internally at Google

#74

My impression when reading this was that the author intended it to be taken seriously. It is written with a decidedly "academic" tone. However, it is very light on actual research and evidence. Author says "Humans are inherently cooperative" is a bias on the Left. Where does this come from? More unsourced claims that strike me as suspect: "Respect for the strong/authority" is a bias on the Right. Women have more "Ext…

Really it's debatable that people work together? I get bias but seriously this is like saying I have a Left bias because I think the Earth is round.

It seems to be saying that left bias is "people prefer to cooperation over pure self-interest/working on their own." Obviously sometimes cooperation is in your self-interest, but its the difference between thinking that employees will do what's best for the company and employees will do what's best for themselves. The right bias is that they are primarily self-interested while the left is that they see the groups interests as a priority.

Re: 10 page anti-diversity screed circulating internally at Google

#75
post #51
post #10

> 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. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.…

The right topic isn't biology, it's history. Historically, for millennia women were treated as property of men. This was justified with all sorts sexist jabber. The same is true of race; ou can read all sorts of racist nonsense from the era of slavery. E.g., the Cornerstone Speech, in which the vice-president of the Confederacy said straight out: "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its fou…

I don't think the author denied any of that history. The fundamental question posed is why do we see 50/50 male/female in tech as some kind of gold standard to known we've reached gender equality, and why does that discussion often revolve around getting more underrepresented segments of the population to participate in tech.

Fundamentally the whole gender equality thing is about whether any given individual feels that they can live their life to its full potential. If those potentials were to differ in the large between men and women then that is fine.

Alternatively what if the problem had a lot more to do with how ingrained the drive for status is in men compared to women? That women are underrepresented because they're more likely to want work-life balance and they're competing with a horde of men willing to be miserable for years to attain status. The problem in that case isn't that there are too few women, but that there are too many men.

Re: 10 page anti-diversity screed circulating internally at Google

#76
A 2011 Norwegian documentary series had an episode called "The Gender Paradox"[1] that examined this very issue in depth with interviews with evolutionary biologists, neuroscientists, psychologists and sociologists. It arrived at the conclusion that employment disparities increase in many professional fields due to natural divergent proclivities when socio-economic opportunities become equal for the sexes.

ON AVERAGE in Norway (one of the top 5 most equal countries), females prefer more people-oriented fields such as medicine and males will favor more systems-oriented fields such as engineering. Again, this is ON AVERAGE. There are major overlaps in many fields (e.g. arts and research sciences) - and in some fields there is virtually none (e.g. nursing vs sanitation). This is not controversial amongst scientists who do their best to suspend ideological or wishful thinking.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70

Re: 10 page anti-diversity screed circulating internally at Google

#77
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I surely hope so. I think people should be allowed to discuss things like this in an open and civil manner, no matter how wrong or flawed their arguments are. As long as they are not openly hurting or disrespecting their coworkers, I don't see the issue with a document like this exploring ideas. When we promote "challenging ideas" and discussion, it applies to everyone, not only those we agree with.

That you don't see the harm doesn't mean there's harm. If you would care to do a little work, you can find plenty of people explaining what the particular harm here is. You might also try studying history; you can find many examples of people civilly discussing absolutely horrific ideas that resulted in enormous harm to people. That civil discussion enabled the harm.

Im honestly a litte off foot here. Is this irony?

Can somebody tell me that this ment seriously?

In case its not irony, the harm never originated from the discussions- the "discussions" the had on eugenics and various other horrid things, where the same thing we have today. People wrapped in echo-chamber bubbles, glueing "evidence" to the wall of these echo-chambers.

Its actually easy to identify such discussions. They are not aimed at research for a remedy. As in a real, root cause remedy. They want to wrap it in a social construct, or declare it a fact, so it can be put on a podest. These discussions end not in further research, but in "we have the facts/rules figured out, now lets make history" atrocities.

Such pseudo discussions happen on the left and on the right side. You know that you are in one, if you cant press a certain point without hostility. "So what is the root cause?"(Repeat in left discussion) "What can be done to fix that?" (Repeat in right discussion)

Re: 10 page anti-diversity screed circulating internally at Google

#78

My interpretation is that the author is cheifly concerned with two points: that biology impacts performance, and that dissenting views in Google are at time met with hostility that is more political reflex than it is critical countenance. The first point should be obviously true, however we live in a time were identity politics on the left tries to shout down any but the hard line reaction to biological determinism.…

First you say this:

>> for that sexism play A role, not the ONLY role in creating the gender discrepancy

Then you say this:

>> Yet of all the women I've known most weren't driven to excel to the same level of most men I've known.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in that I'm going to assume that it wasn't your intention to make a disturbingly sexist remark in a discussion about sexism.

You can replace women with African-American, and what you wrote sounds an awful lot like the racist drivel that came out of the South for 200 years. If anything, the author of the memo's attempts to argue that there is some biological basis for discrimination only serve to weaken his position. Furthermore, this 'biological differences basis' for discrimination eventually leads us to eugenics if taken to its illogical extreme. And yes, people have taken it that far in the not so recent past.

In the cases where what you wrote is even partially true, that some women (appear on the surface) to be less ambitious and less driven than men, did you ever stop to ask yourself why?

I've worked in tech my entire career, and I've witnessed appalling sexism. I have watched with my own eyes while women suffered humiliations like being told things like "no one invites you to meetings because you can't keep anything secret". Then there are things like code reviews. At work we recently had to institute a 'no abusive code review' policy because a small cadre of the men were using the code review process to hammer several of the few female engineers we've managed to somehow convince to come work for us. Like most places, our workplace policies are required largely due to behavior that was originated by men.

It seems like it's awfully easy to forget that women are half our species! How can anyone in their right mind think that sexism, unconscious or otherwise, is okay? How can anyone think that it's because 'women are less driven to succeed'? How can anyone think this when half their DNA comes from a man and the other half from a woman?

As a gay man (a gender/sexual minority), I can actually relate to how awful it feels to be treated like a second class citizen simply because of something that I do not feel like I can change (my sexual orientation). I'm not sure how much money it has cost me, but at the very least it has cost me the difference in filing single vs. filing jointly for the first 17 years of my marriage. Women pay similar costs when they're paid less over the course of their career, and/or when they're denied promotions for 'being ambitious'.

The attitude that underlies your comment -that you could actually believe that what you wrote is true and somehow justifies unequal treatment- is utterly, totally, and exactly why we need the programs the author of the now infamous memo argues against.

Re: 10 page anti-diversity screed circulating internally at Google

#79
post #37

Diversity always seems like a silly objective. Of all things, why focus on race and gender? How about hairstyle? Why not height? Maybe I feel like my weight is not represented fairly! I'm just poking fun. Those aren't real questions. The author promotes the only diversity that matters: diversity of thought. Anything else should at worst a proxy to get some.

The only response to his post that matters are from the women in tech. Do they appreciate it? What's your guess?

Anecdotes but women in tech I spoke to dislike the diversity initiatives as they get seen a token employee who is only there because she is a woman and not because of her skills.

Kind of needlessly degrading.

Re: 10 page anti-diversity screed circulating internally at Google

#80
post #19

Diversity always seems like a silly objective. Of all things, why focus on race and gender? How about hairstyle? Why not height? Maybe I feel like my weight is not represented fairly! I'm just poking fun. Those aren't real questions. The author promotes the only diversity that matters: diversity of thought. Anything else should at worst a proxy to get some.

I think we split based on gender and race because those are clear discriminators. Height or hairstyle are more fuzzy, and probably biologically less relevants to adapt to the environment. Probably height is more relevant for leadership than gender: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1368430212437211

How are those less clear discriminators?

I am sure I could find a study showing that attractive people have a better shot at getting the job. Height is attractive.

Post reply on HN