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

Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

backreaction.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

781–790 of 872 posts

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#781

Post by dang »

Brockenstein wrote: post #472
mnglkhn2 wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Talking assumes reasoning. Or, when you are in a power grab, reasoning is the last thing you want to do. The left does want the power not the talking.

And the people on the wrong side of history want to talk and talk and talk. They want to stall for time. And every individual who doesn't get a shot to talk and shape the culture feels like they've been robbed and their ideas and beliefs suppressed. They're just ignorant of the fact that these issues have been talked about, at length, ad nauseam, for decades, centuries even. And they don't understand that they don't…

Would you please stop posting ideological rants to HN? It reliably leads to tedious flamewars, and we're hoping for something better than that here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#782

Post by dang »

mnglkhn2 wrote: post #577
hobs wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me simplify it for you. People espousing hate because of their trash opinions that have already been consigned to the dustbins of history are not going to have their crappy thoughts entertained by those who have moved beyond that stupidity.

It is obvious that you guys on the left share the same manuals, since you also come up with the "history's dustbin" and "trash opinions". You learn your words and hammer them consistently. At least you get props for that. :) No pressure to exhibit coherent and consistent argumentation.

Would you please stop using HN primarily for political and ideological battle? Doing that not only goes against HN's mandate—intellectual curiosity and thoughtful discussion—it actively destroys those things. We have to protect HN against this, and for that we have the 'primarily' test I just described, i.e. when accounts use HN primarily for this, we ban them.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#783

Post by dang »

hobs wrote: post #763
mnglkhn2 wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is obvious that you guys on the left share the same manuals, since you also come up with the "history's dustbin" and "trash opinions". You learn your words and hammer them consistently. At least you get props for that. :) No pressure to exhibit coherent and consistent argumentation.

There is no argument, racism and sexism are bad ideas that were entertained widely in the past and are not up for debate anymore as potentially positive influences or the correct way to consider the world. I could have been referencing chattel slavery and your words would be currently for it. You can take whatever you like from my statement (and clearly are) but you calling me "the left" and pretending I was indoctri…

Please don't post this sort of tit-for-tat, even when someone else is (or seems to be) wrong and posting bad comments. It only makes the thread worse.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#784

Post by thinkfurther »

scandox wrote: post #314
thinkfurther wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a person is engaging in reasonable dissent then why is this true: "If anything, their position will be radicalized."? Uhmmmm.... because they get fired for deviating from the party line, not for being unreasonable. How can you skip that "detail"? In this case, it seems to be even lamer than that, seems like he was not fired for the memo, but the reaction to it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14977750 > Dam…

I don't understand your point. Mine is that being attacked should not change one's ideas. Getting fired is bad, but it isn't new information pertinent to the original debate. It may inform your ideas about the climate in which the debate is occurring, which may radicalize you personally. It shouldn't radicalize your position.

FWIW, I totally disagree with this comment being downvoted. It's a fair response made in good faith, very polite even seeing that I did come on kinda strong. So thanks for being a good sport about me ranting.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#785

Post by losteverything »

jshevek wrote: post #754
yebyen wrote: post #743

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I gathered, yes. Unquestionably! In a message board with the name "pc-considered-harmful" What did they think was going to get posted onto that board, if not this memo?

In retrospect, it almost seems like they were fishing for people who have 'unsavory opinions' so they can force them to attend diversity training (even the name is Orwellian) and fire them if it doesn't work out.

Do i have this right?

Google: "we want to hear how you think? It's safe."

Googler: "you suck."

Google: "just kidding. It's not safe. Bye bye."

Seems like dirty pool.

Is that what occurred?

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#786

Post by jlouis »

GVIrish wrote: post #429
jlouis wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The term "neuroticism" stems from the five factor model of psychological traits. The memo author doesn't really mention this too much, but if you know about the model, he uses the other factors throughout his work, which means he has read and understood the model. There have been several studies showing that women scores higher in the agreeableness and neuroticism factors, on average (and with a quite large variance…

The thing about pointing at the 5 factor psych model then applying it to something like gender disparity in tech, is that it's a pretty big leap to take scores from research studies to then draw conclusions about gender disparities in a given profession. Especially because at the core, it's very difficult to disentangle gender differences in psychological traits from learned social behaviors. You bring up a lot of qu…

I think the key point the author is trying to make is: "Does biology play a role in what choices women make when it comes to selecting a career path?"

Clearly, this is not attributable to a single argument or factor. Rather, you have to look at several different reasons. Some are likely cultural, some are likely genetic and the interplay is going to be vastly complex (see e.g., epigenetics).

To make the argument, you have to survey a larger number of areas and show that they all point in the same direction, which is what the author is trying to do in the first place. And in particular, you have to demonstrate how the areas contribute to women making a choice against tech in general.

Hence, the studies showing how men are more often systemizing than women and so on are far better markers/arguments from a pure biological standpoint, than a difference in the 5 factor model.

Personally, I think most diversity programs fail to achieve any kind of success in improving the gender balance. In two prongs, you have to retain women who are already in tech, and you have to get more women into tech. The latter of those two is a hard sell if women simply don't want to be in the tech world, no matter how much you try to seduce and coerce them. And I think it would be too authoritarian to force them into a role they don't want to belong in.

I think the author is spot on with the observation that more competitive fields are more likely to have men employed over women. And more cooperative fields are better at retaining women. E.g., Law in Denmark has an almost 50/50 gender split, but women are far more likely to be employed in the public sector as lawyers. The law firms, where 80+ work weeks are the norm, are usually employing men. Jordan B. Peterson, whether you like him or not, posed the question as to why men are willing to fucking do that, and I happen to find that question quite interesting.

I also think tech in general would benefit from having some ventures which are more cooperative, but this is not likely to come from a highly competitive venture capitalist private sector, I'm afraid. Nor do I think Google can pull that one off.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#787

Post by mnglkhn2 »

dang wrote: post #781
Brockenstein wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the people on the wrong side of history want to talk and talk and talk. They want to stall for time. And every individual who doesn't get a shot to talk and shape the culture feels like they've been robbed and their ideas and beliefs suppressed. They're just ignorant of the fact that these issues have been talked about, at length, ad nauseam, for decades, centuries even. And they don't understand that they don't…

Would you please stop posting ideological rants to HN? It reliably leads to tedious flamewars, and we're hoping for something better than that here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

I'm all for something better. Can you detail some more what you have in mind? Especially since you seem to be the one making decisions on what is appropriate. Thought police much?!

Plus, you seem to have a leftist ideological bent, moderating off even mild stuff that might not fit your personal preferences.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#788

Post by KirinDave »

dijit wrote: post #480
jernfrost wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did without even having read that particular thread. But I know all too well the types of arguments getting thrown around. I think it is a question of awareness and beliefs. If you firmly don't think there is an issue then you simply don't notice. I've been at the other side of the fence so I know what it is like ;-)

So it's a myth. "I saw the topic a week ago, I will not link to it, I didn't even read it, but I'm sure of what was in it" insert snarky wink face

If you ask nicely, I'll provide a link.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#789

Post by AnimalMuppet »

jlouis wrote: post #786
GVIrish wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing about pointing at the 5 factor psych model then applying it to something like gender disparity in tech, is that it's a pretty big leap to take scores from research studies to then draw conclusions about gender disparities in a given profession. Especially because at the core, it's very difficult to disentangle gender differences in psychological traits from learned social behaviors. You bring up a lot of qu…

I think the key point the author is trying to make is: "Does biology play a role in what choices women make when it comes to selecting a career path?" Clearly, this is not attributable to a single argument or factor. Rather, you have to look at several different reasons. Some are likely cultural, some are likely genetic and the interplay is going to be vastly complex (see e.g., epigenetics). To make the argument, you…

> Some are likely cultural, some are likely genetic and the interplay is going to be vastly complex (see e.g., epigenetics).

OK, let's say that some segment of it is cultural. Now what?

Let's say that I'm female, and I have some talent for engineering/programming, but I'm raised in a culture that says "Women don't do that. Women marry, stay at home, and raise children." And I look at my mother, who is doing exactly that, and I see how trapped she feels, how stifling it is, and I really don't want to wind up in the same place, but because my culture is what it is, I don't think I have any other choice. Clearly, that's bad.

But let's say instead I look at my mother, and see that she's fairly content and happy, and I think, "That looks pretty good." It's still the same cultural constraint, but now I am willingly assenting to it. Now, is that still bad? (Yes, it's still bad as for the general culture, because it's still constraining others who don't want that. Is it bad for me specifically?)

If you say "Yes, it's still bad", you're saying that you know better than I am what decisions I ought to make. (This presumes that I genuinely understand the alternative. But don't say that, if I really understood, I wouldn't want to choose that. That's cheating. It's also insulting.)

Note that, in my example, the differences are neither genetic nor cultural. The difference is in the example that I see growing up, whether or not people are happy fitting into their culturally-assigned place.

Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

#790

Post by mnglkhn2 »

jshevek wrote: post #747
mnglkhn2 wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Talking assumes reasoning. Or, when you are in a power grab, reasoning is the last thing you want to do. The left does want the power not the talking.

Your statement would be more fair and accurate with qualification, such as "some parts of the left". For example, would you agree that classical liberals are still on the left?

When I say left I do it through the eyes of an Eastern European that has been through communist dictatorship. I know how left looks like and what it means to be ruled by double think.

It baffles me to see people in US basically jumping with both feet in this postmodernist social engineering ideology.

I've lived it and you don't want to do it. You'll be reduced to cattle.

Post reply on HN