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

Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

781–790 of 1001 posts

Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

#781

Post by emddudley »

virtuabhi wrote: post #68
hedgew wrote: post #21

Many of the more reasonable criticisms of the memo say that it wasn't written well enough; it could've been more considerate, it should have used better language, or better presentation. In this particular link, Scott Alexander is used as an example of better writing, and he certainly is one of the best and most persuasive modern writers I've found. However, I can not imagine ever matching his talent and output, even…

There are many, many reasonable criticisms of the memo that do not focus on writing style. Here are a few examples - https://www.wired.com/story/the-pernicious-science-of-james-... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/13/james-dam... https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-bio...

This one at The Economist is also very good.

"The e-mail Larry Page should have written to James Damore"

https://www.economist.com/news/21726276-last-week-paper-said...

Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

#782

Post by jack_h »

kevinwang wrote: post #752
droopybuns wrote: post #720

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This section struck out to me too. what I realized is that I am older, more world wary and far more cynical about anyone looking out for me than your average young millennial. I think the dividing line is in that cynicism. I have never felt like anyone looked out for me. "How do I prove myself to people one way or another?" I have stopped trying to prove myself. I do what I think is right and am very wary of external…

>"How do I prove myself to people one way or another?" I don't think this was about generic proving-to-others. I think it's about being prejudged by others at first glance which minorities in tech get in every interaction they have. I think that it's valid to say that's a significant struggle. I have no expertise in this field of social ethics, so I'm hesitant to critique your comment when I'm as uninformed as anyone…

> I think it's about being prejudged by others at first glance which minorities in tech get in every interaction they have. I think that it's valid to say that's a significant struggle.

> When people meet you, they don't assume a baseline level of incompetence.

In a way they are prejudging him though. They consider the baseline for him to be one who assumes they're incompetent. He has to prove otherwise. Or perhaps not quite as severe, he is assumed to have privilege which you yourself stated.

It seems to be a problem with assuming things about an individual from population distributions. Perhaps we've forgotten how to treat others as individuals and be treated by others as an individual.

Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

#783

Post by abvdasker »

humanrebar wrote: post #672
AlexandrB wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I know I'm an outlier at work due to my politics, my religious beliefs, and other details of my background. Right. Now imagine being an outlier due to your biology in a way that's impossible to conceal. I'm an outlier in some ways from my peers as well. But I just don't talk about those beliefs or those parts of my life. You don't have the option to do that if you're female or a visible minority.

> Now imagine being an outlier due to your biology in a way that's impossible to conceal. Who said I was concealing anything?

Critical difference that you fail to understand is that you have a choice as to how you are perceived. You have a choice about whether to blend in where a woman or visible minority would not.

Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

#784

Post by micahbright »

intopieces wrote: post #565
waqf wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's trading off the false positive vs. false negative rate in the hiring signal. The question is what your assumptions are about the sources of error in that signal. If you assume that the variance consists exclusively of false negatives due to discrimination, then the extra interviewers will work as Google claims and no bars will be lowered. If you assume that the variance consists of randomly distributed error tha…

>Of course it's possible that the truth is in between. In this case, isn't the finding the truth pretty straightforward? Pull the performance reviews of the second chance hires. Check to see if there's a clear correlation in review and find a pattern. Are we assuming that Google, which specializes in using data, does not bother to mine its own data with regards to its hiring practices?

Furthermore, simply look for interviewers who tend to reject women and minorities more often. Remove them from the interviewer pool.

Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

#785

Post by spydum »

freetime2 wrote: post #453

So firstly - let me say that this has been one of the most level-headed responses to the memo that I have seen so far. I personally found it very constructive. Bravo to the author and the interviewees. I did want to discuss one particular line of thought from the interview though: I can see that there are wide swaths of people who would refuse to work with him Two of the interviewees gave this justification for why h…

fully agree here.

If you can't put aside your personal feelings based on someone elses political views to get work done, YOU are the one with the problem. I'm sure plenty of us have worked with people who have lifestyles, beliefs, and demonstrated actions we personally deeply disagree with. Heck, I've worked with people where we legitimately disliked each other. Yet when I come into the office to work, we sit down together and get stuff done.

Now, my personal opinion is: leave your politics at home, don't spend company time on such things. I'm glad you think of work as a family, but it's not (regardless of the HR feel-good marketing).

However, if they are asking for commentary and feedback on diversity initiatives, and you provide it honestly, it's extraordinarily poor form to then fire you. They had the responsibility to respond to him, and address it privately. I think the more troubling problem was as others have commented: the fact that it was leaked from an internal conversation and turned into such a contentious issue for google.

Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

#786

Post by cookiecaper »

taysic wrote: post #694
tshadley wrote: post #678

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Damore points to studies showing that, e.g. women are more agreeable and more people-oriented. From that, he concludes women on average are less likely to prefer programming. That's Diekman 2010: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20631322 "Although women have nearly attained equality with men in several formerly male-dominated fields, they remain underrepresented in the fields of science, technology, engineering,…

I found that study here: https://sc.lib.miamioh.edu/bitstream/handle/2374.MIA/6026/di... "Participants were 333 introductory psychology students (193 women) who participated for partial course credit, and 27 paid participants (14 women) from STEM classes. The majority (86.94%) were of European American descent. The median age was 19 years, ranging from 18 to 43. " "For each of the core careers, participants rated how…

Let me just say this is why "show me the study" is never a productive line of debate.

If someone agrees with the point the study seems to support, they say, "Hah! Studies!" and call anyone who disagrees "anti-science".

But if someone disagrees with the point, they pull up the study, pick out some section of it where any type of subjective judgment call was made (usually the details of the sample, because that's the most clearly subjective thing, making it the easiest thing to criticize), and say "There are real problems with this study, how about a real study? [that is, a study that agrees with my point]". Also popular is "Yes, but this author is affiliated with former employer x, y, or z".

This is true of all sides, all the time. Very rarely do you see a study actually impact anyone's opinion about an important topic. It is usually only the impression that more studies support a specific position (that is, "the consensus", aka social pressure to appear studious and informed, which affects academics as much or more than it affects non-academics), that does it.

Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

#787

Post by jules »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #744
mundo wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a really inflammatory and totally inappropriate analogy. Downvoters, please cite which part of Damore's essay you think is comparable to overt racism. He explicitly said that he thinks women are capable, and should be hired.

He may actually have referenced race. He brings up IQ here, "the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ and sex differences)" IQ has no relevance to a discussion on gender gaps, so, why mention it? The quote's context is politics. In that context, IQ has recently been used in discussions over racial differences [2]. It begs the question, is Damore being honest about his…

You are projecting your own biases onto that statement.

Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

#788

Post by micahbright »

humanrebar wrote: post #235
dreta wrote: post #151

All i got from the memo, besides the echo chamber part, which google, and others managed to prove almost immediately, was that the author thinks there are biological differences between men and women, which lead to women being less interested in the field, thus being under-represented, and that google's sexist practices won't change that, only make people resent the diversity hires. Was i reading the wrong memo? Beca…

One of the women said: > I disagree that it’s possible to write what he did about general populations, then walk it back to say “but of course it doesn’t apply at an individual level.” She goes on to say that people will likely misapply the ideas and judge her. It seems a lot of detractors think Damore should have known better and he takes responsibility for how his ideas affect people. Another says: > I don’t really…

> why should any woman have to overcome the additional barrier of proving that she’s not like other women.

Well, she only has to prove it to men that she assumes are sexist or incapable of understanding population distributions. I mean, really? Let's fight sexism with sexism.

Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

#789

Post by abvdasker »

jdoliner wrote: post #233
mastazi wrote: post #185

So the takeaway is: you should become extremely proficient at writing memos and back them up with vast amounts of research, or be fired. But all of the above applies only if your memo expresses conservative ideas. I don't consider myself a conservative but I find all of this disturbing.

Damore isn't a conservative either by any stretch of the imagination. He's a liberal that wandered into some conservative ideas. FWIW I don't think any amount of proficient writing or research is going to yield a different response.

If Damore is a "liberal" then I defy you to find any sitting Democratic party representative who would endorse his views. The definition of the word "liberal" itself basically conflicts with his views.

Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

#790

Post by ShannonAlther »

emddudley wrote: post #781
virtuabhi wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many, many reasonable criticisms of the memo that do not focus on writing style. Here are a few examples - https://www.wired.com/story/the-pernicious-science-of-james-... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/13/james-dam... https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-bio...

This one at The Economist is also very good. "The e-mail Larry Page should have written to James Damore" https://www.economist.com/news/21726276-last-week-paper-said...

'Page' argues that because Damore didn't mention that men score higher on aggression and lower on cooperation, this is evidence of motivated reasoning.

Counterpoint: Damore only lists personality traits that lead to interest in engineering, thus leading to an imbalance in the talent pool from which Google hires. Rarely is an extremely high propensity for agreeableness a motivating factor for getting an engineering degree at Stanford.

Post reply on HN