[deleted]
The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google
81–90 of 660 posts
Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google
#82> internal meme network i really want to believe that at Google there is a massive distributed cluster dedicated solely to facilitating meme throughput
There most likely is, I know an engineer that works on it.
Apparently they were one of the teams piloting Tensorflow for Android...have no idea why though....
Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is bad with the good. The suggestion that men and women ARE different is taboo. The premise that the differences between them are social as opposed to literal is a much easier way to force the same point (and IMO more correct but I respect I lack the science to be certain). This person lacks tact and the way they view the entire political sphere as just left/right is ultimately of concern. Way too simplistic ou…
It's perfectly all right to say that there are statistical differences between the average biological man and the average biological woman. The problem is to then assume a gigantic pile of facts not in evidence (that the differences observed are 100% biological with no cultural influence whatsoever, that they conclusively explain gender disparities in many fields, etc. etc.) and accuse anyone who disagrees with you o…
that the differences observed are 100% biological with no cultural influence whatsoever
From what I've seen it's exactly the opposite; any suggestion that differences might be less than 100% cultural marks you as a hateful racist misogynist. See Charles Murray for example.
Generally, this type of person lasts up until the moment blind interviews become widespread.
It actually is possible that someone might have the intellectual capacity to work at Google without being a progressive leftist.
Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google
#84> Microaggression training wat? They now train people in microaggressions at work? Is the "training" mandatory?
It's not mandatory. However, when I was at Google several years ago, it showed up on my calendar, it was not optional, my manager said that I was expected to attend, and I attended. But it's not mandatory.
So is it ""not mandatory"" then ?
Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google
#85I fail to understand the outrage but attribute that to the fact that few bothered to read the document before allowing themselves to be outraged by it - such is the shallow, feeling-fueled, hysteria-laden media cycle of today. The doc presents a point-of-view, grounded in reality. Furthermore it's not "anti-diversity", but rather anti-discrimination - specifically 'positive 'discrimination which it discredits while p…
There is bad with the good. The suggestion that men and women ARE different is taboo. The premise that the differences between them are social as opposed to literal is a much easier way to force the same point (and IMO more correct but I respect I lack the science to be certain). This person lacks tact and the way they view the entire political sphere as just left/right is ultimately of concern. Way too simplistic ou…
>The premise that the differences between them are social as opposed to literal is a much easier way to force the same point
It's much easier yes, but it then steers the direction into "well, if the difference between men and women's preference for CS is just social, can't we correct the 'gap' with affirmative action hires? Give women more chances!" and you end up in the same hole. We can't pussyfoot around it. Men and women ARE biologically different. Men prefer engineering and are better at it, no matter what culture you look at (the Iran numbers provided above are bogus.)
How much more money could Google make if they start hiring based on skill alone? A whole lot.
Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google
#86I fail to understand the outrage but attribute that to the fact that few bothered to read the document before allowing themselves to be outraged by it - such is the shallow, feeling-fueled, hysteria-laden media cycle of today. The doc presents a point-of-view, grounded in reality. Furthermore it's not "anti-diversity", but rather anti-discrimination - specifically 'positive 'discrimination which it discredits while p…
"Grounded in reality?" Could we get some sources for these claims? In particular, I'd like to see values and standard deviations for "On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways."
Well, the author's personal feelings of being shut out of conversations around diversity (and the resulting irony) stand on their own unless we think the author is lying or deluded about that somehow.
Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is bad with the good. The suggestion that men and women ARE different is taboo. The premise that the differences between them are social as opposed to literal is a much easier way to force the same point (and IMO more correct but I respect I lack the science to be certain). This person lacks tact and the way they view the entire political sphere as just left/right is ultimately of concern. Way too simplistic ou…
Yeah. I was willing to give him a fair hearing until he listed a handful of differences between men and women that he ascribes to biology without any factual support. And therein lies the unconscious bias against which he is railing. To him, there is no question that men and women, on average, are fundamentally different in ways that affects their ability to and interest in work in tech. I agree with him that folks s…
> I was willing to give him a fair hearing until he listed a handful of differences between men and women that he ascribes to biology without any factual support.
You've been punked, Gizmodo journalism at its finest!
Kate Conger withheld the factual support so that to a not-careful reader it looks like the original poster just makes stuff up.
ctrl + f: "Two charts and several hyperlinks are also omitted."
Note the passive sentence construction. If only she had written truthfully, "I omitted two charts and several hyperlinks"…
Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google
#88I fail to understand the outrage but attribute that to the fact that few bothered to read the document before allowing themselves to be outraged by it - such is the shallow, feeling-fueled, hysteria-laden media cycle of today. The doc presents a point-of-view, grounded in reality. Furthermore it's not "anti-diversity", but rather anti-discrimination - specifically 'positive 'discrimination which it discredits while p…
There is bad with the good. The suggestion that men and women ARE different is taboo. The premise that the differences between them are social as opposed to literal is a much easier way to force the same point (and IMO more correct but I respect I lack the science to be certain). This person lacks tact and the way they view the entire political sphere as just left/right is ultimately of concern. Way too simplistic ou…
> The suggestion that men and women ARE different is taboo.
Is it taboo? Or is it just taboo in this context?
The premise is also shared by some arguments for trangender rights -- that gender identity is involuntary and biological at least to some degree.
Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google
#89It is one thing to debated the veracity of a view, it is another to declare that that view should not be debated. For every point there is a counterpoint; every argument a counterargument. Arguing that the reasoning is flawed is not sufficient to ban it from discussion.
So, would you also agree that the existence of climate change should still be up for debate, even though there is overwhelming scientific evidence in one direction? NB: I do not know what the scientific consensus is on cognitive differences between men and women.
"Scientific consensus" is a term I dislike, as it seems more opinion-based and authoritarian, and less evidence-based.
Re: The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah. I was willing to give him a fair hearing until he listed a handful of differences between men and women that he ascribes to biology without any factual support. And therein lies the unconscious bias against which he is railing. To him, there is no question that men and women, on average, are fundamentally different in ways that affects their ability to and interest in work in tech. I agree with him that folks s…
There are actually a few studies showing gender differences in infants and monkeys. (males preferentially looking at/interacting with mechanical things, females faces/dolls) From that, you can assume that there are at least some biological differences in behavior between the sexes - and thus differing workplace representation is not necessarily 100% derived from social pressures. And if that's the case, achieving a 5…
Jumping from a few studies about infants and monkeys to "...you can assume that there are at least some biological differences in behavior between the sexes - and thus differing workplace representation is not necessarily 100% derived from social pressures." is far, far from enough evidence and extremely hand-wavy to make a scientific argument here.