About This Googler's Manifesto • Hacker News Board

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#81

Post by searealist » Sun, Aug 06, 2017, 7:11 AM UTC

interpol_p wrote: post #77

searealist wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a strawman. Neither I nor the manifesto author has argued in favor of sexism. Why did you call out "white men" in an article about representation at Google? It doesn't make any sense when white people are underrepresented at Google. edit: Now the parent has edited their comment to remove "in favor of sexism".

Here is where the author argues for sexism (from his TL;DR) > Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don't have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business. The implication here is that equal representation of women at Google is bad for business. That women aren't in tech and…

> The implication here is that equal representation of women at Google is bad for business. That women aren't in tech and leadership positions because of biological traits.

This is an incomplete picture of what that statement says. It does not say that 50% representation would necessarily be bad for business, but that discriminating against men to achieve this goal would be bad for business.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#82

Post by TheCoreh » Sun, Aug 06, 2017, 7:11 AM UTC

I'd seriously like to know if the author meant this literally:

> a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face

If that's indeed the case, isn't that on itself a huge problem we should deal with? If someone is risking being a victim of physical violence on the workplace over disagreements on political positions we should be seriously concerned.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#83

Post by nopatternhere » Sun, Aug 06, 2017, 7:12 AM UTC

interpol_p wrote: post #36

TimTheTinker wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understood the original manifesto's main argument to be against intentional, institutional discrimination (e.g. affirmative action) -- with many supporting points. I don't know what's shameful about that (unless you're referring to something else). He did seem to value gender equality in the sense that men and women should be valued and respected equally (unless I'm reading into it).

Except for the fact that it implies that men are in higher, more well paid positions because of inherent biological traits. If you truly believe people are equal and deserving of equal treatment then you must see a society where white men are the most powerful, most privileged class, as a failure of society. The author cannot claim to believe in equality and then go on to justify inequality with biological traits.

> If you truly believe people are equal and deserving of equal treatment then you must

The two don't follow, at all. Lets replace this statement, and make it about the NBA.

"If you truly believe people are equal and deserving of equal treatment then you must see a game where black men hold the vast majority of positions as a failure of the game".

If the NBA example should be laughed at, why shouldn't the opposite? Neanderthals don't exist anymore, but homo sapiens do, despite very little relative advantage to us. Small differences in averages between groups will lead to dramatically different results. For the best example of all, see casinos (advantage: 2-4%) versus gamblers.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#84

Post by nopatternhere » Sun, Aug 06, 2017, 7:18 AM UTC

interpol_p wrote: post #76

LyndsySimon wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's just embarrassing at this point that an engineer at a well known company like Google even thinks like this. (The original author, not Yonatan.) Is this not exactly the sort of reaction that the author is speaking against when he refers to "viewpoint diversity"?

I'm sure the women who work with him love that his "viewpoint diversity" considers them to be more neurotic, less able to deal with stress, and less suited to the high demands of a senior Google engineering role than himself!

So you have a study which refutes this? He's made a claim, you are just making an appeal to emotion! Show that there are no differences between men and women on these scales, or that the whole science behind the idea is sketchy (which I've seen arguments of) but please, pretty please, some evidence.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#85

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Aug 06, 2017, 7:19 AM UTC

totemizer wrote: post #43

jackfraser wrote: post #3

What an incredibly intellectually lazy way of attempting to deconstruct that manifesto this is! > 1.I’m not going to spend any length of time on (1); if anyone wishes to provide details as to how nearly every statement about gender in that entire document is actively incorrect "This is wrong, I don't have to tell you why" is a pitiful statement in and of itself, and perhaps more importantly, is not an argument. The a…

as i wrote it elsewhere already regarding the original "manifesto": i am curious, if this person is ok with questioning their belief in "traits" that are defined on the level of sex. after all they are the one who says that "some ideas are too sacred to be discussed" and when i bring this up, i often find that the "differences" between the sexes are exactly one of these ideas. the reactions to this talk are a good ex…

[deleted]

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#86

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Aug 06, 2017, 7:21 AM UTC

totemizer wrote: post #43

jackfraser wrote: post #3

What an incredibly intellectually lazy way of attempting to deconstruct that manifesto this is! > 1.I’m not going to spend any length of time on (1); if anyone wishes to provide details as to how nearly every statement about gender in that entire document is actively incorrect "This is wrong, I don't have to tell you why" is a pitiful statement in and of itself, and perhaps more importantly, is not an argument. The a…

as i wrote it elsewhere already regarding the original "manifesto": i am curious, if this person is ok with questioning their belief in "traits" that are defined on the level of sex. after all they are the one who says that "some ideas are too sacred to be discussed" and when i bring this up, i often find that the "differences" between the sexes are exactly one of these ideas. the reactions to this talk are a good ex…

[deleted]

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#87

Post by nopatternhere » Sun, Aug 06, 2017, 7:22 AM UTC

orangecat wrote: post #55

seibelj wrote: post #33

I won't say anything positive or negative about either the original post or the rebuttal because publicly touching any of this is career suicide. But I will comment that as assertive the original author was about things, citing various facts and studies, was not the rebuttal similar in repeatedly saying the original author was wrong and citing his own studies? Can anyone in social science really say anything is fact?…

The rebuttal cited no studies. It asserts that the manifesto's claims about gender "flies directly in the face of all research done in the field for decades", and as far as I can tell this is utterly false.

What's great is the next sentence: "But I am neither a biologist, a psychologist, nor a sociologist, so I’ll leave that to someone else." So, you know it is false, completely, and that we should ignore it because it is false, but you are unqualified to provide any examples? Sigh.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#88

Post by interpol_p » Sun, Aug 06, 2017, 7:22 AM UTC

nopatternhere wrote: post #83

interpol_p wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except for the fact that it implies that men are in higher, more well paid positions because of inherent biological traits. If you truly believe people are equal and deserving of equal treatment then you must see a society where white men are the most powerful, most privileged class, as a failure of society. The author cannot claim to believe in equality and then go on to justify inequality with biological traits.

> If you truly believe people are equal and deserving of equal treatment then you must The two don't follow, at all. Lets replace this statement, and make it about the NBA. "If you truly believe people are equal and deserving of equal treatment then you must see a game where black men hold the vast majority of positions as a failure of the game". If the NBA example should be laughed at, why shouldn't the opposite? Ne…

Are you serious? Of course it doesn't make sense if you change my words to be about the NBA.

Look at the government. The majority of the US government leadership is older white males.

Either you think: wow, white males are really good at getting into top government positions. Old white males must be superior to other humans.

Or you think: society really gives an advantage to older white males and it's much easier for them to get into government. Maybe power structures are balanced in their favour?

(Hint: the latter is true. The author of the article thinks along the lines of the former, that's why it's sexist and discriminatory and people are upset by it.)

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#89

Post by MichaelGG » Sun, Aug 06, 2017, 7:24 AM UTC

interpol_p wrote: post #36

TimTheTinker wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understood the original manifesto's main argument to be against intentional, institutional discrimination (e.g. affirmative action) -- with many supporting points. I don't know what's shameful about that (unless you're referring to something else). He did seem to value gender equality in the sense that men and women should be valued and respected equally (unless I'm reading into it).

Except for the fact that it implies that men are in higher, more well paid positions because of inherent biological traits. If you truly believe people are equal and deserving of equal treatment then you must see a society where white men are the most powerful, most privileged class, as a failure of society. The author cannot claim to believe in equality and then go on to justify inequality with biological traits.

There's zero evidence that people are equal. Physically, everyone knows and admits this. Women are given separate physical contests as they are smaller, slower, and weaker than men. Certain races do better in some sports - no one can make a fuss, as it's obvious, plus whites aren't the ones usually dominating.

Yet all of a sudden when it comes to mental pursuits (which are physically based in the brain and supporting chemicals), somehow then we're all equally capable and the huge biases that exist when using other organs don't exist. And not only don't exist, but so obviously don't exist that anyone suggesting so is met with "I'm literally shaking".

There seems to be nothing more to the diversity drive than "I want it to be so". I'm not saying it's all fine how it is, but pretending the population should be reflected perfectly is baseless.

Further, he points out diversity only goes one way. If there's too much white male, then it needs fixing. But if white males are underrepresented, then that's fine. It's like that review of the 90% black cast of Black Panther: "Hella diverse!"

Same for pointing out if you're hiring for diversity and lowering standards for "diverse" hires, you're making it worse for everyone.

And as he mentions, this diversity usually isn't. Hiring a bunch of people with the same views but making sure their skin tones or gender identity fill up a big list... Doesn't give you any useful diversity of thought at all.

Being intellectually dishonest and acting existentially offended when someone points out the obvious is why the left is losing out, slowly. And it sucks because the backlash is likely to hurt civil rights and progress.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#90

Post by interpol_p » Sun, Aug 06, 2017, 7:26 AM UTC

nopatternhere wrote: post #84

interpol_p wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure the women who work with him love that his "viewpoint diversity" considers them to be more neurotic, less able to deal with stress, and less suited to the high demands of a senior Google engineering role than himself!

So you have a study which refutes this? He's made a claim, you are just making an appeal to emotion! Show that there are no differences between men and women on these scales, or that the whole science behind the idea is sketchy (which I've seen arguments of) but please, pretty please, some evidence.

Oh because he linked to so many studies in his manifesto? He didn't.

Read his footnotes. They basically say "this is true because I know it to be true," and "this is universally accepted" (it isn't). But he gets a pass on that, sure.