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

81–90 of 1001 posts

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

#81

Post by sndean »

toxik wrote: post #19
dragonwriter wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Gender is not biological so there is no biological explanation. There is considerable evidence of gender identity different from biological sex lining up with biological features in several areas more typical of the other sex, so it seems that gender identity is tied to biology. Which, if you think about it, it has to be: humans are biological machines, everything about them is biology, on one level or another. All…

Seems a tad reductionist; by that same token, all of psychology is also physics.

I wouldn't go that far, but there are many studies that have looked at the genetic (biological) basis for brain function/behavior [0]. Once you're at the level of gene expression, which some of those studies go into, you're at a level of acetylation, methylation, etc., which is easily categorized as chemistry.

The bigger argument I get into with coworkers is the blurry line between brain function/behavior stuff and psychology.

[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3030621/

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

#82

Post by ahugebeach »

wcummings wrote: post #64
bufbupa wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you arguing we should spare factual discourse for the sake of someones subjective feelings?

Not much about that memo was "factual", whatever that means.

Some scientists did agree, even said he wrote an A worthy paper.

Others disagreed.

Even slatestarcodex argued a little for both sides.

Its clear scientific consensus has not been reached, and people need to discuss this openly with out censors.

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

#83

Post by CydeWeys »

ahugebeach wrote: post #67
ryanbrunner wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think one thing that struck me from the linked article was the point that the memo wasn't structured to invite discussion. It wasn't "let's have a chat", it was "here's an evidence bomb of how you're all wrong". I think advancing points is fine, but if you're after productive discussion rather than an adversarial debate, you need to proactively invite discussion. And if an adversarial debate was what he was after,…

It was a politically charged topic, he would have been crucified either way. But by phrasing the memo the way he did, he covered himself legally. I wouldn't be surprised to hear everything was run by a lawyer first.

What could possibly make you think he sought legal representation before writing that document? He was just looking for an argument/discussion.

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

#84

Post by zo1 »

tedivm wrote: post #26
rpiguy wrote: post #6

I really enjoyed the well reasoned discussion. I think a lot more constructive dialog is happening now that people have calmed down. Of all the sentiments expressed in the article, I mainly disagree with the comment that Damore did the company harm. He posted his thoughts on an internal discussion board and someone else leaked this internal document to the press. The leaker did harm to Google not Damore. In fact, I t…

Lets assume that we're in an alternative universe where the document was never leaked. The document still did harm. Just read this quote from the posted article- > When I walk into my job at a tech company, how do I know which of my colleagues thinks I’m an outlier among women versus someone who was hired because I’m female that doesn’t deserve the job they have? How do I prove myself to people one way or another? Th…

I suspect both sides of the debate are now realizing what a hostile work environment preferential-hiring and rampant PC-culture is causing. One side has to walk on egg-shells scared of what they might let slip in conversation if they don't share the prevailing opinion of the loudest among-them. While the other side is constantly forced to question their abilities because preferential hiring appears to devalue their individual abilities, experiences and achievements.

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

#85

Post by dguaraglia »

From the article:

> Nevertheless, I maintain that when I go to work, I go to work, and not to a debate club... if I remain silent, that silence could be mistaken for agreement. I should not be forced into that kind of debate at work.

That, right there, is why Damore should've looked for a different outlet (and probably one that wasn't 50k+ people big) for testing his "dialectical skills." That's the very definition of creating a hostile environment, where people feel forced into actions they normally wouldn't engage into just for the gratification of a single person's whims.

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

#86

Post by [deleted] »

tedivm wrote: post #26
rpiguy wrote: post #6

I really enjoyed the well reasoned discussion. I think a lot more constructive dialog is happening now that people have calmed down. Of all the sentiments expressed in the article, I mainly disagree with the comment that Damore did the company harm. He posted his thoughts on an internal discussion board and someone else leaked this internal document to the press. The leaker did harm to Google not Damore. In fact, I t…

Lets assume that we're in an alternative universe where the document was never leaked. The document still did harm. Just read this quote from the posted article- > When I walk into my job at a tech company, how do I know which of my colleagues thinks I’m an outlier among women versus someone who was hired because I’m female that doesn’t deserve the job they have? How do I prove myself to people one way or another? Th…

[deleted]

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

#87

Post by kemayo »

nailer wrote: post #34
yflu wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gender is a semantic concept. Biology (and sex) is not. So no, there isn't a biological basis for this, because gender isn't biological.

It's not as simple as that. The word 'gender' has a history of being used for biology - think of every form you've ever filled out. The OED [1] says: > Either of the two sexes (male and female) before following up with: > especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. And also notes: > The sense denoting biological sex has also been used since the 14th centur…

Language is a living thing. The meanings of words change over time, and that's normally a helpful thing, which lets us express culturally relevant concepts.

In this case, it's pretty useful to have words which distinguish between biology and culture.

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

#88

Post by adbachman »

bufbupa wrote: post #40
tedivm wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lets assume that we're in an alternative universe where the document was never leaked. The document still did harm. Just read this quote from the posted article- > When I walk into my job at a tech company, how do I know which of my colleagues thinks I’m an outlier among women versus someone who was hired because I’m female that doesn’t deserve the job they have? How do I prove myself to people one way or another? Th…

Are you arguing we should spare factual discourse for the sake of someones subjective feelings?

In this case, it's not about "should factual discourse be allowed or not," that's a false dichotomy. It's whether the author of the memo knowingly took an approach to interpretation of the "facts" he selected that was actively harmful to his co-workers by creating a toxic and hostile work environment.

I believe he did, and the parent you're responding to seems to as well, but they didn't say anything about "spar[ing] factual discourse." You seem to be reading that into their comment.

And I would definitely say there are factual discussions that can be had privately between individuals who already trust each other that are better kept private in order to spare the feelings of non-participants. Other humans have feelings, taking them into consideration is not weakness.

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

#89

Post by grey-area »

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…

Instead we should try to understand them as human beings, and interpret them with generosity and kindness.

Advice Damore would have done well to heed when writing his essay. You should also note there are serious questions about its validity - this is not just a matter of tone or style.

https://www.wired.com/story/the-pernicious-science-of-james-...

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

#90

Post by Delmania »

bufbupa wrote: post #40
tedivm wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lets assume that we're in an alternative universe where the document was never leaked. The document still did harm. Just read this quote from the posted article- > When I walk into my job at a tech company, how do I know which of my colleagues thinks I’m an outlier among women versus someone who was hired because I’m female that doesn’t deserve the job they have? How do I prove myself to people one way or another? Th…

Are you arguing we should spare factual discourse for the sake of someones subjective feelings?

Why don't you go ahead and read this:

http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2017/08/sloppy-scien...

Simply put, unless you are mindful of someone's "subjective feelings" you will never be able to have a "factual discourse" with them. People are individuals and not statistics. You can quote statistics and average all day long, but if you offend, anger, or harm someone with your words, that person will not listen to you.

Post reply on HN