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

James Damore has filed a class action lawsuit against Google

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

811–820 of 1001 posts

Re: James Damore has filed a class action lawsuit against Google

#811

Post by andrewprock »

Idontknowmyuser wrote: post #805
andrewprock wrote: post #779

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like there is only indirect evidence, and no direct evidence. In fact, the whole discussion smells far too much of "correlation means causation" to get anything useful out of it. There are some great weasel words like: "there is good evidence ... play a role ..." Without a hypothetical mechanism, this is all quite speculative.

ok what about this "Sex differences in brain size and general intelligence (g)" ( http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616... ) "Abstract Utilizing MRI and cognitive tests data from the Human Connectome project (N = 900), sex differences in general intelligence (g) and molar brain characteristics were examined. Total brain volume, cortical surface area, and white and gray matter correlated 0.1–0.3…

I assume you are presenting this as another example of indirect correlational evidence, with no hypothetical mechanism.

Re: James Damore has filed a class action lawsuit against Google

#812

Post by scruple »

bduerst wrote: post #787
akvadrako wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So your point is that, even though the reporters neglected to explain (or understand) the term neurotic, they were justified because the ultimately correct explanation is that it's meaningless in context? In that case, the only proper response is to report that the word neurotic is not scientific.

No, my point is that worrying about the semantics of the word neurotic is a pointless exercise because even when correctly understood in the case of the big five, it's still incorrectly used scientifically by Damore.

But it's disingenuous to the point of the memo, to the point that it's _deliberately_ misleading to the general public... Leading to the moral outrage.

Re: James Damore has filed a class action lawsuit against Google

#814

Post by SmirkingRevenge »

bduerst wrote: post #656
stcredzero wrote: post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except the Big Five has been debunked as being too lexical for biological differentiation. Thanks for that. I find that reaction much more informative than the name-calling sent at James Damore. In this sense we can say that the Big Five does not represent the structure of temperament or the structure of biologically based traits, even though lexical perception reflects some elements of it. Well, one should expect th…

Sure, which may be fine for the burden of proof for a personal opinion. Incorrectly using evidence to support your opinion as you broadcast it at work, and not listening, discussing, or considering critical feedback (like this) is a different matter. Especially when it means incorrectly classifying your co-workers and trying to change how your work fights social biases.

Google's primary business model, is literally to build the worlds best, most gigantic person-classification engine, and classify people with it. To sell shit.

Re: James Damore has filed a class action lawsuit against Google

#815

Post by beedogs »

vijayr wrote: post #102

presence of Caucasians and males was mocked with ‘boos’ during companywide weekly meetings. What does this even mean? People booed simply because they were white and male? I honestly don't get it. And who did the booing?

My guess is he's lying about it.

Re: James Damore has filed a class action lawsuit against Google

#816

Post by dragonwriter »

So, having finally gone through this in detail, what strikes me the most about this as a legal filing is that it seems very unlikely to be certified as a class action. A class action usually required a simple factual mechanism to identify class members; part of the point of a class action is to avoid needing to litigate the details of each individual case.

But instead of identifying a specific, readily identifiable class that is affected, the classes in this suit are defined as any Google employee against whom Google engaged in certain classes of illegal discrimination in California in a given timeframe; this require litigating individual discrimination claims for each potential class member to determine if they are a class member. Since class members have to be identified and given a chance to opt-out before settlement or trial, this is impractical—its what a class action exists to avoid.

Compare to the Microsoft sex discrimination class action, which defined the class as all women employed in defined roles and levels in particular parts of the organization during a given timeframe.

Also, a class lead plaintiff’s claims—not just the law claimed to be violated but the specific manner—are supposed to be typical of the class; while it's very hard to make any guesses of what would be typical of such an ill-defined class, Damore’s case seems to all appearanced to be sui generis. Maybe I'm missing something, but the class action aspect here seems to be either a complete Hail Mary or a ploy for additional media attention.

Re: James Damore has filed a class action lawsuit against Google

#817

Post by haihaibye »

lurr wrote: post #796
haihaibye wrote: post #750

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That humans aren't blank slates.

If you're talking about Damore then I believe that's less about what was said and more about how it was stated.

The context was "the left .. not capable of having reasoned debate even before the election. They prefer to shut it down."

Pre-election a similar thing happened to James Watson and Larry Summers - eg here is shutting down conversation about humans not being blank slates:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/18/us/harvard-chief-defends-h...

"When he started talking about innate differences in aptitude between men and women, I just couldn't breathe because this kind of bias makes me physically ill," Dr. Hopkins said.

Re: James Damore has filed a class action lawsuit against Google

#818

Post by jccalhoun »

imartin2k wrote: post #198
lukev wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a strawman. Nobody is saying that Damore thinks every man is a better programmer than every woman. He suggested that on average men are biologically more suited to programming, and the contention of his opponents is that that is still a problematic and inappropriate thing to say.

Edit: Sorry, I misread your comment, lukev. It's not a strawman though. This is exactly how many of the harshest critics of the memo have described his stance. Too many to count. Stating "members from group X are better than members from group y" (which is how Damore's opponents describe his claim) is a not the same as stating that “more people from group X than from group Y might be suitable for this job”. The first…

>Stating "members from group X are better than members from group y" (which is how Damore's opponents describe his claim) is a not the same as stating that “more people from group X than from group Y might be suitable for this job”. The first is qualitative, the latter quantitative.

But the problem is that it isn't any more quantitative because it still depends on the highly subjective notion of what it means to be "suitable for this job" and assumes that there is only one way to be "suitable."

Re: James Damore has filed a class action lawsuit against Google

#819

Post by jochung »

jimrandomh wrote: post #249

This clearly is (or is going to be) a Demon Thread. https://www.lesserwrong.com/posts/BZtAavpsy9WtMYgEL/demon-th... . People seem to be angry about what was said in the past, but don't agree on what was actually said or what those things meant. Attempts to clarify seem to mostly be throwing fuel on the fire instead. None of this is helping.

The worst part is that both damore's statements and actions are being dissected with a scalpel, by people who rear their legs at the mere implication they might not be 100% morally right.

Replace "white men" with "black woman" and they'd have a field day clutching pearls and fanning themselves silly.

Damore may be an insensitive autist... Or maybe he's one of the few sensitive to see through all the posturing.

Re: James Damore has filed a class action lawsuit against Google

#820

Post by vfulco »

dotnetisnotdead wrote: post #296

Honestly, this whole thing is just ugly. I read what he wrote. It was (mostly) ugly but contained a lot of truth. Before you downvote/call me a Nazi, I'm a mixed race woman in tech. I definitely see people hired just because of their minority status. I also see people hired who are minorities but also great at their job. It's not a binary pattern. But those who are hired just because they are a POC or female, yet are…

Kudos for such a well balanced piece. At the end of the day, it should be who can get the job done, that is all. And that is how companies will stay robust.
Post reply on HN