4 ms·

You can say "the diversity program is harmful and should be stopped" without advancing gender stereotypes (which is what the guy did in his memo). All you need

You can say "the diversity program is harmful and should be stopped" without advancing gender stereotypes (which is what the guy did in his memo). All you need to do is back up that "it's harmful" with evidence. It's pretty damn simple.

josteink 9y ago
He had sources from here to the moon. Have you actually read the memo you are criticizing?
- justinjlynn 9y ago
  I had to look through four or so articles to find an edited and incomplete copy of the controversial text. Fortunately there are complete copies of it as it was originally posted linked elsewhere in the thread. It's possible that they haven't read it (in its unedited form including the references as intended by its author) because reporters have, for some reason, made it hard to find.
  - josteink 9y ago
    Try this one then: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- orbitur 9y ago
  I did read it, where did he outline the failures of the existing diversity program that wasn't also a lie? For instance, a lowered standard for interviews isn't a thing.
  - justinjlynn 9y ago
    If I have read their argument correctly the author proposes that the interview "bar" was lower only relatively speaking. Allow me to elaborate: in a somewhat clumsily stated thesis they point out the disproportionate care granted to the favoured class is evidenced by an allegedly reduced false negative rate. If that's true then, in a way, Google haven't reduced the technical "bar" per se except by making the test more reflective of their actual expectations for hires. This is, I believe, the heart of the author's argument in this case: these improvements in the interview process apply only to favoured groups. If true, these exclusive improvements yield a test which, though just as technically thorough, is paradoxically still easier to pass given a favoured candidate. If my understanding is correct, there really has to be a better way to phrase the author's argument such that it can't be misinterpreted in the most common way it appears to be being taken now.
  - imron 9y ago
    > For instance, a lowered standard for interviews isn't a thing. It's also not a thing that the author of the memo stated. See my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14958594 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14958594
- dankent 9y ago
  I'm not sure I would describe the sources as 'from here to the moon' On reading many of the sources, it was apparent that they did not provide particularly solid evidence to back up the points he was making. It was also obvious that there was a huge amount of cherry picking going on. I thought some of his arguments were very weak and, even where he had decent points, he did not make his case in a compelling way. However, I don't think he should have been disciplined and certainly not fired. Those who disagree should refute his arguments.
  - kbart 9y ago
    "I thought some of his arguments were very weak" Sorry, but unless you are some leading researcher in a related field, your "thoughts" doesn't count for much and you should provide cited counter claims to be taken seriously. Without this, it's all just an emotional reaction and doesn't contribute anything of value to a meaningful discussion.
    - dankent 9y ago
      One doesn't need to be an expert in a particular field to identify a weak argument. For example, the author of the memo presents some citations to back up the idea that there are biological differences between men and women that might explain why more men than women choose to work in tech. I don't find that idea controversial. However, none of the citations provide any evidence that the degree of biological difference between the male and female population is sufficient to explain the relative gender balance we see in tech. I don't need to be an expert to notice the lack of evidence for that part of the argument and conclude that the argument is poorly made. It is possible that such evidence does exist and I would be interested to see it but that would not change that fact that this memo, with its cited evidence, failed to make that case.

josteink 9y ago

He had sources from here to the moon. Have you actually read the memo you are criticizing?

justinjlynn 9y ago
I had to look through four or so articles to find an edited and incomplete copy of the controversial text. Fortunately there are complete copies of it as it was originally posted linked elsewhere in the thread. It's possible that they haven't read it (in its unedited form including the references as intended by its author) because reporters have, for some reason, made it hard to find.
- josteink 9y ago
  Try this one then: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
orbitur 9y ago
I did read it, where did he outline the failures of the existing diversity program that wasn't also a lie? For instance, a lowered standard for interviews isn't a thing.
- justinjlynn 9y ago
  If I have read their argument correctly the author proposes that the interview "bar" was lower only relatively speaking. Allow me to elaborate: in a somewhat clumsily stated thesis they point out the disproportionate care granted to the favoured class is evidenced by an allegedly reduced false negative rate. If that's true then, in a way, Google haven't reduced the technical "bar" per se except by making the test more reflective of their actual expectations for hires. This is, I believe, the heart of the author's argument in this case: these improvements in the interview process apply only to favoured groups. If true, these exclusive improvements yield a test which, though just as technically thorough, is paradoxically still easier to pass given a favoured candidate. If my understanding is correct, there really has to be a better way to phrase the author's argument such that it can't be misinterpreted in the most common way it appears to be being taken now.
- imron 9y ago
  > For instance, a lowered standard for interviews isn't a thing. It's also not a thing that the author of the memo stated. See my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14958594 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14958594
dankent 9y ago
I'm not sure I would describe the sources as 'from here to the moon' On reading many of the sources, it was apparent that they did not provide particularly solid evidence to back up the points he was making. It was also obvious that there was a huge amount of cherry picking going on. I thought some of his arguments were very weak and, even where he had decent points, he did not make his case in a compelling way. However, I don't think he should have been disciplined and certainly not fired. Those who disagree should refute his arguments.
- kbart 9y ago
  "I thought some of his arguments were very weak" Sorry, but unless you are some leading researcher in a related field, your "thoughts" doesn't count for much and you should provide cited counter claims to be taken seriously. Without this, it's all just an emotional reaction and doesn't contribute anything of value to a meaningful discussion.
  - dankent 9y ago
    One doesn't need to be an expert in a particular field to identify a weak argument. For example, the author of the memo presents some citations to back up the idea that there are biological differences between men and women that might explain why more men than women choose to work in tech. I don't find that idea controversial. However, none of the citations provide any evidence that the degree of biological difference between the male and female population is sufficient to explain the relative gender balance we see in tech. I don't need to be an expert to notice the lack of evidence for that part of the argument and conclude that the argument is poorly made. It is possible that such evidence does exist and I would be interested to see it but that would not change that fact that this memo, with its cited evidence, failed to make that case.