4 ms·

He specifically said 'decreasing the false negative rate', not 'increasing the false positive rate.' That is explicitly worded (he could have been more succinct

by kobeya 9y ago

He specifically said 'decreasing the false negative rate', not 'increasing the false positive rate.' That is explicitly worded (he could have been more succinct) to imply that all people hired by Google are good enough to work at Google. He is saying that IF you are already good enough to work at Google, then your odds if you are from a protected minority group are better than if you are not. You are right that people interpreted that sentence differently, but those interpretations were wrong.

shadowmint 9y ago
yeah, ok... but I mean, really, do you care what he said? I mean, do you really care if people misinterpreted it? Is that what is important here? What someone did or didn't mean when they did or didn't say something? I honestly couldn't care less if they were 'wrong' interpretations. I mean, really, honestly, I don't give the slightest damn about this guy or what he says or thinks. Really. I don't know him, I don't care. ...but maybe the issues he's raised are worth talking about? maybe? I'm not sure. ...but that's certainly more interesting than digging over this document and what he may or may not have meant. Forget what he said. Think on your own for a second. Do you think that diversity programs necessarily result in lower quality candidates filling some roles, even if the program only forces a quota into the interview process? Do you think that's a bad thing, that it has tangible negative outcomes for businesses? How do you propose to address the issues around this stuff, or is diversity something you don't think is worth having? Forget the darn document and have an opinion of your own for goodness sake (and be prepared to defend it and talk about).
- kobeya 9y ago
  Yes it is critically important what he said. He got fired, very publicly, from Google for what he said, or at least an interpretation of what he said. This probably killed his career in tech, if not generally, assuming he doesn't win a wrongful termination settlement. I think it matters a LOT if the reason he got fired was for a hysterical mob justice over a misinterpretation of something he didn't actually say. That is in fact the core issue over outrage -- that someone can get fired over making what is an objectively true mathematical argument. That has chilling effects.
  - shadowmint 9y ago
    > He got fired, very publicly, from Google for what he said, or at least an interpretation of what he said. I don't care. I don't know the dude. Lifes tough, people get fired. /shrug. > That is in fact the core issue over outrage -- that someone can get fired over making what is an objectively true mathematical argument. Ah... so what you care about it freedom of speech and expression, nothing to do with diversity? Well, at least I can appreciate your concern on that front; I'm not really that fussed about that issue, because imo he violated their CoC during work hours; he got fired for it. Tough luck dude. If he'd been persecuted for doing that outside of work hours, I'd have an issue with it, but... fair enough. I can see why you care about exactly what he said in that case. I think it's important to draw the distinction on what you're getting upset by though; because a lot of people (like me) don't care at all he got fired; but we're upset by the content his memo. That's an entirely different issue.
    - jamesrcole 9y ago
      > I don't care. I don't know the dude You literally don't care about people unless you personally know them? Or if you do care about them, what's the reason you don't care about this person, nor any the effects of this situation on other people you don't know?
      - shadowmint 9y ago
        Things happen to people all the time, should I care about every single person who gets fired for doing something stupid at work? Do you care that Bob down the road got fired for swearing at his boss? I bet you don't. Why is this guy special?
        thinkfurther 9y ago
        > Do you care that Bob down the road got fired for swearing at his boss? I bet you don't. That's hardly a fitting analogy. And yes, I for one do care about people including strangers, at least in the sense that I don't like hearing of bad things befalling others. Until they signal good reasons for ceasing to care about them like you are doing, in those cases I restrict my empathy to recognize their lack of empathy.
- yorwba 9y ago
  > Do you think that diversity programs necessarily result in lower quality candidates filling some roles, Not all diversity programs, ... > even if the program only forces a quota into the interview process? ... but if the "program" only amounts to setting a minimum quota, without any concrete plan for action on achieving the quota. Say you believe the proportion of women in programming, given a fair hiring process, would be at least 30%, so you set that as a minimum quota all your interviewers have to fulfill. If you are right about the average, by pure randomness some interviewers will make their quota easily. But what about those who are unlucky and don't have enough qualified candidates to choose from? They will have to lower their standards to make the quota. Fixed limits are just too blunt, they focus on the results a fair process would achieve, but fail to enforce that they actually come about due to a fair process. > Do you think that's a bad thing, that it has tangible negative outcomes for businesses? It depends on the concrete program in question and how much it misfires (or not), but the negative outcomes for the business will probably be relatively small. They might have to spend more money on training and get a higher turnover of employees, but Google is probably more selective than they have to, so they can afford to hire some slightly less qualified candidates. > How do you propose to address the issues around this stuff, I'm partial to blinded tests and outreach programs, since the combination can address both hiring bias and lack of interest. > or is diversity something you don't think is worth having? I think in terms of business value, gender diversity is overrated (as opposed to diversity of thought). Nonetheless, discrimination and harassment don't just affect aggregates like diversity, they also hurt individuals, so I think fighting them is important.

by kobeya 9y ago

shadowmint 9y ago

yeah, ok... but I mean, really, do you care what he said? I mean, do you really care if people misinterpreted it? Is that what is important here? What someone did or didn't mean when they did or didn't say something? I honestly couldn't care less if they were 'wrong' interpretations. I mean, really, honestly, I don't give the slightest damn about this guy or what he says or thinks. Really. I don't know him, I don't care. ...but maybe the issues he's raised are worth talking about? maybe? I'm not sure. ...but that's certainly more interesting than digging over this document and what he may or may not have meant. Forget what he said. Think on your own for a second. Do you think that diversity programs necessarily result in lower quality candidates filling some roles, even if the program only forces a quota into the interview process? Do you think that's a bad thing, that it has tangible negative outcomes for businesses? How do you propose to address the issues around this stuff, or is diversity something you don't think is worth having? Forget the darn document and have an opinion of your own for goodness sake (and be prepared to defend it and talk about).

kobeya 9y ago
Yes it is critically important what he said. He got fired, very publicly, from Google for what he said, or at least an interpretation of what he said. This probably killed his career in tech, if not generally, assuming he doesn't win a wrongful termination settlement. I think it matters a LOT if the reason he got fired was for a hysterical mob justice over a misinterpretation of something he didn't actually say. That is in fact the core issue over outrage -- that someone can get fired over making what is an objectively true mathematical argument. That has chilling effects.
- shadowmint 9y ago
  > He got fired, very publicly, from Google for what he said, or at least an interpretation of what he said. I don't care. I don't know the dude. Lifes tough, people get fired. /shrug. > That is in fact the core issue over outrage -- that someone can get fired over making what is an objectively true mathematical argument. Ah... so what you care about it freedom of speech and expression, nothing to do with diversity? Well, at least I can appreciate your concern on that front; I'm not really that fussed about that issue, because imo he violated their CoC during work hours; he got fired for it. Tough luck dude. If he'd been persecuted for doing that outside of work hours, I'd have an issue with it, but... fair enough. I can see why you care about exactly what he said in that case. I think it's important to draw the distinction on what you're getting upset by though; because a lot of people (like me) don't care at all he got fired; but we're upset by the content his memo. That's an entirely different issue.
  - jamesrcole 9y ago
    > I don't care. I don't know the dude You literally don't care about people unless you personally know them? Or if you do care about them, what's the reason you don't care about this person, nor any the effects of this situation on other people you don't know?
    - shadowmint 9y ago
      Things happen to people all the time, should I care about every single person who gets fired for doing something stupid at work? Do you care that Bob down the road got fired for swearing at his boss? I bet you don't. Why is this guy special?
      - thinkfurther 9y ago
        > Do you care that Bob down the road got fired for swearing at his boss? I bet you don't. That's hardly a fitting analogy. And yes, I for one do care about people including strangers, at least in the sense that I don't like hearing of bad things befalling others. Until they signal good reasons for ceasing to care about them like you are doing, in those cases I restrict my empathy to recognize their lack of empathy.
yorwba 9y ago
> Do you think that diversity programs necessarily result in lower quality candidates filling some roles, Not all diversity programs, ... > even if the program only forces a quota into the interview process? ... but if the "program" only amounts to setting a minimum quota, without any concrete plan for action on achieving the quota. Say you believe the proportion of women in programming, given a fair hiring process, would be at least 30%, so you set that as a minimum quota all your interviewers have to fulfill. If you are right about the average, by pure randomness some interviewers will make their quota easily. But what about those who are unlucky and don't have enough qualified candidates to choose from? They will have to lower their standards to make the quota. Fixed limits are just too blunt, they focus on the results a fair process would achieve, but fail to enforce that they actually come about due to a fair process. > Do you think that's a bad thing, that it has tangible negative outcomes for businesses? It depends on the concrete program in question and how much it misfires (or not), but the negative outcomes for the business will probably be relatively small. They might have to spend more money on training and get a higher turnover of employees, but Google is probably more selective than they have to, so they can afford to hire some slightly less qualified candidates. > How do you propose to address the issues around this stuff, I'm partial to blinded tests and outreach programs, since the combination can address both hiring bias and lack of interest. > or is diversity something you don't think is worth having? I think in terms of business value, gender diversity is overrated (as opposed to diversity of thought). Nonetheless, discrimination and harassment don't just affect aggregates like diversity, they also hurt individuals, so I think fighting them is important.