7 ms·

I doubt this single incident alone is the reason, but maybe the catalyst. Google and its unhealthy lust for diversity has been an increasingly frequent topic. H

I doubt this single incident alone is the reason, but maybe the catalyst. Google and its unhealthy lust for diversity has been an increasingly frequent topic. Hell, someone got fired for posting an anti diversity rant last year. While his arguments were weak or flat out wrong, it's clear that Google is making a point to single out underrepresented minorities to the detriment of others who may actually be better candidates.

kapauldo 9y ago
Diversity is a noble goal not a corrupt one.
DanHulton 9y ago
I mean, if it's the same memo in thinking of, it wasn't a "diversity memo" he was fired over, it was a manifesto that has been reviewed and agreed on as sufficient cause for his dismissal several times now. In it, he argued that women were essentially worse at logical tasks than men, and further that this made them poor engineers. That's not a diversity memo, that's a sexist screed.
- chronic193 9y ago
  Just because it is sexist doesn't mean you can't say it. It is not illegal, nor should it be, to be sexist or racist. Women underperform men in college computer science courses. Hell, you could generalize this to all engineering. Am I sexist? Maybe. Am I speaking the truth, yes. Now if you don't want to believe raw data, that's your choice.
- emsy 9y ago
  Agreed on by whom? Did you even read the memo yourself?
- ofirg 9y ago
  That is not what the memo said. did you not read it or is this what you think the writer meant even if he did not actually write that but you have some kind of mind reading abilities?
  - acdha 9y ago
    Accusing people of not reading the memo doesn’t contribute anything to the conversation. If you share Damore’s views, just say so rather than trying to distract.
    - ofirg 9y ago
      You do no get to decide what contributes and what does not beyond your +-1. you do not have the moral high ground when you are repeating lies. It is clear to me that anyone that has read the memo, and is not laying will not describe it the way DanHulton did. Seems to me that what ever conversation you want to have it should not be based on falsehoods.
      - dwringer 9y ago
        I read it, and I think DanHulton described it in pretty much the same way I would. The charts struck me as lacking meaningful context, and loose correlations were treated as logical, causal relationships in support for discriminatory hypotheses, reading like a case study in how to fallaciously present opinion as fact through charts and statistics.
      - acdha 9y ago
        If you believe that, why are you lying about the motives of people you disagree with? There are many people who’ve read the memo (yes, the version with citations) and concluded that Damore’s argument included biological determinism. You can say that’s wrong and the memo was just sloppy, perhaps by citing subsequent clarifications about that not being his intention. You can say that’s right and attempt to find stronger scientific support than he did. What you’re doing instead is saying that people are either lying about having read it or deliberately misrepresenting its contents. That’s what I said had no value since it’s transparently wrong (it’s hard to come up with point by point criticism for something you haven’t read) and prevents engaging with any of the actual ideas.
    - viridian 9y ago
      There are a couple of reasons people are so quick to claim other people didn't read the memo verbatim. The first being that the first major publication to run with it, and the biggest one here on HN, was the verge's article where citations and graphs were stripped away from it. The other is that is it often given such uncharitable descriptions that people who have read it simply can't believe the hate levied at it comes from actually having read the thing. I've actually talked this whole topic through for hours back and forth with someone who is very against the memo, but even they they would call it a sexist manifesto. That sort of thing comes across as off the cuff criticism by people who haven't read the thing.
- NutriSugar 9y ago
  Are we counting reviews by pushing the same narrative that was being pushed by the people he originally offended? What I've seen is a number of scientists (in the specific fields that are related to it) backing his work, others attacking it, and all agreeing it doesn't rise to the muster of a peer reviewed paper/meta-analysis (though that seems a pretty insane bar to begin with).
- naasking 9y ago
  > In it, he argued that women were essentially worse at logical tasks than men, and further that this made them poor engineers. No he didn't. He said they were inherently less interested in STEM, and speculated about a few personality characteristics from psych research that might explain why, but all of that is irrelevant. Damore explicitly said that you can't judge individual competence from a probability distribution, even if the distribution of competence of each gender were different (which they largely are not). Here's a broad overview of the literature covering what Damore got right and wrong: http://heterodoxacademy.org/the-google-memo-what-does-the-research-say-about-gender-differences/ http://heterodoxacademy.org/the-google-memo-what-does-the-re... Turns out, he was right that women seem to have different interests. I suggest reading about the things vs. people hypothesis. You can get more women into STEM subfields that deal with people if you highlight those aspects. Hiring quotas and some of the other measures Damore was arguing against would indeed have no effect on gender diversity given these facts.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

kapauldo 9y ago

Diversity is a noble goal not a corrupt one.

DanHulton 9y ago

I mean, if it's the same memo in thinking of, it wasn't a "diversity memo" he was fired over, it was a manifesto that has been reviewed and agreed on as sufficient cause for his dismissal several times now. In it, he argued that women were essentially worse at logical tasks than men, and further that this made them poor engineers. That's not a diversity memo, that's a sexist screed.

chronic193 9y ago
Just because it is sexist doesn't mean you can't say it. It is not illegal, nor should it be, to be sexist or racist. Women underperform men in college computer science courses. Hell, you could generalize this to all engineering. Am I sexist? Maybe. Am I speaking the truth, yes. Now if you don't want to believe raw data, that's your choice.
emsy 9y ago
Agreed on by whom? Did you even read the memo yourself?
ofirg 9y ago
That is not what the memo said. did you not read it or is this what you think the writer meant even if he did not actually write that but you have some kind of mind reading abilities?
- acdha 9y ago
  Accusing people of not reading the memo doesn’t contribute anything to the conversation. If you share Damore’s views, just say so rather than trying to distract.
  - ofirg 9y ago
    You do no get to decide what contributes and what does not beyond your +-1. you do not have the moral high ground when you are repeating lies. It is clear to me that anyone that has read the memo, and is not laying will not describe it the way DanHulton did. Seems to me that what ever conversation you want to have it should not be based on falsehoods.
    - dwringer 9y ago
      I read it, and I think DanHulton described it in pretty much the same way I would. The charts struck me as lacking meaningful context, and loose correlations were treated as logical, causal relationships in support for discriminatory hypotheses, reading like a case study in how to fallaciously present opinion as fact through charts and statistics.
    - acdha 9y ago
      If you believe that, why are you lying about the motives of people you disagree with? There are many people who’ve read the memo (yes, the version with citations) and concluded that Damore’s argument included biological determinism. You can say that’s wrong and the memo was just sloppy, perhaps by citing subsequent clarifications about that not being his intention. You can say that’s right and attempt to find stronger scientific support than he did. What you’re doing instead is saying that people are either lying about having read it or deliberately misrepresenting its contents. That’s what I said had no value since it’s transparently wrong (it’s hard to come up with point by point criticism for something you haven’t read) and prevents engaging with any of the actual ideas.
  - viridian 9y ago
    There are a couple of reasons people are so quick to claim other people didn't read the memo verbatim. The first being that the first major publication to run with it, and the biggest one here on HN, was the verge's article where citations and graphs were stripped away from it. The other is that is it often given such uncharitable descriptions that people who have read it simply can't believe the hate levied at it comes from actually having read the thing. I've actually talked this whole topic through for hours back and forth with someone who is very against the memo, but even they they would call it a sexist manifesto. That sort of thing comes across as off the cuff criticism by people who haven't read the thing.
NutriSugar 9y ago
Are we counting reviews by pushing the same narrative that was being pushed by the people he originally offended? What I've seen is a number of scientists (in the specific fields that are related to it) backing his work, others attacking it, and all agreeing it doesn't rise to the muster of a peer reviewed paper/meta-analysis (though that seems a pretty insane bar to begin with).
naasking 9y ago
> In it, he argued that women were essentially worse at logical tasks than men, and further that this made them poor engineers. No he didn't. He said they were inherently less interested in STEM, and speculated about a few personality characteristics from psych research that might explain why, but all of that is irrelevant. Damore explicitly said that you can't judge individual competence from a probability distribution, even if the distribution of competence of each gender were different (which they largely are not). Here's a broad overview of the literature covering what Damore got right and wrong: http://heterodoxacademy.org/the-google-memo-what-does-the-research-say-about-gender-differences/ http://heterodoxacademy.org/the-google-memo-what-does-the-re... Turns out, he was right that women seem to have different interests. I suggest reading about the things vs. people hypothesis. You can get more women into STEM subfields that deal with people if you highlight those aspects. Hiring quotas and some of the other measures Damore was arguing against would indeed have no effect on gender diversity given these facts.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]