18 ms·

You're arguing against a point that wasn't being made. It is absolutely possible to try to hire more women and require them all to meet the hiring bar (as you y

by geofft 7y ago

You're arguing against a point that wasn't being made. It is absolutely possible to try to hire more women and require them all to meet the hiring bar (as you yourself point out with your story about Facebook). 1. Assigning the most reliable interviewers to women ensures that women who do meet the bar don't get inaccurately rejected. 2. The hiring bar is enforced at the on-site, not at the phone screen. 3. Sourcing an all-women group from a hiring event and sending them through the normal interview process is ... sending them through the normal interview process. If you want to claim that Google is trying harder to hire qualified women than qualified men, sure, I don't think anyone disputed that. The dispute was whether Googlers ever think an unqualified person was hired to meet a diversity goal. (And how often does Google fire someone for discovering that their interview process emitted a false positive? Given the incredible cost of making that mistake, most hiring processes are tuned to err towards false negatives instead of false positives, and Google's intensive process should be particularly good at that. Unless you're claiming HR is firing qualified men to meet a quota - i.e., textbook wrongful termination at scale - a bias for never getting around to firing women can't have a noticeable effect.)

thu2111 7y ago
Do you really think Google doesn't let men go for low performance? I saw that happen many times. That absolutely has an effect. The hiring process really isn't anywhere close to being accurate enough that firings are irrelevant and of course, people's performance changes over time. There's no difference between "trying harder to hire a qualified woman" and sexual discrimination during hiring. Just invert it to see: imagine someone found a software company that said it was trying harder to hire men because it preferred them, and so it did things like only advertise its jobs in men's clubs, recruited from events where women were banned, and did things it knew would bias its own interview process against female candidates like assigning incompetent interviewers and then discarding their feedback because it wasn't good enough. Feminists would utterly lose it. In the end the only reason Google doesn't just outright ban white men from applying for engineering jobs is it's illegal. And even then it seems like this doesn't always stop them!
- geofft 7y ago
  > Do you really think Google doesn't let men go for low performance? I saw that happen many times. Cool, you should sue. The SJW women are suing alleging Google has been discriminating against them: https://googlegendercase.com/ https://googlegendercase.com/ Are you going to let the SJWs win? It sounds like you have an open-and-shut case, from what you're claiming. > Feminists would utterly lose it. Again, that's not what's under dispute. What is being claimed is that Googlers have no reason to doubt that every person there met the hiring bar. Even in your scenario, that would still be true. Even if Google refrained entirely from hiring white men - which, yes, would be illegal - they could still enforce the hiring bar.
  - thu2111 7y ago
    There's already such a lawsuit by a recruiter: https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/2/17070624/google-youtube-wilberg-recruiter-hiring-reverse-discrimination-lawsuit https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/2/17070624/google-youtube-wi... I don't have any documents or hard evidence, just what I saw and heard. So I can't contribute to that case even if I wanted to get involved.
- tptacek 7y ago
  the only reason Google doesn't just outright ban white men from applying for engineering jobs is Please don't troll on HN.
  - thu2111 7y ago
    Sadly, this isn't trolling. There's a lawsuit that claims much evidence of this: https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/2/17070624/google-youtube-wilberg-recruiter-hiring-reverse-discrimination-lawsuit https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/2/17070624/google-youtube-wi... Maybe you don't agree with those claims but please don't simply write off anything you don't like the sound of as trolling.
kortilla 7y ago
> tuned to err towards false negatives instead of false positives This is a lie perpetuated by googlers. That’s a false dichotomy. There is no evidence that their process reduces false positives. Pointing to a bunch of false negatives just means they have a process that produces a bunch of false negatives. For how smart googlers are purported to be, you would think they wouldn’t report such an obviously illogical statement.

by geofft 7y ago

thu2111 7y ago

Do you really think Google doesn't let men go for low performance? I saw that happen many times. That absolutely has an effect. The hiring process really isn't anywhere close to being accurate enough that firings are irrelevant and of course, people's performance changes over time. There's no difference between "trying harder to hire a qualified woman" and sexual discrimination during hiring. Just invert it to see: imagine someone found a software company that said it was trying harder to hire men because it preferred them, and so it did things like only advertise its jobs in men's clubs, recruited from events where women were banned, and did things it knew would bias its own interview process against female candidates like assigning incompetent interviewers and then discarding their feedback because it wasn't good enough. Feminists would utterly lose it. In the end the only reason Google doesn't just outright ban white men from applying for engineering jobs is it's illegal. And even then it seems like this doesn't always stop them!

geofft 7y ago
> Do you really think Google doesn't let men go for low performance? I saw that happen many times. Cool, you should sue. The SJW women are suing alleging Google has been discriminating against them: https://googlegendercase.com/ https://googlegendercase.com/ Are you going to let the SJWs win? It sounds like you have an open-and-shut case, from what you're claiming. > Feminists would utterly lose it. Again, that's not what's under dispute. What is being claimed is that Googlers have no reason to doubt that every person there met the hiring bar. Even in your scenario, that would still be true. Even if Google refrained entirely from hiring white men - which, yes, would be illegal - they could still enforce the hiring bar.
- thu2111 7y ago
  There's already such a lawsuit by a recruiter: https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/2/17070624/google-youtube-wilberg-recruiter-hiring-reverse-discrimination-lawsuit https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/2/17070624/google-youtube-wi... I don't have any documents or hard evidence, just what I saw and heard. So I can't contribute to that case even if I wanted to get involved.
tptacek 7y ago
the only reason Google doesn't just outright ban white men from applying for engineering jobs is Please don't troll on HN.
- thu2111 7y ago
  Sadly, this isn't trolling. There's a lawsuit that claims much evidence of this: https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/2/17070624/google-youtube-wilberg-recruiter-hiring-reverse-discrimination-lawsuit https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/2/17070624/google-youtube-wi... Maybe you don't agree with those claims but please don't simply write off anything you don't like the sound of as trolling.

kortilla 7y ago

> tuned to err towards false negatives instead of false positives This is a lie perpetuated by googlers. That’s a false dichotomy. There is no evidence that their process reduces false positives. Pointing to a bunch of false negatives just means they have a process that produces a bunch of false negatives. For how smart googlers are purported to be, you would think they wouldn’t report such an obviously illogical statement.