5 ms·

...and diversity programs

by cm2187 6y ago

vkou 6y ago
Do you think it's acceptable for someone to circulate a manifesto that argues that conservatives are unlikely to make good engineers, because they are more authoritarian, and authoritarians are less creative, and are less likely to challenge the status quo? And propose some policy changes that the company should take in its outreach to, and hiring of conservatives? Even if it comes with citations to out-of-context, misunderstood, or under-reproduced political psychology studies (In addition to a complete misunderstanding of the criteria on which your own job is evaluated on)? I'll tell you what would happen if someone did that - the right wing media would have a field day with blasting both the author of such a manifesto, and the company that employs them. I understand that this is an uncomfortable topic for a lot of people, because it exposes a rather obvious double standard.
- SamReidHughes 6y ago
  Conservatives would trivially argue against such nonsense with facts and reality.
  - vkou 6y ago
    No, they wouldn't. Instead of wasting their energy on having to justify their existence, they'd rightly complain to HR that the manifesto author is creating a hostile, prejudiced work environment for them. And their media would back them up on this, while calling for the head of the author. You shouldn't have to fight to justify your right to work, when someone uses generalizations and statistics to call it into question. Do you disagree with this premise? If so, what if the facts happened to fall against your assumption? How are you so sure that facts and reality are on your side in this question? Are you an expert on the subject? What if the experts disagree with you? Do you then endorse the circulation of such a manifesto, because it's fact-backed?
    - prudhvis 6y ago
      I have yet to see conservatives cancel something in the last 12 years.
      - opnitro 6y ago
        I don't recall them treating Snowden particularly well
        klyrs 6y ago
        That one's got bipartisan support.
        opnitro 6y ago
        Unfortunately. Just an example. Gay/Trans rights would also be a good example.
      - tux1968 6y ago
        This really has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. It has to do with who is in power. When conservatives held the political reigns, they "cancelled" all marriages that didn't align with their traditional values. (for instance). We're faced with many more authoritarians of a leftist persuasion these days, but that doesn't mean conservatives have any fewer authoritarians in their ranks. It's a problem of constraining power in general.
        ojnabieoot 6y ago
        Man....... equivocating "being cancelled on Twitter because you said something misogynistic" with the pre-2005 reality of "same sex relationships will send you to jail in Oklahoma" is a profound lack of perspective, even by the standards of HN. "Cancellation" isn't censorship and it's certainly not a human rights violation. Get a grip.
        6y ago
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- zozbot234 6y ago
  > Do you think it's acceptable for someone to circulate a manifesto that argues that conservatives are unlikely to make good engineers, because they are more authoritarian, and authoritarians are less creative, and are less likely to challenge the status quo? The actual argument is that conservatives have lower Openness to Experience on average and they're thus less likely to be interested in working at a company like Google, that places such a high value on being open and stuff - this doesn't mean that Google is inherently ideological or biased against conservatives! It's an argument about people's individual interests and preferences, not skills or ability.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    Except for the parts that aren't that. Which I honestly can't think of an analogy for. If you're making that argument, don't go on a tangent about cultural marxism.
  - smabie 6y ago
    I dunno man, working at Google doesn't exactly sound like a place people go who are open to new experiences... It's like the most risk averse move a developer could possibly make.
- MattGaiser 6y ago
  The question is more whether Google would fire someone for circulating such a thing. Outsiders will always howl about something, but the interesting question to me is what Google would do.
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    In California, that could be interpreted as creating a hostile work environment (political affiliation is a protected class). In general, political affiliation is not a protected class, and employers are, in fact, allowed to fire people for being too Republican. Or too Democratic, for that matter.
  - vkou 6y ago
    Since it hasn't happened yet, that's not the correct question to ask. The correct question to ask is whether they should fire someone for circulating such a thing. I for one, believe that you shouldn't spend your time at work having to defend yourself against these sorts of attacks, regardless of whether you are a liberal, a conservative, a Martian, or a reptilian. As a consequence of the above, I believe that you shouldn't spend your time at work making these sorts of attacks. But, as we can see in this thread, this, strangely enough, seems to be an unpopular outlier of an opinion.
- golergka 6y ago
  Yes, it is. It's obvious bullshit, but I would always defend people's right to circulate any bullshit they want.
- ben509 6y ago
  > Do you think it's acceptable for someone to circulate a manifesto that argues that conservatives are unlikely to make good engineers, because they are more authoritarian, and authoritarians are less creative, and are less likely to challenge the status quo? Lefty shrinks churn out studies finding that conservatives are authoritarian, wet the bed, kick puppies, you name it, we've heard it all. So I doubt your premise since I've seen the reaction to this stuff being published, and it's usually more bemusement than anything else. But nothing Damore wrote was personally insulting to women like calling them "authoritarian." His larger point was that women have, in aggregate, different interests than men. Say, for the sake of argument, that there are some distinctly masculine priorities and distinctly feminine priorities. If so, our base assumption should be that they are equally morally valid. And there's plenty of evidence, e.g. college graduation rates, that professional women are somewhat more capable than men at identifying their interests and acting on them. That means that if men and women pursue occupations to different degrees, our default assumption should be that they're intelligent and capable and making decisions in their best interest, not that they're victims. That could all be true and it's still possible that engineering is an unfriendly climate for women. The hard fact is there used to be a lot more women programming and it declined in the '80s. But to whatever extent there's a real feminine preference, we ought to respect women expressing such a preference and not try to save them from it. > And propose some policy changes that the company should take in its outreach to, and hiring of conservatives? If, as Damore was, the manifesto is entirely supportive of the effort, it's hard to see why it would be unacceptable. If the company has set out to do a thing, and someone wants to help them do it, you can't fire them for that. > Even if it comes with citations to out-of-context, misunderstood, or under-reproduced political psychology studies No, you can't fire them for it even if they do poor work. Especially when, like Google, you still have trouble hiring as many women in engineering as you want. Damore's interpretation of the data may have been amateurish, but he's presenting some analysis that could be improved upon to figure out a better strategy to achieve those goals. You're claiming a double standard, but if Google was serious about employing more women, they'd act on these ideas, even if the action was to dig into them and say "nope, this stuff is wrong." Not fire the guy. The picture the firing of Damore paints is that Google was more interested in showing that they cared about hiring more women than actually succeeding in hiring more women. > I'll tell you what would happen if someone did that - the right wing media would have a field day with blasting both the author of such a manifesto, and the company that employs them. The right-wing media is as garbage as any other media. Even if the press were good, you've a cacophony of opinions, so you can't make them all happy. You're better off sticking up for your employees.
- Viliam1234 6y ago
  > Do you think it's acceptable for someone to circulate a manifesto that argues that conservatives are unlikely to make good engineers, because they are more authoritarian, and authoritarians are less creative, and are less likely to challenge the status quo? In academia, you could publicly collect signatures under such manifesto, and people would be afraid not to sign. In Google... dunno, someone has to try. Unless it already happened.

...and diversity programs

by cm2187 6y ago

...and diversity programs

vkou 6y ago

Do you think it's acceptable for someone to circulate a manifesto that argues that conservatives are unlikely to make good engineers, because they are more authoritarian, and authoritarians are less creative, and are less likely to challenge the status quo? And propose some policy changes that the company should take in its outreach to, and hiring of conservatives? Even if it comes with citations to out-of-context, misunderstood, or under-reproduced political psychology studies (In addition to a complete misunderstanding of the criteria on which your own job is evaluated on)? I'll tell you what would happen if someone did that - the right wing media would have a field day with blasting both the author of such a manifesto, and the company that employs them. I understand that this is an uncomfortable topic for a lot of people, because it exposes a rather obvious double standard.

SamReidHughes 6y ago
Conservatives would trivially argue against such nonsense with facts and reality.
- vkou 6y ago
  No, they wouldn't. Instead of wasting their energy on having to justify their existence, they'd rightly complain to HR that the manifesto author is creating a hostile, prejudiced work environment for them. And their media would back them up on this, while calling for the head of the author. You shouldn't have to fight to justify your right to work, when someone uses generalizations and statistics to call it into question. Do you disagree with this premise? If so, what if the facts happened to fall against your assumption? How are you so sure that facts and reality are on your side in this question? Are you an expert on the subject? What if the experts disagree with you? Do you then endorse the circulation of such a manifesto, because it's fact-backed?
  - prudhvis 6y ago
    I have yet to see conservatives cancel something in the last 12 years.
    - opnitro 6y ago
      I don't recall them treating Snowden particularly well
      - klyrs 6y ago
        That one's got bipartisan support.
        opnitro 6y ago
        Unfortunately. Just an example. Gay/Trans rights would also be a good example.
    - tux1968 6y ago
      This really has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. It has to do with who is in power. When conservatives held the political reigns, they "cancelled" all marriages that didn't align with their traditional values. (for instance). We're faced with many more authoritarians of a leftist persuasion these days, but that doesn't mean conservatives have any fewer authoritarians in their ranks. It's a problem of constraining power in general.
      - ojnabieoot 6y ago
        Man....... equivocating "being cancelled on Twitter because you said something misogynistic" with the pre-2005 reality of "same sex relationships will send you to jail in Oklahoma" is a profound lack of perspective, even by the standards of HN. "Cancellation" isn't censorship and it's certainly not a human rights violation. Get a grip.
        6y ago
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
zozbot234 6y ago
> Do you think it's acceptable for someone to circulate a manifesto that argues that conservatives are unlikely to make good engineers, because they are more authoritarian, and authoritarians are less creative, and are less likely to challenge the status quo? The actual argument is that conservatives have lower Openness to Experience on average and they're thus less likely to be interested in working at a company like Google, that places such a high value on being open and stuff - this doesn't mean that Google is inherently ideological or biased against conservatives! It's an argument about people's individual interests and preferences, not skills or ability.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  Except for the parts that aren't that. Which I honestly can't think of an analogy for. If you're making that argument, don't go on a tangent about cultural marxism.
- smabie 6y ago
  I dunno man, working at Google doesn't exactly sound like a place people go who are open to new experiences... It's like the most risk averse move a developer could possibly make.
MattGaiser 6y ago
The question is more whether Google would fire someone for circulating such a thing. Outsiders will always howl about something, but the interesting question to me is what Google would do.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  In California, that could be interpreted as creating a hostile work environment (political affiliation is a protected class). In general, political affiliation is not a protected class, and employers are, in fact, allowed to fire people for being too Republican. Or too Democratic, for that matter.
- vkou 6y ago
  Since it hasn't happened yet, that's not the correct question to ask. The correct question to ask is whether they should fire someone for circulating such a thing. I for one, believe that you shouldn't spend your time at work having to defend yourself against these sorts of attacks, regardless of whether you are a liberal, a conservative, a Martian, or a reptilian. As a consequence of the above, I believe that you shouldn't spend your time at work making these sorts of attacks. But, as we can see in this thread, this, strangely enough, seems to be an unpopular outlier of an opinion.
golergka 6y ago
Yes, it is. It's obvious bullshit, but I would always defend people's right to circulate any bullshit they want.
ben509 6y ago
> Do you think it's acceptable for someone to circulate a manifesto that argues that conservatives are unlikely to make good engineers, because they are more authoritarian, and authoritarians are less creative, and are less likely to challenge the status quo? Lefty shrinks churn out studies finding that conservatives are authoritarian, wet the bed, kick puppies, you name it, we've heard it all. So I doubt your premise since I've seen the reaction to this stuff being published, and it's usually more bemusement than anything else. But nothing Damore wrote was personally insulting to women like calling them "authoritarian." His larger point was that women have, in aggregate, different interests than men. Say, for the sake of argument, that there are some distinctly masculine priorities and distinctly feminine priorities. If so, our base assumption should be that they are equally morally valid. And there's plenty of evidence, e.g. college graduation rates, that professional women are somewhat more capable than men at identifying their interests and acting on them. That means that if men and women pursue occupations to different degrees, our default assumption should be that they're intelligent and capable and making decisions in their best interest, not that they're victims. That could all be true and it's still possible that engineering is an unfriendly climate for women. The hard fact is there used to be a lot more women programming and it declined in the '80s. But to whatever extent there's a real feminine preference, we ought to respect women expressing such a preference and not try to save them from it. > And propose some policy changes that the company should take in its outreach to, and hiring of conservatives? If, as Damore was, the manifesto is entirely supportive of the effort, it's hard to see why it would be unacceptable. If the company has set out to do a thing, and someone wants to help them do it, you can't fire them for that. > Even if it comes with citations to out-of-context, misunderstood, or under-reproduced political psychology studies No, you can't fire them for it even if they do poor work. Especially when, like Google, you still have trouble hiring as many women in engineering as you want. Damore's interpretation of the data may have been amateurish, but he's presenting some analysis that could be improved upon to figure out a better strategy to achieve those goals. You're claiming a double standard, but if Google was serious about employing more women, they'd act on these ideas, even if the action was to dig into them and say "nope, this stuff is wrong." Not fire the guy. The picture the firing of Damore paints is that Google was more interested in showing that they cared about hiring more women than actually succeeding in hiring more women. > I'll tell you what would happen if someone did that - the right wing media would have a field day with blasting both the author of such a manifesto, and the company that employs them. The right-wing media is as garbage as any other media. Even if the press were good, you've a cacophony of opinions, so you can't make them all happy. You're better off sticking up for your employees.
Viliam1234 6y ago
> Do you think it's acceptable for someone to circulate a manifesto that argues that conservatives are unlikely to make good engineers, because they are more authoritarian, and authoritarians are less creative, and are less likely to challenge the status quo? In academia, you could publicly collect signatures under such manifesto, and people would be afraid not to sign. In Google... dunno, someone has to try. Unless it already happened.