HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

> It was a hodgepodge of cherry picked science

Not all scientists would agree.

http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU

> motivated reasoning and slander against all of his female workers.

Only if you don't take what he says at face value and impute motivations which aren't directly stated in the text. The very need of this imputation to justify his treatment and the huge reaction, as well as the intellectually dishonest way in which the Google management and the left-leaning press engaged in hit pieces -- all of this smacks of ideological groupthink.

The very fact that people can reasonably disagree about the interpretation of the memo, contrasted with the outsized reaction are pretty damning.

Here's a feminist who disagrees with Damore's position in his memo, who lays out a cogent argument for why he's wrong, and there is systemic bias, but who thinks the reaction was a "little off,"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIRvtA2JIIA

Also, note that my position is that there is also some cultural bias in the programming field -- as a field. (Hackers in the HN sense have model train clubs as their cultural forebears.) However, this doesn't preclude that women within our current cultural context may well decide not to become programmers for their own reasons, and that some of this motivation may be correlated with their gender -- without there being systemic bias within hiring organizations.

> This is why I dislike Damore. I don't care what his manifesto says ... Playing games is pathetic, dude.

Well, according to his statement he was a top performer at Google, so we can assume he was not afraid of being replaced by a woman. Besides he just started a discussion in a response to, according to him, shady moves in regards of equality performed by Google.

It is worth to listen to the other side: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU

I watched some youtube interviews of him, one on Bloomberg where he seemed pretty nervous and not as articulate or as relaxed as on this longer interview https://youtu.be/SEDuVF7kiPU with some Canadian professor who apparently has a bad rap of his own. Still an interesting discussion with some odd 3rd party alternate Googler in the background who speaks up every now and then but who has an obscure role in the context of the overall discussion. I was pretty curious too who this fella was that stirred up the hornet's nest.

I disagree. He mentioned in an interview[1] that he was looking to be proven wrong which is what led him to share it with the Skeptics group at Google, which is when the document propagated. He had actually wrote the document weeks prior but was unsatisfied with the lack of discussion on his document.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU

⬐ kristianc

That seems an odd approach tbh. Many 'Skeptics' groups (Skeptic / Rationalist YouTube) online at least would agree with his reasoning. It strikes me as odd that he was seeking to take down an ideological echo chamber but published it initially in the echo chamber most likely to agree with him.

⬐ Moshe_Silnorin

The skeptic tribe is extremely politicly polarized.

⬐ emsy

Scepticism is a methodology, not a political group. I think it just looks that way because the term has been kind of hijacked by anti-regressives.

⬐ sudojudo

> hijacked by anti-regressives

Would someone please explain what this means, wouldn't an anti-regressive be a progressive? If so, why not state it that way?

Also, I thought the term "skeptic" had been hijacked by conspiracy wackos. When I think of a classic skeptic, I look to James Randi and the like; critical thinkers who expose quackery. But, for the last 15-20 years, conspiracy theorists have taken the term over (e.g. vaccine/climate/GMO skeptics). I fall into the Randi group of skeptics, but I sure as hell don't describe myself using that word, for fear of being lumped in with the second lot.

Real skeptics tend to be progressive, conspiracy skeptics tend to be regressive.

Based on the spelling, I'll assume emsy is a Brit... maybe things are different over there, but Randi was always more popular in England than in the US. I'm missing something.

⬐ flukus

> Would someone please explain what this means, wouldn't an anti-regressive be a progressive?

Kind of, but just like skeptic the word "progressive" was hijacked by groups like BLM that started advocating for things like a return to segregation.

I used to be happy to call myself a skeptic and a progressive, but that was 10 years ago when the world made more sense.

⬐ emsy

I'm German. The skeptics I were talking about and presumably the comment I answered on, were the YouTube skeptics. What I meant with anti-regressive was that these skeptics mostly tackle so-called progressives that use racism and sexism for their arguments or policies.

I've never heard the conspiracy theorists called skeptics, so I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.

⬐ sudojudo

Thanks for clearing it up. It looks like certain groups are using terms in ways that I'm not accustomed to.

Now I need new words. Damned kids and your identity politics!

⬐ thinkfurther

> That seems an odd approach tbh.

If that's odd, then what is firing just to prove him right?

⬐ kristianc

> If that's odd, then what is firing just to prove him right?

Google is a company with shareholders and P/L. It's not a thought experiment, a family, a social commons, or a debating society. It exists to make money.

Google took the decision to fire him based on what was likely to create a conducive atmosphere for its workers.

His memo, however construed, made it likely that he could no longer be able to contribute as effectively to some teams.

Google's responsibility to Damore begins and ends at their mutual alignment of economic interests.

⬐ thinkfurther

> Google took the decision to fire him based on what was likely to create a conducive atmosphere for its workers.

They did the opposite, someone said it's not okay to shame people into silence, and then they did just that.

> made it likely that he could no longer be able to contribute as effectively to some teams.

What does "as effectively" mean? What are "some teams"? If someone sweats a lot, and a million other things, the above would also be technically true. Or hey, if a company fired someone over something like this. That will make a lot of bright people, both male and female, think twice before even giving Google a consideration.

> Google's responsibility to Damore begins and ends at their mutual alignment of economic interests.

It's not about responsibility to him, but about their responsibility for themselves to not shit the bed like they did.

⬐ kristianc

Then Google's calculus is simply different to yours. For what its worth, I don't think Google's response to this is going to have a significant impact on Google's ability to hire talented people, or that white, heterosexual, cisgendered people are going to feel that their opportunities at Google are likely to be curtailed. Females, I would say, or any other minority within Google, are even less likely to.

Amazon attracts talented staff despite a widespread perception that it's a hellhole to work at (https://www.theverge.com/2015/8/15/9159309/you-probably-dont...). Google, to most people, will continue to represent a dream job.

⬐ thinkfurther

> Amazon attracts talented staff

Yet you don't know if they would have even more talented staff being more decent. They're by definition stuck with what they can get.

⬐ bkirkby

His first group he sent it to was a diversity group. I think it reasonable that a skeptic group who, ostensibly, would side with reason would be a next logical step.

⬐ andrewingram

Yes, even if they agreed with the echo chamber idea on the whole, they'd still seek to point out flaws and fallacies in his arguments.

How often is that post going to be bandied about as The Final Truth??

1. "Argues for biologically determined sex differences...

Not really. Argues that we can't rule out biologically influenced differences.

2. "fails to understand the current state of research "

Well, there's a whole bunch of researchers who disagree with that.

3. "argues cognitive sex differences influence performance"

Nope. Argues there are differences in preferences that come out at the population level.

3a) "in software engineering, but presents no supporting evidence"

Sort of true. It doesn't present evidence for performance differences, because it doesn't make that claim. It presents evidence for differences in preference, which is that it does claim

4. "fails to acknowledge ways in which sex differences violate the narrative of female inferiority;"

I don't even know what that is supposed to mean.

5. "assumes effective meritocracy"

Nope. See above about preference vs. ability. In fact, does quite the opposite, by assuming preferences and not abilities are often a stronger influence.

6. "makes repugnant attacks on compassion and empathy"

COMPLETELY WRONG. It references a plea for compassion instead of empathy, because empathy leads to bad outcomes, Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion by Paul Bloom:

  "Brilliantly argued, urgent and humane, AGAINST EMPATHY shows us that, when it comes to both major policy decisions and the choices we make in our everyday lives, limiting our impulse toward empathy is often the most compassionate choice we can make."  -- https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29100194-against-empathy

7. "contains hints of racism"

Huh? Where?

8. "paradoxically insists that authoritarianism be treated as a valid moral dimension"

Huh? Where?

8a. "whilst firmly rejecting any diversity-motivated strategy that might remotely approach it"

Huh? He says that diversity programs at Google aren't working and he wants to replace them with ones that he thinks have a better chance of working.

9. "ultimately advocates rejecting all morality insofar as it might compromise the interests of a group."

Huh? He thinks the current programs are immoral and ineffective and makes a moral argument for replacing them.

So complete and utter BS.

And of course there are quite a few scientists who completely agree with him:

http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU

And more. And unlike here, they don't cite pop-sci books as evidence.

⬐ mcguire

http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-...

There, we find

* Lee Jussim, whose blog posts on similar issues have been quoted about as many times as Suzanne Sadedin's Quora answer.

* David P Schmitt, who writes,

"But it is not clear to me how such sex differences are relevant to the Google workplace. And even if sex differences in negative emotionality were relevant to occupational performance..., the size of these negative emotion sex differences is not very large (typically, ranging between “small” to “moderate” in statistical effect size terminology; accounting for less than 10% of the variance). So, using someone’s biological sex to essentialize an entire group of people’s personality would be like operating with an axe. Not precise enough to do much good, probably will cause a lot of harm. Moreover, men are more emotional than women in certain ways, too. Sex differences in emotion depend on the type of emotion, how it is measured, where it is expressed, when it is expressed, and lots of other contextual factors.

"As to sex differences in mate preferences and status-seeking, these topics also have been heavily researched across cultures.... Again, though, most of these sex differences are moderate in size and in my view are unlikely to be all that relevant to the Google workplace.... Sex differences in occupational interests, personal values, and certain cognitive abilities are a bit larger in size..., but most psychological sex differences are only small to moderate in size, and rather than grouping men and women into dichotomous groups, I think sex and sex differences are best thought of scientifically as multidimensional dials, anyway....

"Now, treating people as dichotomous sexes is exactly what many affirmative action policies do. As this is not my area of expertise, I can only offer my non-expert opinion on this issue, which is this: There have been (and likely will continue to be) many socio-structural barriers to women working in technological jobs. These include culturally-embedded gender stereotypes, biased socialization practices, in some cultures explicit employment discrimination, and a certain degree of masculinization of technological workplaces. Within this sea of gender bias, should Google use various practices...to especially encourage capable women of joining (and enjoying) the Google workplace? I vote yes. At the same time, should we be able to openly discuss and be informed by some of the real psychological sex differences that might account for variation in men’s and women’s workplace performance? In the right context, I vote yes to that, too."

* Geoffrey Miller, who seems to fundamentally miss the point:

"So, psychological interchangeability makes diversity meaningless. But psychological differences make equal outcomes impossible. Equality or diversity. You can’t have both.

"Weirdly, the same people who advocate for equality of outcome in every aspect of corporate life, also tend to advocate for diversity in every aspect of corporate life. They don’t even see the fundamentally irreconcilable assumptions behind this ‘equality and diversity’ dogma."

(I'll just point out that Google has essentially interviewed its way through the entire cadre of computer science graduates from the last couple of decades. The idea that it may want to increase the size of its candidate pool makes a certain amount of business sense on its own.)

* Debra W Soh, who I am having a bit of trouble understanding:

"Within the field of neuroscience, sex differences between women and men—when it comes to brain structure and function and associated differences in personality and occupational preferences—are understood to be true, because the evidence for them (thousands of studies) is strong. This is not information that’s considered controversial or up for debate; if you tried to argue otherwise, or for purely social influences, you’d be laughed at.

"Sex researchers recognize that these differences are not inherently supportive of sexism or stratifying opportunities based on sex. It is only because a group of individuals have chosen to interpret them that way, and to subsequently deny the science around them, that we have to have this conversation at a public level."

(The group of individuals who have chosen to interpret sex differences as "inherently supportive of sexism or stratifying opportunities based on sex" is quite large, really.)

Thanks for the link!

⬐ mpweiher

> Lee Jussim ...quoted many times

Yes, because what he writes is very relevant. Und seems to be backed up by a lot of research, including his own on Stereotype Accuracy.

And also includes research that shows "brilliant" women don't choose STEM because they are, on average, more capable than the men who go into STEM.

> David P Schmitt

> should we be able to openly discuss and be informed by some of the real psychological sex differences that might account for variation in men’s and women’s workplace performance?

> Geoffrey Miller, who seems to fundamentally miss the point:

How so?

The fact that "we must have diversity because there are (useful) differences" is irreconcilable with "there are no differences" should be trivial and uncontroversial.

> Debra W Soh, who I am having a bit of trouble understanding:

What's difficult to understand?

If you tried to argue for purely social influence, you'd be laughed at.

> "inherently supportive of sexism or stratifying opportunities based on sex" is quite large,

Who, where?

> Thanks for the link

You're welcome.

There were actually two links, the other is to Jordan Peterson's interview, where he says that James "got the science correct" and who also provides tons and tons of links to relevant research, for anyone who actually wants to inform themselves.

  I have to admit I found the nuanced views expressed by multiple people a lot more convincing than the largely uninformed rant (at least wrt. to the contents of the memo) in the Quora post. YMMV

I'm not an expert on the subject. However, in his interview with Jordan Peterson [0], whom AFAIK is an expert on the field, the following claim was made: "I would like to state for the record that I believe that what you said in there, if not accurate, was at least representative of the current state of the art among well-trained psychometrically informed psychologists who are experts in the field of individual difference."

Peterson points out a few issues in his writeup as they go over it. Considering the author of the memo is not an expert, I think it's reasonable to be a bit more charitable with his writeup.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU

Yeesh, this guy seems to lack a sense of proportion.

I watched part of his interview with Jordan Peterson [0] and I was struck by how naive and reactionary he seemed to be. For example, he talks about how he was inspired to write his memo after going to one of Google's "diversity summits". He tells Peterson that the summit was "unrecorded and super-secret", which made him uncomfortable because other meetings/discussions at Google are open and recorded [1].

I worked at a past company in which we were mandated (I believe it might have been part of complying with to California law [2]) to do training that involved talking about diversity. It was also unrecorded, and for good reason. Part of the session included a group discussion about stereotypes and beliefs about diversity and other cultures, and the moderator asked us to be honest. Some people said things that would be considered very offensive (both with and without context) in airing their reservations about diversity and harassment. They would never have been open and honest and said those things in a session that was recorded.

I've never worked at Google so I don't know how their diversity summits are recorded. But it's possible that what Damore sees as a secretive conspiracy was actually meant to be good practice when fostering honest internal discussions. The fact that he sees what he allegedly suffered as even remotely analogous to a Soviet gulag makes me give him less benefit of the doubt.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU&feature=youtu.be...

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU&feature=youtu.be...

[2] http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU

Here's the video of the interview.

It wasn't even meant for the entire company. He gave it to a small community of people within Google who later distributed it across the company AFAIU from his interview with Jordan Peterson (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU).

⬐ timgrahamtech

It's just my opinion that you shouldn't post anything to Facebook that you want to keep private. Likewise I think he should have figured that anyone in the company could gain access to that board and that what he posted could be circulated. I think he knew that he was taking the role of Martin Luther and nailing his complaints to the door. But that's just my opinion.

So why all the downvotes? Aren't the people downvoting me the sames ones that say this guy should be free to express his opinion?

It seems that if someone disagrees on this forum, the response is to shutdown the conversation with downvotes. Are people so afraid of an actual discussion with dissenting opinions that they'll commit the same actions they're criticizing in others?

TL;DR version, James Damore works for Google, researches scientific sources for gender definitions. Compiles each definition and factor into a document that uses neutral third party citations and peer review to back up his citations.

Gets fired over SJW Politics, accusing him of making gender stereotypes by people using politics, culture, society for gender definitions, Google panics over the protesters, feminists, social justice warriors, etc upset over the document and under pressure fire James Damore.

He was not a shitty or toxic employee, he was assigned to do scientific research on genders and compile it into a document using scientific proof.

https://youtu.be/SEDuVF7kiPU

Look at the full text of that video to see the links cited:

Published on Aug 9, 2017 James Demore of Google recently wrote a memo detailing his thoughts about Google's various diversity initiatives. Inside the company, and then outside, it went viral. He lost his job, in consequence: for "perpetuating gender stereotypes." The problem is that everything James claimed is solidly backed by well-developed scientific literatures. Thus, the company that is arguably in charge of more of the world's communication than any other has now fired a promising engineer for stating a series of established scientific truths.

That's worth thinking about.

In this full 50 minute interview, James and I discuss his motivations, and the consequences of his actions. We are joined (audio only) by another Google employee who wishes, for obvious reasons, to remain anonymous.

A fund-raiser for James has been established, here: https://www.wesearchr.com/bounties/ja... Here are a series of references buttressing each and every claim James made in his memo, which has been erroneously deemed pseudo-scientific (full papers linked where possible):

Sex differences in personality: http://bit.ly/2gJVmEp http://bit.ly/2vEKTUx

Larger/large and stable sex differences in more gender-neutral countries: (Note: these findings runs precisely and exactly contrary to social constructionist theory: thus, it's been tested, and it's wrong). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1... http://bit.ly/2uoY9c4

(Women's) interest in things vs (men's) interest in things: http://bit.ly/2wtlbzU http://bit.ly/2fsq7Ru

The importance of exposure to sex-linked steroids on fetal and then lifetime development: http://bit.ly/2vP0ZLS

Exposure to prenatal testosterone and interest in things (even when the exposure is among females): http://bit.ly/2wI28RE

Primarily biological basis of personality sex differences: http://bit.ly/2vmtSMs http://bit.ly/2uoPzy0

Status and sex: males and females http://bit.ly/2uoWkMh http://bit.ly/2uoIOw8 http://bit.ly/2vNzcL6 To quote de Bruyn et al (first reference on status and sex, above): high status predicts more mating opportunities and, thus, increased reproductive success. “This is true for human adults in many cultures, both ‘modern’ as well as ‘primitive’ (Betzig, 1986). In fact, this theory seems to be confirmed for non-human primates (Cheney, 1983; Cowlishaw and Dunbar, 1991; Dewsbury, 1982; Gray, 1985; Maslow, 1936) and other animals from widely differing ecologies (Ellis, 1995) such as squirrels (Farentinos, 1972), cockerels (Kratzer and Craig, 1980), and cockroaches (Breed, Smith, and Gall, 1980).” Status also increases female reproductive success, via a different pathway: “For females, it is generally argued that dominance is not necessarily a path to more copulations, as it is for males. It appears that important benefits bestowed upon dominant women are access to resources and less harassment from rivals (Campbell, 2002). Thus, dominant females tend to have higher offspring survival rates, at least among simians (Pusey, Williams, and Goodall, 1997); thus, dominance among females also appears to be linked to reproductive success.”

Personality and political belief http://bit.ly/2hJ1Kjb http://bit.ly/2fsxIzB http://bit.ly/2fsILJd http://bit.ly/2uoPS87 http://bit.ly/2ftDhOq Conscientiousness associated with conservatism; neuroticism and agreeableness with liberalism: http://bit.ly/2wHNA4r

Occupations by gender: https://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/occ_gend...

Problems with the measurement and concept of unconscious bias: http://bit.ly/2vGzhQP http://bit.ly/2vQuwEP (this one is particularly damning)

⬐ orionblastar

OK it looks like there is a biological factor to gender based on DNA and genes. There is also a social aspect of gender that creates gender identity roles.

I think the social aspect should be called gender identity, and the science/biological gender be called biological gender. That way they don't get confused.

I've tried to ask for scientific proof of all of the different genders and got voted down anywhere I asked. I was told that gender is a social construct, etc.

So this is something that has scientific and social aspects to it, and gender is more complex than a simple black and white model, as these new social roles of gender is a spectrum of grays or colors.

There was a discussion on HN about a list of genders, and I collected from Facebook and other sources to make this list: https://github.com/orionblastar/genderdata

Over 150+ genders that people identify as hope I did not miss any. Feel free to email me or add to the repository via forking and pushing.

⬐ closeparen

The social/biological separation has existed for a while. The social version is called gender, the biological view is called sex.

⬐ tschwimmer

How do you curate a list like this? #4 is 'Apache Helicopter' which is the subject of a well-known copypasta. 'Dickbutt' and 'The Artist Formerly Known as Prince' seem suspect as well.

⬐ orionblastar

If I remove them, then people will give me trouble for removing them, or not adding them in the first place.

I asked for scientific proof of each gender, but apparently, there is none. Since it is a social construct, I am told that those names are legit for genders, and apparently, some Redditors made some names that should not have gone in, but if I didn't add them I'd be doxed, etc. It is also a way to find out of someone stole the list, that is the way the Trivial Pursuit people did by adding questions with wrong answers, etc.

⬐ 13124452

ah yes, those famous evolutionary biological factors diminishing womens' interest in computers that only started showing up right around 1985 and didn't proportionately affect any other field for some reason since computer science is completely unique in its demands on the female brain.

[1] https://i.imgur.com/pkZPrOI.png

⬐ orionblastar

I think 1985 is the golden age of the 8 bit home computer from Atari and Commodore to dump the main computer on the market for under $300 or $200 and make up for it by selling disk drives, etc at a higher cost. The Apple //c and IBM PCjr came out around the same time. Marketed to boys and not girls. Something to do with video games in the mid1970s that fueled the race to make an 8 bit home computer, or rather a cheaper home computer than the rest.

I talked to some women who grew up in that era, most of them claim teachers, leaders, etc told them they could not do math science as well as boys to get into liberal arts instead of computer science, etc. Somehow the education system pushed the females away from computer science and pushed boys towards computer science as well.

Computer Science used to be dominated by women in the 1950s and 1960s. Let me cite the website your image comes from so we can get a background on it:

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-...

There are other sources to consider: https://www.goodcall.com/news/women-in-computer-science-0982...

https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/519426/how-did-tech-...

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/what-happened-all-w...

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/computer-programmin...

https://readwrite.com/2014/09/02/women-in-computer-science-w...

When you look at it in black and white as males and females, you are considered to be a bigot or sexist by SJWs. There is this gender studies thing that says gender is a social construct, etc which just clobbered Google and James Damore. In a way this is politics, culture, and society trying to push back against white males that dominate STEM and Computer Science etc. Of course the same people who want all of the other genders having these good paying jobs don't understand that males study computers, programming, technology in the same way females and others study fashion, social skills, makeup tips, clothing, etc.

Most males just wear a jeans and t-shirt and then tennis shoes. Albert Einstien used to say picking each clothes every day is a waste of time, so he had many copies of the same suits and clothes so he didn't have to choose each day. Males shower, go to the bathroom, and shave and brush teeth in 15 minutes in the morning, and females and other genders have to pick clothes, apply makeup, comb hair, use toilet, shower, brush teeth, and other stuff that may take over an hour. This is due to what society claims males and females (and others) have to do to get their looks, culture, social roles, etc. So it is a male dominated society run by females?

Well anyway, we have to find a way to encourage females and other non-male, non-binary, etc genders to study computer science the way males study it. It is a lot of work, and heavily in politics, culture, society, etc.

(WTH? I'm voted down for citing links on the subject and giving facts?)

⬐ EdSharkey

There's a campaign on to kill this story. You got downvoted because you cared enough to write a lot. Don't take it personal, there are powerful agendas at stake here.

⬐ orionblastar

I'm trying to get equality for genders, and find proof and examples as to why some genders don't do as well in computer science as others.

My intent was to help educate and start a discussion on it. Apparently, there is strong political kung-fu here or something.

⬐ EdSharkey

I think Damore is an idealistic (and touchingly sweet, in a way) guy for believing in his company enough to make a reasoned argument regarding such supercharged issues as gender and diversity at a big corporation, Google or otherwise. If you watch the video, you can see what a lamb he is.

It's no surprise he got the axe; there would be no tolerance nor appetite for his scientific conclusions at any large company.

⬐ 13124452

I'm sorry but "scientific" is a pretty big exaggeration here even from a purely methodological standpoint. the dude does start out trying to support some of his assertions (albeit seriously misrepresenting at least one of his sources and using others that are literally Experimental Design 101 textbook examples of how not to run experiments) which I guess could be construed that way, but he then supplies no evidence for his conclusions. Note the almost complete lack of citations or experimental support in the "Suggestions" section pointing to studies showing his ideas would positively impact the problems he claims to care about, the lack of any sort of failure-analysis or exploration of alternatives or discussion outside of the thesis of his argument. he just states some premises and jumps to a list of unsupported and barely related conclusions. this can hardly be read as anything other than a list of political grievances and I don't understand why people keep describing this as if it were some sort of scientific endeavor.

⬐ EdSharkey

Oh yeah, by the way 865356743, legit news agencies are citing THIS video. Gotta kill this story now, right?! Can you somehow get this video censored for 'insensitive' speech?

Get your employers down at YouTube to move the video to an unreachable place - call that place a gulag -- no, no, call it a video Goolag! Haha, that would be perfect.

⬐ EdSharkey

Fascinating. Did you watch the entire linked video on this story? In the video description, there are quite a few scientific studies linked that back up Damore's views. But I'm sure you've got some FUD for me on that video as well.

I can do FUD, too. Watch this! Hey 46775335788, what's got you running damage control so hard on this story that you'd reply to some schmoe who top posted on a page 3 (doomed) New story? A paycheck perhaps?

What an interesting comment history your throwaway account has - first post on this New story, eh throwaway?

⬐ 13124452

"there are quite a few scientific studies linked"

to support the premises maybe, but even then the conclusions are still largely unrelated to the premises and unsupported by any of the studies cited. I don't see anything particularly hackerly about defending bad attempts at science and have been continually attacked for this opinion for some reason I'm sure has nothing to do with people on both sides ignoring scientific procedure when it comes to either of their political interests.

⬐ EdSharkey

> and have been continually attacked for this opinion for some reason I'm sure has nothing to do with people on both sides ignoring scientific procedure when it comes to either of their political interests.

I love this. You're being attacked because we think you're siding with the fascists. When you get fired for your speech and pilloried in the town square, come talk to me about your victim status.

⬐ EdSharkey

You disagree with the conclusions, what a surprise. News flash: your passionate disagreement doesn't make you right or lend you any moral superiority.

You want to attempt superiority? How about choose a conclusion from the doc or the video and make your case. Are you purely agenda-fueled? Do you have the best interests of the future of Google and Google culture at heart? How the hell should I know, all you've done is throw shade.

Or is being reasonable not required in your case?

I highly, highly recommend watching Damore's interview with Jordan Peterson.

I am starting to think that Damore might be on the right side of all of this.

https://youtu.be/SEDuVF7kiPU

⬐ jshevek

Here is a transcript, for anyone interested:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1exNF3d5wjzr33aLEQkbdKx5V...

⬐ jshevek

Yes, that was a good interview. Much better than the interview with the other guy, mentioned in this article.

Why is everyone appealing to emotions and producing red herrings?

No one refers to any points other than those which they interpret to be oppressive and offensive (mostly points having to do with female/male differences which are real and exist). The hypothesis put out are there to further the discussion, not to be taken as facts (there are words like "may", "in part" all over the place yet we interpret "may" as "is", and "in part" as "mostly").

What about Google's unscientific, hidden, irrational methods of fixing bias?

Unconscious bias training is unscientific yet they practice it. It does not work, or at worst it is harmful. Facebook does it too.

These methods come from one of the hardest fields of science - psychology. We know how much the studies aren't reproducible, repeatable, some results even depend on time (more known the methods the less they work).

Why is no one looking at those points?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU

Watched the interview above and cannot believe how media and almost every individual responding put this individual in some kind of aggressive, oppressive, racist frame.

Given the peer-reviewed sources in the video description of the interview no one sane enough could believe that the guy was being malevolent.

The real guilt goes to the leaker, the dramatizer and the reactionist.

I'm officially stopping with the tracking of this topic. It frustrates me that so many brilliant individuals become ideologues and witch hunters incapable of continuing the discussion. It saddens me that "discussion" has turned into calling this an "anti-diversity" memo and silencing.

First, see Jordan Peterson's interview with James Damore, where he goes through the memo almost line-by-line.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU&spfreload=10

Second, he doesn't say that "female attributes/desires are not as compatible with tech jobs", at least not as you define them.

These are his suggestions for improving diversity:

"Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things ○ We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles at Google can be and we shouldn't deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this). ● Women on average are more cooperative ○ Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there's more we can do. "

You are saying this is already the case at your workplace. Awesome, you already have what he suggests. Why is what he suggest wrong-headed??

⬐ None

None

⬐ gthtjtkt

> Second, he doesn't say that "female attributes/desires are not as compatible with tech jobs", at least not as you define them.

But that's what I read in all the Tweets! Are you telling me their self-righteous outrage was really just opportunistic moral grandstanding!? It can't be true!

/s

Seriously, these people are all just proving his point. Ignore the facts, call him sexist, get him fired, then move on to the next target.

⬐ seaknoll

I'm saying that IMO, the very nature of the job is compatible with the traits that he says are more common in women. I don't think that my company is an outlier here.

James's memo is a lot better argued, more nuanced and fair than this collection of personal opinions, bald assertions, non-sequiturs and inane hypotheticals.

See Jordan Peterson's interview with James Damore, where he goes through the memo almost line-by-line.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU&spfreload=10

Here's the full interview[1] - the above comment linked a shortened version.

For reference, this is Dr. Jordan Peterson, the University of Toronto professor who was fired a few months ago for his stance on using gender pronouns. He's a strong proponent of free speech, which he touches on in this discussion.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU

⬐ hefty

> was fired a few months ago for his stance on using gender pronouns.

He wasn't fired. The university sent him two warning letters and then backed down from taking any action. He's still teaching psychology there.

Maybe the link should be changed, as the text under the video reads:

"IF you have come here, go here instead: https://youtu.be/SEDuVF7kiPU

The video here is incomplete."

⬐ generic_user

Thats fine by me, but the mods will have to do it. Thanks for posting the new link.

⬐ mizzack

There is another post that links to the complete interview:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14971248

⬐ slackstation

Everyone thinks that in the case of Galileo vs the Church, they would have had the reason to see that Galileo was right and the Church was wrong because they objectively looked at the facts.

The reality is that most people go with the majority opinion even when the facts go against them.

The memo was lambasted in the media and I didn't really read it and I myself thought that it was hair-brained and while it might have some kernels of facts or link to some sources, it was highly opinionated and the screed of a misogynist. I believed this because EVERYONE was saying this.

Watching this video, I was wrong, way wrong. The only way to know for sure was to read the thing. If I had, I would have seen it and had my opinion changed.

So few people actually read the memo. The science used to back it's claims is roughly and mainly solid evidence. It asks for a conversation.

Any time you have people using morality to object to repeatable scientific literature and shut down a conversation even before it can start, you have to notice and question it. The people against even discussing this topic are more like the Anti-Vaxxers than they would like to admit. The see their kids with incurable, terrible afflictions and are looking for something, anything to blame.

Human nature took millions of years to evolve to what we see today in an environment that was far different from our own. We accept that humans sitting and typing all day will get backpain and maybe carpal-tunnel syndrome. Yet, we somehow thing that millions of years of sexual selection for different features between the genders would yield different biology, that could lead to different biases toward occupations and reaction to stimuli?

I don't presume to have an answer but, I think it's a perfectly reasonable line of questioning, especially if there is relevant, well regarded research on the topic. What people are afraid of is the outcome.

Google specifically and tech in general tend to select for the top percentile in specific dimensions. If there is any differences between groups, that top percentile will show it to an extreme degree. It isn't hard to imagine that might be partially the cause of what is going on. Furthermore, societies and social norms form around patterns that are in the environment already. Social norms and competition in the environment that those social norms create can reinforce those social norms to work against outside or atypical competitors in those social environments.

⬐ Aron

Maybe it's one thing that the more concerning elements of the left are aggregated into certain universities, but it is something else to also exist in the services and companies most everyone relies on (and that has control over their information flow).

I'd like to see more of what Google is learning from this incident from either the 'diversity director' or the CEO directly. Getting employee culture all together and efficiently cooperating is theoretically one of the highest priorities of the top management and why they get paid ridiculous sums of money. Although I guess it's fine they do most of that work out of public eye, the very public perception is a big part of it (and recruiting and customer relations etc).

Also, I was glad to find I was right that James Damore had been listening a lot to Jordan Peterson but I had to wait until the end of the interview just to get my 'I WAS RIGHT!' moment.

⬐ galacticpony2

> Maybe it's one thing that the more concerning elements of the left are aggregated into certain universities, but it is something else to also exist in the services and companies most everyone relies on (and that has control over their information flow).

Well, where do you suppose all these students go to, once they leave college? Many of them end up in leading positions of HR, management, marketing and media. They are a cultural elite.

Meanwhile, the STEM people end up mostly as cogs in the machine. They generally don't become influencers beyond the confines of their particular field.

Ironically, the same people arguing for freedom of enterprise might be the ones needing worker protection laws for freedom of conscience.

⬐ Aron

> Ironically, the same people arguing for freedom of enterprise might be the ones needing worker protection laws for freedom of conscience.

Can you spell that out for me? I think you mean that the 'keep business free from government' leaning types might need protection from government from those businesses to avoid being punished for their very work-related ideas. I suspect if this was your argument that most of such people would continue to believe that the workplace was where to fight it out, likely by efforts to get themselves into better positions of power or otherwise simply winning.

⬐ galacticpony2

I'm not saying they'd need to change their beliefs, I'm just pointing out the irony.

⬐ galacticpony2

Of course Google throws their employees under the bus for the sake of defending their "diversity" facade.

Thanks James, for being the canary in the goldmine.

⬐ None

None

⬐ pottersbasilisk

This should be a forced watch before people are allowed to comment on James and the google memo!

⬐ manbearpigg

Why is Google pandering to the social justice left? I thought they were a loud and insane minority. Is fake racism, sexism etc mainstream now on the left? Was Trump's election not a big enough wake up call?

⬐ where_do_i_live

I watched this interview just a bit ago, and it gave me a better understanding of what James' was trying to articulate. After like 5 days of confusion about the memo, the outrage, and now the firing - I think I can come to a conclusion that he is firstly, not sexist, and secondly is a proponent of equal treatment of both men an women. And thirdly wanted an honest discussion on this topic.

I do think it will come to pass that Google will lose a unlawful termination lawsuit (or settle)

This engineer was further, exploring the question in what appears to be a very scientific manner based on the latest academic research into these questions, as best as I can discern that appears accurate.

This entire conversation is tainted by so many numerous other items that it is almost impossible to discuss without bringing in emotion, tangential arguments, anecdotes, and just random statements. This really is a category 5 hurricane of our current political/cultural battles brought to light.

I'm coming from a very liberal perspective, and I found it really hard to agree with others on how this is a very sexist memo. It appears that this young man is truly trying to explore the nature of these issues, and how it applied to his former company - who ostensibly wanted to encourage curiosity and a range of discussion.

I often find myself very upset at the fringe right for many of their ideas, but I've usually treated the far left (are they fringe now?) as more just annoying and irrelevant and harmless (the anti-vaxxers(maybe not harmless here), safe space, microaggression proponents) I really think the loose liberal group - that I self select to be a member of - really screwed the pooch on this one. This whole debacle does appear to be a rush to judgement and virtue-signaling. Ugh - I'm not usually on the side of the alt-right/conservatives, but on the merits of this issue - there is a point they are making that is important. HOWEVER and this is important - all the other awful truly sexist and misogynist things that is part of the alt-right is detestable, but as famously said elsewhere - This is not the droid you are looking for.

⬐ galacticpony2

It's not news though. I've positioned myself squarely on "the left" without much of a thought before the Brendan Eich case. Then I discovered that "the left" has no intellectual integrity whatsoever. The dishonesty has become unbearable. They turn you into a straw man and then ostracize you, just like a cult. You have to constantly police your own thought, lest you say something that can be used against you in the worst possible way, by someone who doesn't like you. It's "orwellian" in every sense of the word.

⬐ Boothroid

I couldn't agree more. It used to seem like the left was more scrupulous but as I get older I wonder whether that was just youthful naivety. Certainly they seem to have abandoned their scruples these days.

⬐ Goladus

A minor nitpick, I would say that the main difference between what's happening now and the Orwellian model is that the coercive pressure for maintaining ideological conformity is mostly not government power (yet, in the US). Instead, it's corporate and similar organization power (such the organizing board of a popular conference).

⬐ Boothroid

No doubt the US govt has its levers to pull in media and business. And I venture that as regards our use of the term Orwellian Orwell was discursive of power in general, rather than governmental power in the specific.

⬐ galacticpony2

When people say "orwellian", they're often thinking "1984".

I'm thinking "Animal Farm". It's a process, a takeover of the mind. It doesn't start with government and doesn't end at government.

To be fair, it's not "orwellian" in literally every sense of the word, that was just a figure of speech.

⬐ Goladus

Some smart people think that you may be more right than I realized: https://blog.simplejustice.us/2017/08/10/walter-olson-a-circ...

Effectively they're saying that the "Hostile Work Environment" clause is used to pressure corporations to limit speech of their employees. Evidence also suggests enforcement is ideologically biased.

⬐ cSoze

If only he was "exploring the question in what appears to be a very scientific manner based on the latest academic research into these questions". The FIRST warning sign to anyone reading his manifesto should have been how woefully undercited it was. He revealed that he really doesn't understand, much less has read, the science.

http://www.epi.org/publication/womens-work-and-the-gender-pa...

⬐ Joky

How is this link related to the bulk of his claims?

⬐ cSoze

There is significant scientific evidence that most of the differences in employment observed between women and men and minorities and white men can be explained by socialization.

When conditions are set that reduce or control for these social factors (including implicit bias) the differences in performance that James Demore attributes to "biological" factors disappear.

How is this not related to the bulk of his claims?

⬐ galacticpony2

> When conditions are set that reduce or control for these social factors (including implicit bias) the differences in performance that James Demore attributes to "biological" factors disappear.

That's a bold prediction supported by no real-world evidence whatsoever. Where's your control group? Where's the retort society that has all this bias removed or even quantified?

Of course societal effects affect the outcome of a person's career, but the idea that there is absolutely zero influence of biological differences is pure dogma. However, it's convenient (if not imperative) to believe, if you're a strong social constructivist.

⬐ cSoze

Or... you know, you've actually got a PhD in sociology and have read the research. This is armchair-pundit-bullshit akin to climate change denial. Everyone knows better than the researchers who've actually done the work and are immersed in the field.

How about we accept the consensus of the scientists? Rather than calling it dogma because it doesn't agree with YOUR world view.

⬐ galacticpony2

First of all, you didn't answer my question. Where is your research that brings evidence to support your prediction? Sociology in particular isn't very diligent in actually applying the scientific method.

Secondly, you're making an "argument from authority", which is an intellectual embarrassment. Scientific knowledge is not based on consensus, but on evidence. The theory behind climate change is not supported by the amount of scientists that "believe" in it, but by the evidence they bring forth.

⬐ JakeAl

csoze: "Rather than calling it dogma because it doesn't agree with YOUR world view." galacticpony2's statement was valid, csoze, yours is not. As Damore and the scientists who have done the research have stated is biology is PART of the reason. The social constructivists TEND to say the opposite, meaning they TEND to say it's entirely social and literally deny any evidence of a role played by biology even when the evidence is undeniable, such as when experiments involve manipulation of brain chemistry, or control for social influence. That's dogma, and validates galacticpony2's assertion.

⬐ None

None

⬐ JakeAl

If you watch Peterson's video, or more importantly looked at the links in the description, the theory of social constructivism has been disproven through experimentation. The more gender equity there is in a social, the more disparity there is between the interests of men and women and this is universal across all cultures. And what you said about conditions that reduce social factors is false. As Peterson explained there's no reproducible valid science showing that what you say is true.

⬐ galacticpony2

Given how strongly he's had his view misrepresented, I don't think giving references would've helped him. He was very careful to pick his words, to no avail.

It's the science itself that these people don't want to accept, if it doesn't support their idea that people and society are malleable enough to solve all these unequal distributions.

You probably heard of research that shows that the female population clusters towards to the mean in various features, IQ being one: http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2017/06/why-a...

If we suppose that being successful in STEM correlates strongly with a high IQ, the mere fact that there exist fewer females with a high IQ would be one reason why there would be fewer females in STEM. That's just an objective, logical conclusion. Another logical conclusion would be that no diversity program could change this discrepancy.

The sound way to challenge this would be to challenge the research here, i.e. the foundation of the argument, instead of persecuting a person making such an argument. In other words: "Don't shoot the messenger".

⬐ cSoze

Are you seriously implying that IQ tests are a clean measure of a biological trait? Heritability for IQ ranges from ~40-60% That's pitiful.

⬐ galacticpony2

No, I'm not. I didn't mention the word "biological", I'm not making any claim on what the underlying reasons for the distributions are. Does it have to be "clean" anyway? What does "clean" even mean? Do you believe society creates this distribution? If so, I'd be interested by which mechanism.

Secondly, heritability may only account for 40-60%, but that's more than zero. Now, how many percentage points do you suppose could be influenced by diversity programs over at Google?

⬐ tptacek

This attempt at summarizing the research is innumerate, disconnected from empirical data, and offensive. Research on gender and IQ does not show that "there exist fewer females with high IQ" --- even stipulating the validity of the research Damore is leaning on, that's now how the statistics work. And there are an enormous number of women in STEM: the concern is that there are few of them in computer science.

Before you attempt to reason from basic principals to a defense of the status quo, you should attempt to fully understand those principles.

⬐ galacticpony2

> This attempt at summarizing the research is innumerate, disconnected from empirical data, and offensive.

Maybe you should elaborate on why it is innumerate and disconnected. As for calling it "offensive", that's entirely irrelevant. It outs you as somebody who is more interested in silencing people than debating them on more objective merits.

> Research on gender and IQ does not show that "there exist fewer females with high IQ"

Research does show that there exist fewer females at either ends of the distribution and more towards the center, compared to males.

http://www.aei.org/publication/statistical-tests-shows-great...

This does mean that there exist fewer female individuals with exceptionally high or exceptionally low IQs. That is indeed how statistics work.

If you want to contest that the research is flawed and that the result is wrong, do that. If we suppose the data is valid, then my conclusion is sound.

> And there are an enormous number of women in STEM: the concern is that there are few of them in computer science.

The broader concern is STEM, not just computer science. Sure, there's an enormous amount of women in STEM, there's also an enormous amount of men in STEM and if you put both in relation, the relative amount of women in STEM is quite low (compared to other fields).

The only real argument here is how much (if any) of that is due to causes that aren't social.

⬐ pcwalton

> The only real argument here is how much (if any) of that is due to causes that aren't social.

Negligible, based on the statistics. The differences, if they even exist, are minuscule, while the gender disparity is enormous. It strains credibility to imagine that the root cause of the gender disparity in STEM employment is innate, especially since the disparity varies across cultures and subfields.

⬐ galacticpony2

> Negligible, based on the statistics.

This isn't something that's actually known.

> The differences, if they even exist, are minuscule, while the gender disparity is enormous.

Small differences can dramatically change outcomes.

> It strains credibility to imagine that the root cause of the gender disparity in STEM employment is innate, especially since the disparity varies across cultures and subfields.

"It strains credibility" is another veiled argument from authority. The "root cause" can be different for every culture. Let's imagine that a culture forces STEM to be disproportionately desirable because of societal/economic pressure. It will push more people into the STEM field that wouldn't have joined "naturally".

Then, let's imagine a culture where there are no pressures either way whatsoever. The "innate" differences (if they are allowed to exist) will dominate the outcome completely.

Now let's look at some real-world examples: https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-professional/2015/jun/2...

Would you suspect that more societal pressure (in either direction) is applied in Europe/USA or in China/India/Latin America?

⬐ tptacek

Small differences can sometimes dramatically change outcomes, but that's not a response, it's just handwaving. You have to specify the mechanism by which that particular small difference would result in an 82/18 split for CS, but a 65/35 split for mathematics.

⬐ galacticpony2

Why? I'm not the one making strong claims, why should the burden of proof rest on me?

My "opponent" maintains that any "non-social" causes are "neglible". He doesn't have to explain what exact social mechanism causes one split for CS and another split for mathematics. I think that's entirely besides the point anyway.

My point is merely that because even small differences in variance can dramatically change outcomes, the differences can't be disregarded just because they are small.

My point also is not that the social effects are neglible! I'm sure they're quite significant, in fact.

⬐ tptacek

You did, in fact, make the original extraordinary claim, which was that there are so few high-IQ women that their scarcity significantly explains the 82/18 gender cap in computer science. Obviously, the underlying science does not agree with this argument, and you've presented no other argument backing it up. I don't think you can legitimately retreat to "burden of proof" rebuttals.

⬐ galacticpony2

> You did, in fact, make the original extraordinary claim, which was that there are so few high-IQ women that their scarcity significantly explains the 82/18 gender cap in computer science.

I didn't actually claim that, you just keep going with the misrepresentations, otherwise you'd have not leg to stand on. I was very careful to put enough weasel language and conditionals in there to not make a factual claim, exactly because I didn't bother to look into whatever some (potentially flawed) research says.

What I actually said was: "If we suppose that being successful in STEM correlates strongly with a high IQ, the mere fact that there exist fewer females with a high IQ would be one reason why there would be fewer females in STEM. That's just an objective, logical conclusion. Another logical conclusion would be that no diversity program could change this discrepancy."

I'm not making any claim as to whether the supposition is true, or whether the correlation is true, or what IQ is, or whether the influence is even significant. All this is happening in your imagination, through confirmation bias.

⬐ pcwalton

> Now let's look at some real-world examples: https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-professional/2015/jun/2...

How in the world is this article supposed to buttress your argument that women are somehow innately unfit for STEM careers? The article literally says "A recent study found that rather than too few girls opting to study scientific subjects or women forgoing careers to care for their children, the biggest cause of gender imbalance in Stem is cultural." Clicking through the link, you get to this paper [1], which is in fact a pretty thorough refutation of your entire position.

[1]: http://www.uchastings.edu/news/articles/2015/01/double-jeopa...

⬐ galacticpony2

> How in the world is this article supposed to buttress your argument that women are somehow innately unfit for STEM careers?

I never made that argument. You're in the same boat as the people that got James fired by misrepresenting his view. Whether it's lack of reading comprehension or malevolence on your part, I'm not going to deal with you further.

> The article literally says "A recent study found that rather than too few girls opting to study scientific subjects or women forgoing careers to care for their children, the biggest cause of gender imbalance in Stem is cultural."

I'm not actually saying the causes aren't cultural. To the contrary.

> Clicking through the link, you get to this paper [1], which is in fact a pretty thorough refutation of your entire position.

I don't see how exactly that's the case, but given that you're unable to even represent my position properly, I'm not interested in investigating this with you any further.

⬐ galacticpony2

reposting my previously flagged post, in the exact wording:

> How in the world is this article supposed to buttress your argument that women are somehow innately unfit for STEM careers?

I never made that argument. You're in the same boat as the people that got James fired by misrepresenting his view. Whether it's lack of reading comprehension or malevolence on your part, I'm not going to deal with you further.

> The article literally says "A recent study found that rather than too few girls opting to study scientific subjects or women forgoing careers to care for their children, the biggest cause of gender imbalance in Stem is cultural."

I'm not actually saying the causes aren't cultural. To the contrary.

> Clicking through the link, you get to this paper [1], which is in fact a pretty thorough refutation of your entire position.

I don't see how exactly that's the case, but given that you're unable to even represent my position properly, I'm not interested in investigating this with you any further.

⬐ tptacek

I think it's also worth pointing out that their argument just changed dramatically, and that what they said in their followup can't readily be reconciled with their original claim that studies showed "fewer high IQ women".

⬐ galacticpony2

How so? You're evading supporting your argument. You just make claims.

⬐ tptacek

I'm not sure you even realized you changed arguments when you switched from "there aren't as many high-IQ women" to "there is a higher variance in the distribution of male intelligence as there is in women". I'm curious to see how you'll rebut, and, if you do, will use your rebuttal to gauge how detailed my response will be.

(Obviously, there is a [weak] rebuttal that preserves the original claim with the new distributional argument).

⬐ galacticpony2

I never switched anything. The conclusion that "there aren't as many high-IQ women" comes from "there is a higher variance in the distribution of male intelligence". It's been there from the beginning.

You have to actually follow the links I give and pay attention during reading.

⬐ dang

This crosses into personal attack and violates the HN guidelines. Please post civilly and substantively, or not at all.

⬐ galacticpony2

Oh really? How about these statements that I had to "endure":

"Before you attempt to reason from basic principals to a defense of the status quo, you should attempt to fully understand those principles."

"This is armchair-pundit-bullshit akin to climate change denial."

Aren't they worth personal warnings? If so, I'd really like it if you could give them out, just so that there isn't any injustice here.

⬐ galacticpony2

... replying here instead because replying @dang is locked:

I'm not asking for a "two wrongs make one right" defense, I'm asking for equal treatment. You flagged my comment even though it was arguably much less of an "attack" than what I quoted.

I don't fault you for not catching those quotes early, I'm faulting you for not flagging those comments as well now that you have been made aware. In the time you wrote your reply, you could've easily copy pasted a warning to those comments as well.

If you really don't want to give the impression that you're singling out me and my position for suppression, that's what you could still do.

⬐ reitanqild

You flagged my comment even though it was arguably much less of an "attack" than what I quoted.

dang most likely didn't flag you.

Everybody can flag (just click in the x minutes ago link and you'll see that post as top leveel including a link to flag it).

I think dang and other mods looks for flagged posts in the backend.

That said: don’t abuse flags like some other people around here do (IMO).

Also: don’t argue with the mods. They have enough to deal with a few people on both sides :-/

⬐ galacticpony2

> Everybody can flag (just click in the x minutes ago link and you'll see that post as top leveel including a link to flag it).

Thanks for pointing that out. My apologies to @dang, then.

Having said that, that's a pretty lame feature to have, considering that there's no way to see what the flagged comment was. For posterity, this is what I said:

"I never switched anything. The conclusion that "there aren't as many high-IQ women" comes from "there is a higher variance in the distribution of male intelligence". It's been there from the beginning.

You have to actually follow the links I give and pay attention during reading."

⬐ dang

You're asking for a level of consistency that's impossible with HN moderation. I wrote about this here if anyone's interested: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14977025.

Nevertheless, as most of our mothers taught us, two wrongs don't make a right, and someone else violating the rules is no excuse. If you do that repeatedly (and you have), you're going to get banned here for obvious reasons.

⬐ blahblah3

If M ~ N(u,v_m) and W ~ N(u,v_w) [where N refers to the normal distribution], with v_m > v_w, then P(M > T) > P(W > T) for all T > u. I.e if the trait is approximately normally distributed with equal means among two groups, the group with the higher variance will exhibit more extreme values. Why is this a change in argument?

⬐ hackinthebochs

His argument from the wider variance in male IQs directly supports the statement of "fewer high IQ women", given some definitions of that term (i.e. where exactly you place the cutoff for high IQ). His follow up served to clarify the ambiguous term. I'm not sure where you're coming from here.

⬐ Jabanga

The EPI is heavily funded by labour unions which have a major stake in the continued acceptance of central tenets of Marxist/postmodernist ideology, like the existence of race/gender/class based social dominance hierarchy and the importance of creating laws that discriminate against the identity group that is perceived to be at the top of this hierarchy.

For a scientist's analysis of the memo, see this:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manifes...

⬐ Jach

Assuming you've looked at the actual document (https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...) and not redacted/censored versions of it, it does in fact have a lot of links...[0] How many citations would you expect though? He's not publishing for an academic journal. He's not even publishing for an audience outside of coworkers.

[0] Links from the paper in order not counting internal g/ go/ links, whatever those are (not all of them technically citations, but some are; many just to help point out that a technical definition is being used and a common parlance one the reader may have in mind shouldn't be used):

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25098770?seq=1#page_scan_tab_co...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

http://righteousmind.com/largest-study-of-libertarian-psych/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology#...

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9004....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathizing%E2%80%93systemizin...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism

http://www.bradley.edu/dotAsset/165918.pdf (My favorite in-context just because the link text is "research suggests", a common phrase that all too commonly lacks any sort of citation or link of any kind.)

http://quillette.com/2017/07/15/time-stop-worrying-first-wor...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_fatality#Risk_fac...

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/05/the-war...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/01623095929...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5068300/

https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2011/SPP457/um/23632422/Hakim...

https://groups.google.com/a/google.com/d/msg/coffee-beans-di...

http://www.businessforum.com/WSJ_Race-on-Campus-05-06-2016.p...

https://www.city-journal.org/html/real-war-science-14782.htm...

https://heterodoxacademy.org/problems/

http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/social-psyc...

https://becauseits2015.wordpress.com/2016/08/06/a-non-femini...

http://www.warrenfarrell.net/Summary/

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-per...

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-9280.00139

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201209/li...

https://nypost.com/2016/04/17/conservative-professors-must-f...

https://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2011/08/18/44...

https://www.google.com/search?q=political+correctness

https://bostonreview.net/forum/paul-bloom-against-empathy

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/07/why-it...

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1745691616659391...

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jjycJDLHc9oixA7FiG3-M2yJ...

http://www.spsp.org/blog/stereotype-accuracy-response

⬐ cSoze

He's an engineer for Google (with a purported PhD from Harvard - likely to only be a MS) that wrote a 10 page article critiquing his company - specifically - for ignoring the science when making decisions about company culture. From someone with his credentials making these claims I expect 15+ peer reviewed sources with at least 1 review article from each field that studies the topic (sociology, economics, anthropology, psychology, biology).

Someone with his credentials should not expect to be spoon fed justifications for company hiring practices. If he had opened discussion on the validity of specific findings and which experiments contain the most valuable information for predicting benefits of policy changes, I don't think there would have been this outcry.

But if he wants to discuss the science he first needs to make it clear that he's read it.

⬐ galacticpony2

You know, I for one maintain that he shouldn't have to do any of these things to avoid getting fired and getting branded a sexist by the dishonest media. But that's exactly what happened. Being more scientific wouldn't have helped him one iota. Keeping his mouth shut would've helped.

⬐ late2part

Yes. Tall grass gets cut. Sad, isn't it? This is known as the Chilling Effect.

⬐ rbanffy

> I do think it will come to pass that Google will lose a unlawful termination lawsuit (or settle)

It'll be hard to convince anyone that it'd be viable for him to continue his work after ostracizing a sizable part of Google's workforce by implying they are undeserving of their jobs.

It could have been an attempt to start an honest discussion, but it was horrendously articulated, failed miserably to get the point across while offending a ton of people. He has shown appallingly poor judgement in his choice of format and utter disregard for the consequences of openly questioning corporate policies.

⬐ anvandare

>ostracizing a sizable part of Google's workforce by implying they are undeserving of their jobs.

He didn't. The only one who was (literally) ostracized was Damore.

>consequences of openly questioning corporate policies.

Well, the policy was (supposedly) that you could in fact question corporate policies. Of course 'everyone knew' that it was bullshit, but at least now it's been proven and thrown into public for all to see.

I'm fine with a company not wanting openness, less so with such a company pretending to want openness. If Google subscribes to modern-day Lysenkoism (because they think it'll get them more profit) then that is their right, but at least quit the whole pretense and be honest about it: "Our company is about making money, not truth, not justice, not the betterment of society, but money, money, money."

But of course, that gets you less starry-eyed young minds than the "Don't be Evil" of yesteryear, so it's understandable they keep the mask on. Corporations are sociopaths.

⬐ rbanffy

> Of course 'everyone knew' that it was bullshit,

Up until it went viral and everybody with a computer read it, Google was mostly ignoring it. When it leaked outside the company, it could no longer be ignored because it was damaging the company's reputation.

⬐ anvandare

Yes, and that is the problem. The use of public shaming to silence opponents (or to force their employers to fire them). The ones wielding this cudgel like to say "Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences!", but this sort of suppression of speech will have consequences as well.

⬐ lazyasciiart

Yes, Adria Richards can probably tell you about how this suppression of speech works. She was fired when the internet got angry that she publicly complained about a joke that she felt was offensive, and literally DDOSed her employer until they let her go.

⬐ tnone

You mean when she violated the code of conduct that she was claiming for herself, by engaging in harassing photography?

Disguising their attacks as a defense, and blowback as an attack is a staple of the progressive playbook by now. Once you tease apart actual cause and effect in these situations, the presupposed victim and oppressor labels tend to fall apart. Especially when one side gets uncritical media coverage across the board.

It didn't seem to prevent her from making a career out of her status as a victim either. Not so much for the person she got fired. Which makes it all the more unpalatable that this agenda is often pushed under the guise of accountability.

It's the first I've heard of the DDoS though. Got a source on that?

⬐ lazyasciiart

yes, it was all over the discussion at the time and there's a ton of articles about it at https://www.google.com/search?q=adria+richards+ddos

⬐ lazyasciiart

But aside from the sources - Damore was fired when he violated a code of conduct by complaining about diversity. Richards was fired when she violated a code of conduct by complaining about jokes that offended her. They are pretty analogous situations if you're capable of looking at them in the abstract. It turns out that mass internet outrage as coercion is a staple of pretty much everyone's playbook, and it is disingenous at best to recognize it only when it is done by people you disagree with.

⬐ tnone

What is disingenuous is labeling a statement that starts with the words "I support diversity and inclusion" as being against diversity. Claiming he violated a code of conduct by doing so requires myopia of the highest degree.

Second, you are failing to distinguish between mass coercion by media based on lies, with a popular backlash based on an accurate account of the facts. Richards was in developer relations and made a giant stink when she demonstrated being unable to relate to developers.

⬐ lazyasciiart

a) "I'm not disagreeing with you, but a careful examination of the facts seems to say that you're wrong". Can that statement be described as disagreeing with you or not?

b) Damore wrote the memo that caused the backlash, not the media.

⬐ cafard

Adria Richards was employed as a "developer evangelist". Some evangelists are expected to tell the world around them to repent and be converted, it is true. But developer evangelists I don't think fit that job description.

⬐ anvandare

Correct, her publicly shaming someone (which caused that person to be fired) backfired spectacularly (and led to her being fired). That's what I meant by this sort of suppression having consequences of their own. No one won anything.

⬐ rbanffy

Nobody "used" public shaming to silence anyone. It was Google's reputation as a nice place to work that was tarnished when it became public knowledge Google employed people who not only thought a large number of his colleagues were not adequate to be his colleagues (and he did say as much when he mentioned that the bar was being lowered in name of diversity) and were only hired because they had the right genitalia, but thought it'd be a good idea to share this belief. Some people will doubtlessly find it insulting.

⬐ Kibber

For anyone who hasn't read the actual memo yet, what he did say was "Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate". That's not anywhere near "a large number of his colleagues were not adequate to be his colleagues" or "were only hired because they had the right genitalia". All it means is that a larger share of qualified white/asian/indian male candidates get rejected, compared to qualified diversity candidates. Anyone claiming otherwise is blinded by outrage.

Why is this flagged, and why do the submitted links keep disappearing? (This video in this link is incomplete, the full video is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU)

The full video is very well put together, including links to the scientific papers discussed. This is a high-profile event at one of the largest internet tech company in existance, and it has a bearing on every one of our lives.

So why is it being flagged and removed everywhere?

⬐ manigandham

> Why is this flagged

I think we all know why...

It seems that HN is flagging all articles that mention the Google Memo. Which speaks to the need to have this conversation even more.

For those who are interested, James has a new interview with psychology professor Jordan Peterson.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU