Most active commenters
  • dguaraglia(5)
  • manigandham(4)
  • humanrebar(3)
  • richmarr(3)

←back to thread

Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

(blog.ycombinator.com)
1080 points cbcowans | 23 comments | 15 Aug 17 19:19 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
hedgew ◴[15 Aug 17 19:57 UTC] No.15021772[source]▶
Many of the more reasonable criticisms of the memo say that it wasn't written well enough; it could've been more considerate, it should have used better language, or better presentation. In this particular link, Scott Alexander is used as an example of better writing, and he certainly is one of the best and most persuasive modern writers I've found. However, I can not imagine ever matching his talent and output, even if I practiced for years to try and catch up.

I do not think that anyone's ability to write should disbar them from discussion. We can not expect perfection from others. Instead we should try to understand them as human beings, and interpret them with generosity and kindness.

replies(31): >>15021858 #>>15021871 #>>15021893 #>>15021907 #>>15021914 #>>15021963 #>>15021998 #>>15022264 #>>15022369 #>>15022372 #>>15022389 #>>15022448 #>>15022883 #>>15022898 #>>15022932 #>>15022997 #>>15023149 #>>15023177 #>>15023435 #>>15023742 #>>15023755 #>>15023819 #>>15023909 #>>15024938 #>>15025044 #>>15025144 #>>15025251 #>>15026052 #>>15026111 #>>15027621 #>>15028052 #
ryanbrunner ◴[15 Aug 17 20:06 UTC] No.15021858[source]▶
I think one thing that struck me from the linked article was the point that the memo wasn't structured to invite discussion. It wasn't "let's have a chat", it was "here's an evidence bomb of how you're all wrong".

I think advancing points is fine, but if you're after productive discussion rather than an adversarial debate, you need to proactively invite discussion. And if an adversarial debate was what he was after, that does strike me as inappropriate work communication.

replies(17): >>15021879 #>>15021892 #>>15022000 #>>15022018 #>>15022073 #>>15022588 #>>15022780 #>>15022931 #>>15023041 #>>15023358 #>>15023561 #>>15023702 #>>15024459 #>>15024944 #>>15024964 #>>15027097 #>>15028521 #
nicolashahn ◴[15 Aug 17 20:25 UTC] No.15022073[source]▶
Then the correct way to handle it is to drop another refutational evidence bomb attacking his primary points instead of picking the low hanging fruit of claiming it's "too confrontational," "poorly written," "naive," or whatever other secondary problems exist (this is aside from wilfully misrepresenting his claims, which is definitely a bigger problem). Plenty of far more aggressive articles and essays have been written from the opposite side that have not been criticized in the same way.

And for the record, I did not get any aggressive tone from his paper. I thought he was as polite as he needed to be and made the necessary caveats. I think many people were just so unprepared to hear any argument from an opposing viewpoint that they read into it what they wanted to.

replies(15): >>15022166 #>>15022241 #>>15022251 #>>15022252 #>>15022290 #>>15022356 #>>15022677 #>>15023037 #>>15023069 #>>15023120 #>>15023315 #>>15023353 #>>15023493 #>>15024899 #>>15025581 #
Blackthorn ◴[15 Aug 17 20:32 UTC] No.15022166[source]▶
> Then the correct way to handle it is to drop another refutational evidence bomb attacking his primary points instead of picking the low hanging fruit of claiming it's "too confrontational," "poorly written," "naive," or whatever other secondary problems exist (this is aside from wilfully misrepresenting his claims, which is definitely a bigger problem).

This was addressed in the article. This burden has fallen on women since they were teenagers. To expect them to do it yet again, to have to defend themselves at work this time, is ridiculous.

replies(12): >>15022234 #>>15022276 #>>15022376 #>>15022416 #>>15022543 #>>15022548 #>>15022583 #>>15023201 #>>15023485 #>>15023808 #>>15024677 #>>15025432 #
1. manigandham ◴[15 Aug 17 21:03 UTC] No.15022543[source]▶
What burden are you talking about exactly?

You (along with many others) seem to be conflating the major point of the memo between interests and abilities. Not liking something does not mean you're not capable of doing it.

replies(3): >>15022852 #>>15023002 #>>15023529 #
2. dguaraglia ◴[15 Aug 17 21:34 UTC] No.15022852[source]▶
Would you rather hire someone that likes what they do or someone who doesn't?

Would you intuitively think that someone who loves their job are going to be more interested in bigger challenges and doing great work, or someone who doesn't care for the job?

replies(2): >>15022958 #>>15023025 #
3. humanrebar ◴[15 Aug 17 21:44 UTC] No.15022958[source]▶
> Would you rather hire someone that likes what they do or someone who doesn't?

I wouldn't assume someone's interest level based on their demographics. I would, you know, talk to them.

replies(1): >>15023366 #
4. richmarr ◴[15 Aug 17 21:50 UTC] No.15023002[source]▶
> You (along with many others) seem to be conflating the major point of the memo between interests and abilities

Sorry, this is wrong.

Direct quote (emphasis added): "I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes"

See Damore's own mirror: https://firedfortruth.com/

replies(2): >>15023070 #>>15023216 #
5. manigandham ◴[15 Aug 17 21:52 UTC] No.15023025[source]▶
I optimize for productivity first, that doesn't always equate to someone who likes their job.

Regardless, I'm not sure how that's related to my comment - the memo was discussing relative interests in software engineering (and other disciplines), not capabilities of people being able to do code better than others.

replies(1): >>15023463 #
6. manigandham ◴[15 Aug 17 21:58 UTC] No.15023070[source]▶
Yes, this is a case of context. In that exact quote it states "preferences and abilities" in terms of biological associations.

However, biological traits and abilities != career ability. Even more so since these are average indexes with vast overlap between groups.

replies(2): >>15026234 #>>15026458 #
7. mjevans ◴[15 Aug 17 22:16 UTC] No.15023216[source]▶
I think a charitable way of taking that particular statement might be:

"The distribution of preferences and abilities of different groups differ."

Note the binding emphasis to both sides of the 'and'.

Also the focus on any specific cause for that difference should be addressed elsewhere, if at all. Not in an over-simplified singular soundbite.

Edit: what flavor of markdown hell is HN using... I always forget.

replies(2): >>15023299 #>>15023662 #
8. richmarr ◴[15 Aug 17 22:27 UTC] No.15023299{3}[source]▶
The important point here is that Damore triggered a massive threat response in the colleagues he characterises as being below "the bar". He explicitly talks about that bar being lowered, which by implication undermines a proportion of employees at Google (and people that are inclined to defend that group).

Furthermore he attacked 'diversity' hires as a whole, but only presented evidence on male/female differences not racial ones... so there's significant precedent for him making points that aren't backed up directly. I don't think he should get the benefit of the doubt there with regards to subtlety of meaning.

9. dguaraglia ◴[15 Aug 17 22:35 UTC] No.15023366{3}[source]▶
So, you are in favor of outreach programs where you get to talk to more people?
replies(1): >>15023407 #
10. humanrebar ◴[15 Aug 17 22:42 UTC] No.15023407{4}[source]▶
Sure. I do that already, both formally and informally. Though I've probably been underestimating how career limiting that can be.

The Google firing was a really bad move if outreach programs are a good idea.

replies(1): >>15023469 #
11. dguaraglia ◴[15 Aug 17 22:52 UTC] No.15023463{3}[source]▶
By perpetuating the stereotype that "women are less interested in engineering" and suggesting that your chances of getting a good female candidate are lower, Damore is introducing an unconscious bias against women. After all, "it's likely that she doesn't really like this", "she probably went into engineering because her parents pushed her", "maybe she's great now, but she'll lose interest once anxiety kicks in."

Next time your engineers are scheduled to interview someone and they see a female name on the resume, they'll form an opinion (even if slight, and even if overridable by interacting with the person) about who the candidate is. Depending on how tired/stressed/bored they are that day, that opinion will play a smaller or bigger role in what they write down in the candidate report.

That bias, by the way, exists today. Trying to justify it on the base of biological differences does nothing to fix it.

replies(3): >>15023669 #>>15025384 #>>15026193 #
12. dguaraglia ◴[15 Aug 17 22:53 UTC] No.15023469{5}[source]▶
Not sure I follow why you think the firing had something to do with outreach? You mean they'll be losing out on candidates like Damore?
replies(1): >>15023574 #
13. ◴[15 Aug 17 23:01 UTC] No.15023529[source]▶
14. humanrebar ◴[15 Aug 17 23:09 UTC] No.15023574{6}[source]▶
I think people won't feel comfortable sharing freely, which undermines the whole point of it. It won't just affect candidates like Damore.

People who don't feel like sharing probably won't feel like getting talked at, so there won't be much listening in the other direction either.

15. kansface ◴[15 Aug 17 23:25 UTC] No.15023669{4}[source]▶
> That bias, by the way, exists today. Trying to justify it on the base of biological differences does nothing to fix

You presupposed that the bias is why the disparity exists in the first place. Its plausible that we completely fix all biases in the industry and the gender ratio does not change whatsoever, or even gets worse.

replies(2): >>15023926 #>>15024236 #
16. dguaraglia ◴[16 Aug 17 00:10 UTC] No.15023926{5}[source]▶
> You presupposed that the bias is why the disparity exists in the first place

What in my comment tells you that? I made a conscious effort not to bring that up.

> Its plausible that we completely fix all biases in the industry and the gender ratio does not change whatsoever, or even gets worse.

This argument sounds like the global warming denier argument "What if it's not true? What if we make the world a better place to live for nothing?"

It is plausible, but right now we have no way to measure it. We do, on the other hand, know that unconscious bias is affecting prospective female candidates. Why don't we focus on fixing the existing problem first?

replies(1): >>15024245 #
17. nodamage ◴[16 Aug 17 01:17 UTC] No.15024236{5}[source]▶
Well, really, the bias is the problem, not the disparity. So if we fix the bias, sexual harassment, and sexist behavior, that is a good outcome in and of itself, regardless of the gender ratio.
18. kansface ◴[16 Aug 17 01:18 UTC] No.15024245{6}[source]▶
My apologies.

> Why don't we focus on fixing the existing problem first?

Sounds good.

19. Dylan16807 ◴[16 Aug 17 06:37 UTC] No.15025384{4}[source]▶
>By perpetuating the stereotype that "women are less interested in engineering" and suggesting that your chances of getting a good female candidate are lower, Damore is introducing an unconscious bias against women. After all, "it's likely that she doesn't really like this", "she probably went into engineering because her parents pushed her", "maybe she's great now, but she'll lose interest once anxiety kicks in."

A ("women in general are less interested") does not imply B ("woman job candidates are less interested"). A would only imply B if there were equal numbers of man and woman engineers. But there are fewer. It's entirely possible for "women are less interested in engineering than men" and "women that go into engineering are far more interested than men that go into engineering" to both be true.

So that hiring bias is based on non-logic in the first place. Considering the possibility of A does not legitimize B.

20. peoplewindow ◴[16 Aug 17 09:47 UTC] No.15026193{4}[source]▶
The problem with this view is that you assert such unconscious biases exist, but provide no evidence. Moreover it's a classic "she's a witch" kind of accusation. Nobody can refute it because the entire theory is that everyone (or every man) is guilty without even realising it.

You should know that unconscious bias training has been shown to make no difference to outcomes. The science is dubious. Of course, you can always try to fix the theory by claiming the impact is minimal but ... if the impact is so tiny, why worry about it?

Diversity initiatives have long since left the realm of debatable science and fact and turned into a new religion. Science is replaced by faith. I don't think I'm biased, I can't perceive any bias in myself, but I KNOW it's true. I must believe.

21. richmarr ◴[16 Aug 17 09:56 UTC] No.15026234{3}[source]▶
Okay, let's try another approach.

On what basis do you think that preferences and abilities are two mutually exclusive traits?

We know interest is influenced heavily by environment. We also know that ability is influenced by both interest and environment. Carol Dweck's work is a good source for this type of study.

It also seems intuitive that ability influences interests, although I'm actually not aware of what studies exist in that area.

I don't think you're standing on as solid footing as you think when you're making accusations of others conflating topics.

replies(1): >>15060175 #
22. tajen ◴[16 Aug 17 10:50 UTC] No.15026458{3}[source]▶
Plus where is the outrage when newspapers title: "A scientist proves that women can do two activities at the same time" and "What makes women better at management"?

Many women believe they're statistically more intelligent than men and less violent, by fate of biology.

23. manigandham ◴[20 Aug 17 20:46 UTC] No.15060175{4}[source]▶
There's another conflation between skill and ability. Lots of people can do lots of things, some are better because they're more interested (leading to more practice, etc).

Just because interests and abilities influence each other does not mean they are not exclusive. You can do a lot of things that you probably have never even considered before too.