←back to thread

Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

(blog.ycombinator.com)
1080 points cbcowans | 5 comments | 15 Aug 17 19:19 UTC | HN request time: 0.998s | source
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 #
1. hacknat ◴[16 Aug 17 05:26 UTC] No.15025144[source]▶
The memo suffered from a lack of 2nd order thinking. If Google really is using its diversity programs to "lower the bar", that's what should have been proven and addressed, whether men and women have innate differences in talent for certain occupations is irrelevant. It's Google's perogative/obligation to find and retain the best talent. I suspect that's what the purpose of their diversity programs are for. If they're not, and they are truly attempting to "lower the bar" for ideological reasons, then by all means call them on it, but the labor market will punish them for you. The whole memo was an irrelevant red herring to the topic of Google's hiring practices.
replies(2): >>15026480 #>>15031460 #
2. PeanutCurry ◴[16 Aug 17 10:54 UTC] No.15026480[source]▶
I don't see the correlation between diversity programs and retaining the best talent. Not because diversity isn't important, or because it's a negative thing, but because in general diversity programs function by more closely examining/attracting a subset of a larger total population of workers. You could still of course find the best talent within those subsets, but the implication is still that you could just as easily miss the top talent that isn't in those subsets.
replies(1): >>15027116 #
3. hacknat ◴[16 Aug 17 13:07 UTC] No.15027116[source]▶
Why is it binary? I'm pretty sure you can focus on both. Also, it's not hard to get candidates that are non-diverse, almost by definition the status quo favors their hiring, hence the diversity programs.
replies(1): >>15032277 #
4. weberc2 ◴[16 Aug 17 21:19 UTC] No.15031460[source]▶
The purpose wasn't to prove that Google is using its diversity programs for nefarious purposes; only to raise the question that Google's diversity aims might be misguided and even potentially harmful per their stated goals. He supports his argument by pointing to studies that suggest men and women may be differently interested, in which case we shouldn't expect 50/50 distribution.

Perhaps whether or not Google's diversity programs are lowering the bar is the more important question; it's also one he likely wasn't well-positioned to tackle (it requires a lot more resources to prove/disprove bar-lowering compared to writing a memo to express a concern).

5. PeanutCurry ◴[16 Aug 17 23:30 UTC] No.15032277{3}[source]▶
I didn't mean to imply that both can't be done at the same time. I thought you meant that diversity programs were an inherent part of finding the best talent when you wrote

> "It's Google's perogative/obligation to find and retain the best talent. I suspect that's what the purpose of their diversity programs are for."

To me this meant that to find the best talent it's more effective to focus on subsets of the total talent pool, which didn't make sense to me.