Comment by gizmo686 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by gizmo686 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>Now, if you're a woman who has to work with or for him, what do you feel? You likely feel that your capability is more in question, that you have to prove yourself more than the men on the team, and that this person you work next to (or for) starts out with an assumption that you're less capable.

I might be biased since my experience with data analysis gives me an above average internalization of the concept of "in aggregate", but I disagree with this assesment. The fact is, as a matter of aggregates, by my demographics [0], I am "in aggregate", more likely to be a drug addict, rapist, misogynist, and terrorist. There are some people who do hold these aggregate statistics against me personally, but they are very rare (or at least, avoid the circles where they will see me); and I would not suggest that any who observes or discusses these aggregate traits holds them against me personally.

The beginning of the memo spends a paragraph (and illustrative diagram, which was removed from in the original article) making this exact distinction.

>excepting the fact that Google's lawyers are probably the better lawyers in a legal tussle.

Google's lawyer's are probably also willing to settle out of court. I doubt there will be a trial unless he want "unreasonable" compensation, or to make a political point.

[0] Based on my current understanding; I have not verified any of these beliefs.

I realize the author tries to draw that distinction, but I think for many, on a personal level, the totality of the memo will be perceived to undercut that preface. You don't get to "hang a lantern" on emotionally-charged generalizations of competence so you have free reign to paint with a broad brush and expect everyone to just take your preface at face value. Second, much of the "science" cited was suspect at best, undercutting his credibility of objectivity.

That memo very intentionally dove into issues of identity within certain subgroups. You can't expect members of those subgroups to just unemotionally detach themselves from perfunctory qualifiers. He clearly wrote that some personnel decisions were inappropriately made to those of lesser competence. If you're a women or a minority, he may have been talking about you. With a smidge of empathy - a concept he does not appreciate - you can see how that may read to someone from those groups.

So he went out of his way to make it clear that he's not referring to individuals when he talks about averages and you still take it personally. What would be good enough for you, short of killing the entire discussion?

His words are in conflict with each other. He's not referring to any given individual, but he is referring to the system that got those individuals into Google, often due to alleged unfair/discriminatory practices. That inherently means he must view at least some of those individuals as unqualified. That's a conflict, and the end result is that some individuals in Google may take it personally (independent of other reactions around identity this evokes). Is that so hard to empathize with?

Also, why you do you accuse me of taking it personally? I do not. I also would never tell anyone they should take it personally. But I can understand why they would, and we know some people have. It seems presumptuous to me that we should tell those most-implicated by this memo dealing with emotionally-charged topics directed toward subgroups they are a part of (that have historically not been treated fairly) that they shouldn't take it personally. That does not mean I think Google will prevail in a lawsuit (which probably won't happen as a settlement seems most likely) based on the publicly-available facts.

Feelings have nothing to do with it. Maybe it is actually the case that some people were given an unfair advantage in the hiring process and don't belong there. The way to examine that possibility is to examine the process and have a discussion about what is fair and proper, not shut down the conversation and exile anyone who brings it up. By the way this is exactly what is happening from the other side: white males are supposed to be unfairly advantaged. I don't hear your side denouncing those sorts of arguments on the basis that it might make some of those white males feel bad to bring up the argument.

Feeling have quite a bit to do with hostile work environments. If you feel that your workplace is intimidating, hostile, or abuse because of your membership in a protected class, that is directly related to determining whether a hostile work environment exists. It's not the only criteria.

> The way to examine that possibility is to examine the process and have a discussion about what is fair and proper, not shut down the conversation and exile anyone who brings it up.

I'm not disagreeing with that at all!

> By the way this is exactly what is happening from the other side: white males are supposed to be unfairly advantaged.

That is the allegation, yes. At Google, it may be true, it may not be true. If you feel white men are disadvantaged because there are no special avenues just for them to find coaches/mentors, etc., then fine. I'd disagree that such things disadvantage white men because they don't need or benefit from those specialized avenues the way minority groups do, but that's a different debate.

If white men are in fact being held to a different standard of job performance for same roles at same levels, then yes, that's unethical and illegal. I would not and do not support that, and have personally (in my real-world job) redefined hiring criteria that did this. I have actual skin in the game here.

> I don't hear your side denouncing those sorts of arguments on the basis that it might make some of those white males feel bad to bring up the argument.

Ah, this is "my side." You've turned this into some sort of culture war. I haven't advocated for this person's firing, and I don't state that it was either the right or wrong thing to do as I'm not close enough to the situation. But because I don't immediately take up the banner for him, I'm on the "other side."

Give me a break. This isn't cut-and-dry stuff. That was my original point, and indeed my first sentence in the thread. It was not "this guy is a sexist/racist and everyone who agrees with him needs to shut up."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com