Hacker News Reader

Comment by ubernostrum | Hacker News Reader

Ah, yes, the true believer in meritocracy, who assumes that the present-day distribution of careers and job titles is a perfect reflection of inherent skills, talents and interests hard-wired in by biology. Because there is no evidence whatsoever that anyone's ever tried to rig large-scale societal systems to discriminate on the basis of factors like race or sex, and even if there ever had been such a thing, it is completely eliminated now and has no lingering consequences whatsoever! And anyone who disagrees is obviously living in some kind of censorious leftist echo chamber.

View on HN

The existence of sexism and the existence of sex-specific biases in interests are not mutually exclusive. Also note that biological biases does not mean behavior is hard-wired, nurture (societal influence) and nature can both play a role at different weights.

If such a natural bias exists and all and sexism is eliminated then there will still be a gender gap among the employees. And forms of affirmative action that aim for 50:50 balance will either have to attract an unusually large number of above-average talent for that specific gender (this strategy can only work locally but not globally) or will result in equally-talented people being disfavored based on their gender.

And if there is an assumption that the gender gap is caused by sexism but it is also arises due to natural biases then some people may feel slandered as sexists when they're already acting as gender-neutral as possible. This can breed resentment when you (or your group as a whole) get blamed for something that you're not causing.

Disclaimler, this post contains little original thought, most arguments are stolen from https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/01/gender-imbalances-are-...

I took it as more of an argument against intentional, institutional discrimination (e.g. affirmative action) than an endorsement of the current system or an argument that we should leave things as they are.

I think your tone is a little smug but completely agree. To be frank I empathize with the writer of the article a bit. He worked very hard to achieve his position, and with that hard work comes a belief that the system he achieved in was inherently fair. It's difficult to call the situations we benefit from unfair - it's important for our self-worth that we value our accomplishments.

But the key is that the author's achievements in this unfair world are no less impressive. They still achieved great things given their lot in life, yet they should still be willing to acknowledge the many advantages they've had every step of the way. They're slight in many cases, true. But they exist and we are all aware of them.

It's a shame the author of the email feels that these policies are based on a political agenda rather than an idealogical one.

EDIT: I think it's also important to note that since this is an idealogical decision, I think it's totally within Google's power to make broad and impactful policies like this. They aren't beholden to all idealogical viewpoints within their company. They should attempt to respect political differences, but I don't think that this issue is political in any way. It's an issue of how you see the world you live in. Is it a fair world that needs no correction (or should not be corrected for some reason) or is it world that needs to be steered in a different course. Google is within their power to choose an idealogical direction for the company on such an issue, and it's up to the employee to decide if that matches with their worldview.

I may not have used entirely the correct terminology for political opinion vs. ideology (I would defer to a sociologist for this), but I think the point that remains is that Google is not aligning themselves with a viewpoint on governmental policy, but instead adjusting the way their corporate environment works to better match the company's view of how the "world works". Every company has to have such a thing due to the immense amount of power we grant large corporations in this country (imo of course).

EDIT 2: I would further encourage the parent poster to not get too reactionary themselves about the issue. Mainly people on the so-called "other side" believe that they are being demonized for a political opinion, when in reality they are being criticized for something that we believe is a very flawed way of looking at the world. Take care not to address them as much as an enemy, but as someone who has seen very different parts of the world than you. Give them a guided tour, not a lecture with snark. I empathize with your intense emotions - I myself get very emotional about this due to events in my personal life - but if you let them dominate the conversation, then people will just try and claim that you're being "too emotional" further reinforcing their flawed reasoning.

> believe that they are being demonized for a political opinion

I have an acquaintance who occasionally reacts with outrage, shouting and questioning my human decency when I voice conservative points of view. Even mentioning biological differences between sexes is anathema to him and bringing up IQ makes him uncomfortable because it shows that not all people are born equal.

I have explicitly told him that at times I may argue points that I do not agree with for the sake of debate and yet he still shakes his head and complains how I can even say such bad things that only "they" would say.

It feels quite quite demonizing in ways when just debating a topic is treated as an unspeakable act. But to give him credit, he's generally a decent guy and does not act like a SJW stereotype, there are just some short outbursts.

I do agree with your initial comment but I would rather suggest that the author tries to look at the disadvantages that others have while reaching the same point that the author has. Yes, the author has done a lot to get to the position they're in but others in the face of racism or sexism have to work a hell of a lot more.

> ...others in the face of racism or sexism have to work a hell of a lot more.

That's not necessarily true. Everyone has a different story. For all you know, the author was an orphan, was wrongfully convicted of a felony, has a disability, and survived three kinds of cancer.

Yes but this is looking from the micro-POV. The point is to look beyond your own achievements, since in the grand-scale they are really only yours. You should be proud of overcoming your challenges because YOU overcame THEM rather than evaluating them on the merit of their relative differences between other people. This allows you to maintain a sense of self-worth while recognizing that IN GENERAL people like "you" had it "easier" than people like "them".

The micro-scale achievement is not invalidated by the macro-scale injustice.

If I am an excellent businessman, who makes several cruicial business decisions that save my business from disaster - it doesn't really matter whether my industry is in a good position right now. I still survived my own disasters. And it still allows me to empathize with business leaders in failing industries who were able to turn themselves around as well. They may have had it a little harder, but we both still kicked ass and that's what matters. It just means I might be more empathetic to that business leader when something comes up down the road. I think this is analogous.

Your issues and tribulations are still meaningful and important. We're just trying to make macro-scale decisions for macro-scale groups. It doesn't invalidate your accomplishments, seriously. There doesn't have to be a hierarchy. Since there is no way to evenly evaluate every single injustice someone has overcome in their lives, we can only make vague estimations and attempt to correct for them as best as we can. An insistence on maintaining the status quo, would only maintain what is already a flawed situation for many people.

> ...while recognizing that IN GENERAL people like "you" had it "easier" than people like "them".

The problem with this is the legitimacy of the framework for who counts as "like you" and "like them".

If you were born Amish and deaf, you wouldn't see a Manhattan native as being like you at all. But according to the prevailing framework, you're assumed to be more privileged than the Caucasian daughter of a Columbia professor who attended a STEM magnet high school.

It's worth pointing out that generally progressive logic is very pro-self-identification. Except here.

> The micro-scale achievement is not invalidated by the macro-scale injustice.

This point is well taken. Though it misses the point from the article, that people do invalidate and have explicit preferences on the micro scale based on the prevailing framework.

> There doesn't have to be a hierarchy.

Again, I think the objection is that prevailing logic in big corps, including Google apparently, does presume there's hierarchy.

> An insistence on maintaining the status quo, would only maintain what is already a flawed situation for many people.

I haven't seen anyone arguing for the status quo, including the author of the original post. Everyone would love to see more women in tech. The question is what the best way to go about it is and when we know we're done addressing the imbalance.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com