Hacker News Reader

Comment by UncleMeat | Hacker News Reader

He argues that Google should end diversity programs. The document doesn't just poorly summarize social psych and sociology research, but uses it to justify a proposed change in company practice and culture that would perpetuate the status quo.

In addition, he showed an incredible lack of judgement in publishing the document. Anybody could tell you that a lot of people would be hurt by this document, regardless of its scientific merit. As such, it makes sense to approach this sort of thing very carefully, as it is possible to be a total asshole and ruin team cohesion while still being "right". Regardless of the validity of these arguments, it should be immediately clear that the document would produce no substantive change from a policy perspective and cause other employees, rightly or wrongly, to feel attacked.

View on HN

He argues that Google should end diversity programs.

Not really, he suggests replacing them with other diversity programs that he claims (whether correctly or incorrectly) would work better.

In addition, he showed an incredible lack of judgement in publishing the document.

Yes. He forgot his place and and committed heresy against the party line. That's always a dumb thing to attach your real name to.

Regardless of the validity of these arguments, it should be immediately clear that the document would produce no substantive change from a policy perspective and cause other employees, rightly or wrongly, to feel attacked.

That's an interesting argument, that people's feelings should have precedence over seeking truth.

it makes sense to approach this sort of thing very carefully, as it is possible to be a total asshole and ruin team cohesion while still being "right"

It reads like he did try to be careful to the best of his ability; it's just that in such a hostile environment, not even professionals have sufficient ability.

> Anybody could tell you that a lot of people would be hurt by this document, regardless of its scientific merit.

This is a ridiculous statement. Scientific merit should be the only consideration when you are saying something you believe is important. If you're engaged in small-talk, go ahead and throw scientific accuracy out the window, but not in anything substantial.

This right here is actually the source of the problem. The current societal environment tells you "here are topics that you have to discuss with utmost sensitivity, even if you are completely confident you are right, and have all the evidence."

Your (and presumably, the google employee that got fired) response?

"Nah, I am right, so fuck your rules"

It doesn't work that way.

If you are a scientist, and publishing in a peer review journal, I think you are close to correct. If you are a dilettante coming to de novo conclusions about controversial topics, you probably aren't qualified to declare something as science.

There is a very long list of odious things you can claim "science" justifies; in fact, it's kind of hard to think of something you can't six-degrees-of-science your way to defending. This isn't the rhetorical kill-shot you think it is.

> There is a very long list of odious things you can claim "science" justifies;

Does the length of such a list invalidate the items in the list? I don't see your point.

> in fact, it's kind of hard to think of something you can't six-degrees-of-science your way to defending.

Just because something is not directly implied by something else, doesn't mean there is no correlation. If you are working on a mathematical proof, would you give up if you cannot reach the end in 6 (or any arbitrary small number) of steps? Would you declare the assertion wrong? If yes, you're just a bad scientist.

Again, my argument here is simple: it is hard to think of a horrible thing you could say that you couldn't justify using the logic you presented upthread, which makes your argument seem pretty unpersuasive.

> Scientific merit should be the only consideration

More likely value to shareholders, in his setting.

> Regardless of the validity of these arguments, it should be immediately clear that the document would produce no substantive change from a policy perspective

That's the problem right there.

This is a really important point here.

I will strongly defend people's right to hold differing opinions, even extremely controversial ones.

But this guy did not take the right approach. He wrote a freaking 'manifesto' and published it fairly publicly.

Diversity initiatives are a very touchy subject, and if you are going to approach them, you need to do it as carefully and tactfully as possible.

What he did was neither careful, nor tactful, and whether he is 'right' or not is completely besides the point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com