News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science by omikun on Wednesday August 09, 2017 @11:17AM (#14969925)
You must have missed the parts in the end where he advocated measures that systemically undermined diversity measures (let's not make this a moral issue, have less empathy, be more rational). While all of those arguments make sense individually, together they take down any diversity in thought: left side brain good, right side brain bad.

What we need more in this discussion is more emotional intelligence, not less.

Re:The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science by mmirate on Wednesday August 09, 2017 @12:04PM (#14970620)
> left side brain good, right side brain bad

We're programmers/engineers, not painters/artists. Hence I don't see where that statement doesn't hold absolutely true for us. (Except perhaps for management, team leads and entrepreneurs.)

Re:The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science by 52-6F-62 on Wednesday August 09, 2017 @07:16PM (#14974663)
My friend, engineering's primary purpose is empathic in nature.

Have a quick look at new pursuits such as:

http://www.engineering.cornell.edu/magazine/features/empathy...

https://phys.org/news/2015-11-empathy-faculty.html

I could discuss this at length because it's a subject that really interests me, and I'm severely biased because I started out in the humanities with my main pursuit being an understanding of the human condition. I've brought those learnings with me into my current software engineering career and it's serving me well.

Simple being able to place yourself in the shoes of an end user, rather than dictating to them what they necessarily have to learn (and even better, when you know they should learn something with improved understanding of how to implement such a feature) saves everybody a lot of time and frustration. Your estimates will improve in accuracy as well. You'll see less scope-creep.

It's especially important in critical-systems work.

Plus I consider it a bit of a boon to someones character if they care about what they're putting into the world. Most people do. Hint: it won't inhibit your technical understanding.

Re:The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science by mmirate on Wednesday August 09, 2017 @07:26PM (#14974732)
As I understand, you're saying that empathy is vital for assessing requirements. That's precisely why I mentioned management and team-leads as being likely exceptions.

(But each manager or lead usually has more than one report, so there are likely very few managers/leads compared to everyone else. Hence the general sentiment.)

Re:The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science by 52-6F-62 on Wednesday August 09, 2017 @11:00PM (#14975955)
But not every engineer works in environments or on projects with those roles in place. Beyond that not everyone has the resources available to work with UX teams and proper designers. And if one is in the younger class of engineers, chances are more likely one will be exposed to a wider variety of situations where they'll face the need of or benefits of being expose to better understanding human beings (being one of them) -- especially having entered a market where long-term employment is on the downslide, and experience is more project-based or transient.
Re:The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science by jdmichal on Wednesday August 09, 2017 @01:52PM (#14971815)
This is how you end up with a convoluted technical solution that takes a month to program, instead of just talking to the business to adjust the requirement and turn it into a couple hours of work.