Slashdot Mirror
Google Engineer's Leaked 'Gender Diversity' Essay Draws Massive Response (medium.com)
An anonymous reader writes: An engineer at Google's Mountain View headquarters circulated a 3,400-word essay internally that argued a "moral bias" exists at Google that's "shaming dissenters" and silencing their voices against "encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies." It attributes the gender gap in technology to biology-based differences in abilities (such as "speaking up" and "leading") and different personality traits (including "neuroticism"). Its suggested remedies include "Stop alienating conservatives" (calling it "non-inclusive" and "bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness"), and it also suggests as a solution to "de-emphasize empathy" (which "causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases").
As the essay leaked over the weekend, former Google engineer Yonatan Zunger identified its anonymous author as "not someone senior," saying the author didn't seem to understand gender -- or engineering -- or what's going to happen next. "Essentially, engineering is all about cooperation, collaboration, and empathy for both your colleagues and your customers. If someone told you that engineering was a field where you could get away with not dealing with people or feelings, then I'm very sorry to tell you that you have been lied to... It's true that women are socialized to be better at paying attention to people's emotional needs and so on -- this is something that makes them better engineers, not worse ones... You need to learn the difference between 'I think we should adopt Go as our primary language' and 'I think one-third of my colleagues are either biologically unsuited to do their jobs, or if not are exceptions and should be suspected of such until they can prove otherwise to each and every person's satisfaction.'"
The leaked internal essay is now being discussed in literally dozens of news outlets. Click through for some official responses, including leaked reactions from Google's VP of Engineering, from Google's new VP of Diversity, Integrity & Governance -- and from Slashdot's readers.
Google's new VP of Diversity, Integrity & Governance -- who started just a few weeks ago -- responded internally that the document "advanced incorrect assumptions about gender," saying it's not a viewpoint Google endorses or encourages, and adding that "Changing a culture is hard, and it's often uncomfortable."
Zunger seemed to agree in part, writing sympathetically that "One very important true statement which this manifesto makes is that male gender roles remain highly inflexible, and that this is a bug, not a feature. In fact, I suspect that this is the core bug which prompted everything else within this manifesto to be written."
Google VP of Engineering Ari Balogh also responded internally that "we want to continue fostering an environment where it's safe to engage in challenging conversations in a thoughtful way. But, in the process of doing that, we cannot allow stereotyping and harmful assumptions to play any part. One of the aspects of the post that troubled me deeply was the bias inherent in suggesting that most women, or men, feel or act a certain way. That is stereotyping, and it is harmful."
Long-time Slashdot reader Lauren Weinstein believes that leaking the internal memo to the outside world was a major breach of trust that will do more damage. But he also links to an earlier essay which argues "The men of computer science and the computer industry are misogynous jerks. Not all of them of course. Likely not even the majority. But enough to thoroughly poison the well."
As the essay leaked over the weekend, former Google engineer Yonatan Zunger identified its anonymous author as "not someone senior," saying the author didn't seem to understand gender -- or engineering -- or what's going to happen next. "Essentially, engineering is all about cooperation, collaboration, and empathy for both your colleagues and your customers. If someone told you that engineering was a field where you could get away with not dealing with people or feelings, then I'm very sorry to tell you that you have been lied to... It's true that women are socialized to be better at paying attention to people's emotional needs and so on -- this is something that makes them better engineers, not worse ones... You need to learn the difference between 'I think we should adopt Go as our primary language' and 'I think one-third of my colleagues are either biologically unsuited to do their jobs, or if not are exceptions and should be suspected of such until they can prove otherwise to each and every person's satisfaction.'"
The leaked internal essay is now being discussed in literally dozens of news outlets. Click through for some official responses, including leaked reactions from Google's VP of Engineering, from Google's new VP of Diversity, Integrity & Governance -- and from Slashdot's readers.
Google's new VP of Diversity, Integrity & Governance -- who started just a few weeks ago -- responded internally that the document "advanced incorrect assumptions about gender," saying it's not a viewpoint Google endorses or encourages, and adding that "Changing a culture is hard, and it's often uncomfortable."
Zunger seemed to agree in part, writing sympathetically that "One very important true statement which this manifesto makes is that male gender roles remain highly inflexible, and that this is a bug, not a feature. In fact, I suspect that this is the core bug which prompted everything else within this manifesto to be written."
Google VP of Engineering Ari Balogh also responded internally that "we want to continue fostering an environment where it's safe to engage in challenging conversations in a thoughtful way. But, in the process of doing that, we cannot allow stereotyping and harmful assumptions to play any part. One of the aspects of the post that troubled me deeply was the bias inherent in suggesting that most women, or men, feel or act a certain way. That is stereotyping, and it is harmful."
Long-time Slashdot reader Lauren Weinstein believes that leaking the internal memo to the outside world was a major breach of trust that will do more damage. But he also links to an earlier essay which argues "The men of computer science and the computer industry are misogynous jerks. Not all of them of course. Likely not even the majority. But enough to thoroughly poison the well."
Talk about a useless position.
It's going to be a bumpy ride
Includes what is purported to be an internal survey at Google:
http://voxday.blogspot.ca/2017...
...when people attempt to link legitimate engineering or technical points-of-view with misogyny, *-phobia, microagressions, or God-knows-what other kinds of SJW evils, it's hard to then claim that alternative views can't bring up what progressive social folks are doing and how it might affect things back.
e.g., " Anti-Systemd People ":
(Also, like many others, I'm curious why Gizmodo (of all outlets) presents the essay while removing all hyperlinks and charts, as if somehow that is doing a service to its readers by removing context from what is obviously going to involve strong reactions. Nice going, guys.)
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
Those that are criticizing the essay seem to be missing the points it makes. Primary among them is that males and females have different interests and therefore tend to pursue different careers which could account for a lot of the so-called gender gaps in the tech sector. And the author is right, there are relationships between personality traits and political leanings. Jordan Peterson has written a lot about this and his YouTube videos are well worth watching. He makes the case that the notion of equity or equality of outcome in all sectors is a dangerous one. It doesn't mean females can't be good engineers, rather than few females might be going into engineering cause they have different interests and hiring so you always have 50% male and 50% female may not lead to the best outcomes.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
One point where the author is spot on is the overwhelming efforts to silence any other viewpoints. Loom no further than the response to this memo. On twitter, a prominent tech entrepreneur said he thinks the real problem isn't the memo's content but that the author thought it was okay to share it at a place like Google. Isn't that exactly the point the author makes?
I also found interesting his point about how we feel differently about seeking 50-50 gender representation in manual labor occupations and work related deaths.
These topics are worthy of discussion. The "we must get girls to code" push always seemed worthy of skepticism. But there is no real debate in this area, and raising questions gets you labeled unfairly and possibly fired.
One thing is for sure: this guy's career is over. He will be doxxed by some news org who apparently does remember how to do investigative journalism when it comes to random civilians expressing a politically incorrect opinion. And the pitchforks will come out from the SJWs and no company -- certainly google -- wants to get mixed up in that PR nightmare. Game over, bro. Hope it was worth it.
Google VP of Engineering Ari Balogh "One of the aspects of the post that troubled me deeply was the bias inherent in suggesting that most women, or men, feel or act a certain way. That is stereotyping, and it is harmful."
Feminist idiot Lauren Weinstein : "The men of computer science and the computer industry are misogynous jerks. "
Deal with the sexist feminists, realise that when people use factual arguments to prove them wrong, they are not being sexist.
Men and women are different and enjoy doing different things. FACT.
This is the sort of thing that lands in history books as an example of the backwardness of previous generations.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
That somewhat depends on what you call "Christian values". It seems to me (from Europe) that a lot of the views put forward by so called "Christians" in America are the exact opposite of what Jesus was arguing for.
As to "preserving your culture" being a valid viewpoint, well, I would argue that if your culture is one of violence against people because they threaten your own criminal activities, and bullying minorities, then, no, probably not.
In another country, you would be an ISIS supporter - bear that in mind.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
The VP released a memo to media publically doxxing him.Proves one of his points attempt to silence dissent or different opinions.
This forum is blessed with a simply *massive* brains trust, with technical skills and experience contributed regardless of age, ethnicity or gender. Unless a contributor selects a user name which explicitly identifies them by age, gender or background, the way that Slashdot operates actually promotes equality. In other words, as Slashdot shows, equality is possible, it just needs to be implemented thoughtfully...
Having read the email/document that forms the subject of this article, one of the things I observe is that the document itself discusses both conscious and subconscious bias as it can be applied in a workplace [and for this post I'll group together *all* forms of bias, not merely gender bias].
So let's think about this for a moment. Most of us probably work for organisations which claim [publicly at least] to be a meritocracy. But how objective are the performance review procedures? [ Or recruitment, for that matter? ] Here are a few points to consider:-
If your recruitment process gives hiring managers application forms with the age and/or name of the candidate included, then your organisation has an open door for selection bias.
If your appraisal process includes a ranking process that is susceptible to tactical voting ["I'll give your promotion candidate the nod if you do the same for me", then your organisation has an issue with performance review bias.
If your organisation allows a single manager - *any* single manager - to make recruitment, promotion and/or disciplinary decisions in isolation, then your organisation is at risk of allowing "individual bias" to harm your employees.
Creating a truly neutral, inclusive and meritocratic workplace is *HARD*. It requires leadership, sponsorship [from the top], honesty, integrity and commitment. But it also requires something that large, modern organisations have gradually sacrificed. As individuals are pushed ever harder, as we move into more and more of a "performance culture", acts of mutual support and inclusiveness are not merely not helpful for the giver, but they are detrimental - they help someone else to succeed to the giver's loss.
These two things, then, are not mutually exclusive, but they are rarely found in the same organisation in full and effective health.
I'm concerned at the way that the author of the original piece chose to express their views. I do not believe that the author did themselves or their suggestions any favours. I also worry that some of the issues a rooted far more deeply, insidiously and tenaciously than we might yet be willing to accept.
Thank heaven we have the Google VP of Diversity, Integrity & Governance to challenge the old-fashioned idea that engineering is about stuff like mathematics, metallurgy, tolerances, formulas, algorithms, etc. That sort of thinking is so old-school!
Keep your "math" there, old-man Hitler. Progressives know that real engineering is all about empathy!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
making poor technical or unethical decisions just to "win", and a winner-takes-all attitude where being anything less than the champion, the alpha-male, is failure and shameful.
That doesn't sound anything like masculinity, which is about inherent strength and self-reliance and has nothing to do with notions of victory or dominance.
What it does sound an AWFUL lot like is projection, as you have outlined the very basis of thought for the modern left. No person of differing ideology can every win against the group-mind, and nothing can ever be shared from the Great Bounty Of the State, it is only for those that belong to the club.
The only thing being rejected is a straw-man, so that you can worship the new straw-man propped up by a different farmer.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
To circulate, agree with, or repeat crimethink is volunteering to unperson
DoublePlus Love,
Danielle Brown
Commissar of GoodThink
ThinkPol, Google Corp
Indeed. There is a _very_ clear line between "stereotyping" and statistical observations. The second happens to be facts. But SJWs are not mentally equipped to understand that. These morons basically destroy everything they take over, because they have an invalid model of reality.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Empathy doesn't fucking enter into it. You know what's good for cooperation and collaboration? Effective leadership.
Understanding where your people are coming from and etc (ya know, empathy) is what makes it possible to lead effectively.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I'm expecting that the author will be hounded out of his job by the end of next week, and Google will have a major witch hunt against anyone who fails to denounce him angrily enough.
Then, he'll sue for wrongful termination, google will settle for a mid six-figure sum and get a gag order.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
That was an interesting essay. Based on some of the reported reactions, I was expecting an alt-right anti-women screed. But the essay was IMO thoughtful and fairly well-considered. I don't necessarily agree with parts of it or even most of it, but I do think the motivations of the author were not harmful.
As long as ultra-liberals make views like in this essay taboo to express, then these ideas will simply be driven under ground, and people who hold those views will just feel unfairly suppressed. I think it’s a problem that people who hold these views feel the need to express them anonymously, because they know that the reaction will just be one of unmitigated vitriol. Seriously, if that Google employee openly expressed those views, they would just be fired.
Now that this anonymous essay is out, this is an opportunity to critique it carefully. For instance, there are indeed lots of people who think that men and women and people of difference “races” have such significantly different intelligences that it’s okay to utilize stereotypes as part of hiring decisions and such. Well, now we can take this opportunity to revisit the scientific evidence. Surely there ARE differences, but what differences are genetic, and what are the result of culture and socialization? And for any of these differences, what impact do they have (statistically) on engineering talent? And how much does “talent” matter when combined with hard-earned skills?
We do not want to turn gender and racial equality into dogma. First, we should be completely honest and open about scientific research on this matter. Let’s say it became taboo to talk about skin color. Then if you really liked the skin tone of some person of African descent, then you might risk backlash from just complementing someone. Or more neutrally, if you’re trying to make someone look really good in their clothing, then we need the ability to be matter-of-fact about it; the color of your skin, hair, and eyes and the shape of your body do have a real impact on what clothing styles are best for you. Or biologically, it’s important to recognize the relationship between melanin content and sun exposure.
But establishing that diferences do exist an it’s okay to talk about them, what impact do those differences have on things like job effectiveness? Let’s say we unfroze a population of early humans from 500K years ago. They were not quite as intellectually advanced as us, but they had language and other characteristics that we would recognize as human. How should the be treated? Should they be enslaved? Or just relegated to the menial jobs? What if one wanted to study engineering—should we stop them? Why? And what harm would it cause you if one of them went to college, got a degree, and got hired? White men vary in engieering talent VASTLY and are not hired on the basis of simply being white men, so why should a woman, a black man, or a Neanderthal be excluded simply on the basis of one of these labels? And why the hell would you care to try to force people to be judged on those bases?
Although I haven’t met any neanderthals, I have met people with mental disabilities who were capable enough at math and engineering skills that they could hold down an engineering job and be *productive*, without “special treatment.” And of course, I have known lots of downright brilliant people who were female and/or with skin color darker than a norwegian. Are they less common than brilliant white men? If so, that’s interesting for the anthropologists, but not something that HR people should worry themselves with. BESIDES, even if there were some genetic bias that made them “10% less likely to be at skill level Z,” or something like that, the artificial prejudices from our society’s past have a FAR greater impact. We have a long way to go to get those people up to parity with their true underlying abilities. And the longer we take to do that, the longer we keep shooting ourselves in the foot for not benefitting from their ability to contribute.
I believe a lot of the criticism that women and minorities face often comes from confirmation bias. People make mistakes in their jobs or are sloppy. For some reason, when white men make mistakes, t
I've been in tech in some way for almost twenty years now, from programming and IT heavy classes in high school through today. The way I see it, we bred this attitude, and should all have a little compassion for this writer.
In the late 90s and early 2000s, I never heard anyone suggest the all male or nearly all male CS and IT classes I was in were full of sexist men keeping the women out. Just the opposite, I constantly heard they were full of loser boys, women weren't there because they had better ways to spend their time. These guys were nerds, and were on the fringes where they belonged. (The notion that "nerd" and "geek" were positive words was just barely beginning to become a thing.)
Fast forward 15-20 years, and that time they thought they were outcasts? They're now being told that no, quite the opposite, they were being privileged jerks. That whole time they thought they were being ostracized, they were actually gender bullies who now must take responsibility for all the women they've been keeping out of the field. The shift should be enough to make anyone's head spin, but It was a slow burn with no clear demarcation. It's easy to miss. It's not surprising some people who've been in this system feel unhappy, betrayed, angry, or a number of other things.
Twenty years may seem like a long time, but what other profession has changed so fast? "Changing a culture is hard, and it's often uncomfortable." Indeed.
I'm not saying this guy is right. I'm not even saying he's wrong. I'm saying we shouldn't be surprised quite a few of him exist. I'm surprised there aren't a lot more.
One of the aspects of the post that troubled me deeply was the bias inherent in suggesting that most women, or men, feel or act a certain way. That is stereotyping, and it is harmful
Statistical trends between men and women are science. Stick to your search engine snapper-head.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
But we do not bear him any ill-will, we are not out to shut him up or cause him harm.
So all those death threats to trans people are writing themselves?
The leftists are a small minority with all the power.
Which is why democrats received a plurality of the popular vote in the last three presidential elections.
They destroy careers by firing and blacklisting.
Like how Trump wanted to fire all the DoE employees that believe in climate change?
They use the force of law to arrest, fine and harass dissenters.
This one is extra insane. I don't even know what you are talking about here. Are you under the impression that law enforcement, a current major target of liberal outrage, is somehow under the control of leftists? Literally wtf.
Followed by your allies in the media pronouncing that we "hate government," "oppose education" and "deny science" because we are incensed by corruption of those institutions and endeavors to serve your own ideological and political ends.
Isn't that what every group in power tries to do? Your guys are doing it right now, and have done it before. That is seemingly the entire point of government.
I really don't care if there's an ideological echo chamber at Google. I'd guess he's probably right, but if it pisses him off so badly, he doesn't have to work there either.
However, we can't be hypocrites.
If we are ok with Google stomping its ideology into its employees, then we should be equally ok with other ideologues pushing their private causes onto their employees, or inviting them to leave if they don't like it, such as Chik Fil A.
If it's ok for Google, it should be ok for Hobby Lobby, no?
-Styopa
Here's a funny thing: Medicine, Law, and Engineering were also fields that were over 90% male - women had to "break in". And don't imagine they didn't have to push past a lot of sexism and belittling and interrupting.
There was one woman in my 50-man engineering class of 1980; I saw the first woman hired as P.Eng. in my workplace in 1993. By the time I left, five of my last six bosses had been women (2003-2017), and in two cases, THEIR bosses had been women; I'd say they're now a third of the shop. I think this generation has to put up with much less prejudice and belittling (from their women boss, for sure).
Medicine and Law have been half women for a while now.
Then there's IT. Happens I also got a CompSci degree, 1985. A third of my class were women and it was widely assumed it would hit 50% by 1990 or so. And it WAS doing pretty well in the 1990s, then the female participation rate plummeted after the dot-bomb and has never really recovered.
The driving force here, I think, is not poisonous culture, but money. Medicine and Law were rapidly integrated because they are the best-paid jobs in society, and women kept pushing, hard; they had cause. Engineering is mostly better-paid than IT, at least the actual coding jobs.
It's the same as that thing about women not going in to drywall; obviously the best-paid, relative to work pain, jobs will be the most attractive. Coding has become way less attractive lately. Oh, and it's not a licensed profession, like medicine, law, engineering...that may have something to do with both its attractiveness and stability, too.
The same crew that claims traditional religion is horseshit has created their own called secular humanism. And it will brook no dissent.
Don't group all atheists with those bag of dicks who get their feelings hurt whenever someone disagrees with them. Speaking as an atheist, the clear majority of us don't care for identity politics, and we don't go around telling our friends and families that their beliefs are wrong.
For example, I'm openly atheist, and married to a woman who follows two major religions (Catholicism and Hinduism), and yet we have no problems. It's because, unlike those asshole thought-police above who want to silent opposing opinions, we (current wife and I) grew up instead.
The people you are angry with are not assholes because you're christian, they're assholes because they're assholes.
In much the same way, the hard-left crowd who will attack and shame free thinkers aren't doing so because of the free-thinkers, they're doing it because they're assholes.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.