Slashdot Mirror
James Damore Explains Why He Was Fired By Google (wsj.com)
In an exclusive Wall Street Journal post, the engineer responsible for the anti-diversity "Google manifesto," James Damore, explains why he was fired by the company: I was fired by Google this past Monday for a document that I wrote and circulated internally raising questions about cultural taboos and how they cloud our thinking about gender diversity at the company and in the wider tech sector. I suggested that at least some of the male-female disparity in tech could be attributed to biological differences (and, yes, I said that bias against women was a factor too). Google Chief Executive Sundar Pichai declared that portions of my statement violated the company's code of conduct and "cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace." My 10-page document set out what I considered a reasoned, well-researched, good-faith argument, but as I wrote, the viewpoint I was putting forward is generally suppressed at Google because of the company's "ideological echo chamber." My firing neatly confirms that point. How did Google, the company that hires the smartest people in the world, become so ideologically driven and intolerant of scientific debate and reasoned argument? [...]
In my document, I committed heresy against the Google creed by stating that not all disparities between men and women that we see in the world are the result of discriminatory treatment. When I first circulated the document about a month ago to our diversity groups and individuals at Google, there was no outcry or charge of misogyny. I engaged in reasoned discussion with some of my peers on these issues, but mostly I was ignored. Everything changed when the document went viral within the company and the wider tech world. Those most zealously committed to the diversity creed -- that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and all people are inherently the same -- could not let this public offense go unpunished. They sent angry emails to Google's human-resources department and everyone up my management chain, demanding censorship, retaliation and atonement. Upper management tried to placate this surge of outrage by shaming me and misrepresenting my document, but they couldn't really do otherwise: The mob would have set upon anyone who openly agreed with me or even tolerated my views. When the whole episode finally became a giant media controversy, thanks to external leaks, Google had to solve the problem caused by my supposedly sexist, anti-diversity manifesto, and the whole company came under heated and sometimes threatening scrutiny.
In my document, I committed heresy against the Google creed by stating that not all disparities between men and women that we see in the world are the result of discriminatory treatment. When I first circulated the document about a month ago to our diversity groups and individuals at Google, there was no outcry or charge of misogyny. I engaged in reasoned discussion with some of my peers on these issues, but mostly I was ignored. Everything changed when the document went viral within the company and the wider tech world. Those most zealously committed to the diversity creed -- that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and all people are inherently the same -- could not let this public offense go unpunished. They sent angry emails to Google's human-resources department and everyone up my management chain, demanding censorship, retaliation and atonement. Upper management tried to placate this surge of outrage by shaming me and misrepresenting my document, but they couldn't really do otherwise: The mob would have set upon anyone who openly agreed with me or even tolerated my views. When the whole episode finally became a giant media controversy, thanks to external leaks, Google had to solve the problem caused by my supposedly sexist, anti-diversity manifesto, and the whole company came under heated and sometimes threatening scrutiny.
When did this become James Damore's personal blog?
C0C Only in USA/West!
Hell No!. I didn't say anything. Seriously, I didn't. I mean, nothing. I didn't even know this was going on.
Identity politics destroys organizations, including companies and open source projects.
Using past Slashdot submissions, let's track what happened to the GNOME desktop environment project after it started engaging in identity politics, instead of just focusing on software development.
On June 15, 2006, Slashdot featured the story "GNOME Reaches Out to Women".
As we progress from 2007 through to just last week, we can see the decline:
The GNOME project went from creating GNOME 2, which was perhaps the most widely used and most liked open source desktop environment ever created, to the GNOME 3 disaster (which was quite delayed), and eventually to the project having trouble finding a maintainer for its text editor!
Some people will misinterpret what happened, and blame women for it. Of course, that's a load of bollocks. As we can see from t
I'd rather boycott YOU until you are fired.
He was trying to open a dialogue about problems with the way things were being run at work. What he did and where he did it was entirely appropriate.
You might like working at a stagnant company where everybody is scared to rock the boat, but I would prefer to get things like this out in the open so that the company can improve.
Exactly.
At my company, you'd get fired for writing something similar about women. (I took the annual Code of Ethics course last night, and it mentioned something similar.)
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Google solicits feedback from employees on their internal discussion forums.
James Damore Explains Why He Thinks He Was Fired By Google
Fact of the matter is, as he was the firee, not the firer, he cannot speak authoritatively as to why he was fired by his employer. His employer is probably not going disclose the exact statements that led to the firing either, because any employer sufficiently large to have an HR department is going play its cards close to its chest to avoid creating grounds for lawsuit or to minimize those grounds.
Everyone on the planet old enough to have life experience develops one's own set of biases. Generally it's wise to take care when expressing one's biases or when acting upon them, because if someone is indiscreet then one's indiscretions may lead to consequences. Mr. Damore did not exercise discretion and it has cost him.
Fundamentally the workers in a business are not the owners of the business, and unless employees have reached sufficiently lofty positions in the company then they're to follow legal policy, not to set or otherwise determine policy. Granted, a tolerant employer can be better to work for, but there again, that kind of tolerance goes both ways, and an employer is only going to tolerate so much intolerance. In the eyes of his employer, Mr. Damore appears to have crossed that line.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Clarification: you'd get fired for writing that women are superior to men.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
...for drama. You want to write a manifesto? Don't do it at work. Put it on your blog. I would fire you for wasting everyones time with your personal issues.
Manifesto? Essay? Screed? Memo?
Funny how the way you label things tends to change their meaning. He circulated it on an internal company board designed for this sort of thing. He had been talking with co-workers about it without issue. It WASNT an issue until it upset someone and they took it to the public.
Boycott all google products until he's re-hired!
Odd... the word 'manifesto' doesn't show up either in the original document or this article. Are you, perhaps applying labels that do not fit?
Most companies are open to respectful feedback, even candid at times. Now though we are reminded that some ideas are unspeakable truths that those in the echo chamber find 'unacceptable'... despite being firmly rooted in reality.
It is very disrespectful and unprofessional to discuss a company's internal and private matters in public like you're proposing. It might also be seen as violating confidentiality agreements. What you're proposing is just plain idiotic.
Yup - he got fired because he caused the company a huge amount of negative publicity, and put them in a no-win situation.
I'm pretty sure the reaction would have been the same had he published it in his personal blog. Actually, it could've been worse since he wrote stuff about what is going on inside Google, which is not supposed to be discussed outside.
Clearly, intimidation and retaliation works. Muslims use it. Feminists use it. Google and corporate America all fear it. They use it to seize arbitrary power that is above reasoned debate or challenge.
My favorite quote from the manifesto:
"Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males"
I've been able to survive this long as a software engineer without discussing castration in any email or company blog posts. It's really not very difficult.
Here is a simple rule of thumb, If your CEO has to cancel a vacation because of your actions, which inexplicably involve discussing castrated males, you should prepare your resume...
Not pseudoscience, well documented research. But every snowflake is special and perfect and can be anything they want to be. I want to be president and an astronaut and a movie star and a famous author and a designer at apple.
I don't think it would matter if this was in his blog. The SJW would hunt him down regardless.
Company was asking for memos like that as part of their fake drive to increase diversity of thought... That's also why he'll be able to sue, because idiots were asking for things they can't handle.
He didn't write a manifesto, he wrote an argument for reviewing some of their procedures and practices at the company. I write such memos all the time, however the company I work for isn't Google, and it's mostly having to do with manufacturing processes rather than HR practices because that's the area in which I personally work. However, I really don't see the difference, a process is a process and they should be reviewed and changed when there is valid reason to do so, be it manufacturing or HR or otherwise.
You /.ers really need to read The Circle. I guess there was a movie but I didn't see it. This situation, with the groupthink and victimhood, is eerily familiar to several scenes in that book.
Bullshit. He was lecturing. And really, even if he's right, what message is he sending to his female colleagues, that somehow his male brain gives him at least a statistical edge over them?
Is Google being harmed by its gender policies? Was he? At the end of the day, one presumes he was hired as a software developer or engineer, and not to write screeds against his employer's hiring practices.
There's evidence pointing in both directions, and the jury is still out on how much of the gender disparity in areas like the STEM fields derives from biological/cognitive differences and cultural differences. Unless this is an area for which he actually has sufficient background to back up his statements, not only is he well out of his own field, but he is very much encouraging stereotypical sentiment.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
If you can community-organize a "drama" about something, you can get anyone at Google fired, regardless of facts.
and what got improved at google by this discussion?
He got fired for ripping the veil off the Uncomfortable, Inconvenient Truth: That homo sapiens are just animals pretending to be civilized, playing with all our toys. In reality the human race, at it's current state of development (toddlers, not totally out of diapers yet) are a fucking JOKE compared to where science fiction authors envisioned us. We're sexist, racist, bigoted, violent, irrational, and still believe in imaginary beings with magical powers. We prey on our own species. We fight and klll our own for fun and profit. We treat our females like cattle, kidnapping them and forcing them to have sex with strangers so the kidnappers can get paid money, and when they become all used up they're killed like cattle. We shit where we eat every single day, destroying our own habitat, and at the rate we're going it won't support us in another hundred years. if there are any actual alien civilizations out there that are advanced enough to come here or at least monitor us from a distance, it's no fucking wonder that they won't contact us or respond to our attempts to contact them; we're an embarassment. They're probably waiting for us to fuck up so bad that we all die off, then come mine the Earth for it's resources.
..and now, just like that poor bastard got fired, I'll get modded down to negative one in a heartbeat, because nobody likes being reminded of the truth of who and what they are: ANIMALS.
It's the same thing that Larry Summers got in trouble for. You're not an expert in neuroscience or sociology. You're not qualified to say what differences are biological, which are cultural, and which are due to bias. You're picking and choosing tidbits of pseudo-science that reinforce an argument that women are genetically predisposed towards different types of technical work than men. Absent scientific consensus to support that claim, this isn't all that different than classic sexism. It creates a hostile work environment, those who were offended had every right to be offended, and management is going to do what they're going to do in that situation.
Especially niggers.
And when your works says it encourages and wants open discussions? Sadly too many people believe them. You fire people for putting on-topic suggestions in your suggestion box? That's effectively what he did.
Considering that conservatives had to invent their own definition of truthiness and rely on alternative facts to create a world view that conforms to their narrative, you really can just shut up.
he company that hires the smartest people in the world, become so ideologically driven and intolerant of scientific debate and reasoned argument? ... Easy, Because they started making money and they continue to do so. Simple. Seriously, Who cares. A geeky tech company that is male orientated. I am sure that it is very localized issue what this prick is going on about and I'm sure Google all over the world treats it's women right. End of story.
Your wilful misrepresentation of the thing speaks volumes, so thanks for sharing.
But do consider: If he'd only put it on his blog, it might've gone viral anyway and gotten him fired all the same, so that's no argument not to bring it to work. Especially since it's addressing something that's a thing within google. He's trying to be constructive about solving problems at work. As an engineer, that's his job. At least he thought it was.
Anyway, it's not a manifesto, it's a discussion piece, full of well-researched science and reasonable argumentation. You don't have to agree with it, but you don't get to just sweep it under the rug with an ad hominem or other fallacy. It is interesting to see why it got such a strong non-contentual response, for as it turned out, it's not just "drama". It's heresy. That's much, much worse for the keepers of the canon.
Heresy cannot be tolerated because the heretic is wrong. It must be eradicated because the heretic might be right.
social justice idiots stop thinking and reading when the first word that offends them appears.
And every Slashdot article has led with calling it the "anti-diversity manifesto". Doesn't matter how many times it gets pointed out that he was not anti-diversity at all, And we'll have AmiMoJo and Pope Ratzo coming into yet another article repeating it as well.
I'm done with Slashdot now. For a while now I haven't cared to log in to comment, and now I'm just removing it from my bookmarks entirely. Not going to miss it.
James Damore died for your sins.
Are going to be written by people who didn't read it, or read it and failed to understand it.
who?
No one needs to hear any "dialogue". Just do your work.
Bullsnot, this guy was trolling and got his dick slammed in the door for it
Now, there may be a deeper issue here, where the author, you and millions of other neckbeards are soooo deeply involved in trolling that they cannot separate that behavior from 'normal' and 'accepted' behavior
That is his, your, and their problems respectively and no something that you can take anybody to court for, so fuckoff buckoo and spend some time with "real people" so that you can learn how to behave when you finally land a decent job
Boycott google and all their products until he is re-hired!
It be the white man tryin' keep the niggas down.
for making his employer look bad in public. And that'll get you canned most anywhere.
But... he never wrote that men are superior to women. He just argued that differences in preferences -- in what careers men tend to find fulfilling and interesting and hence pursue, versus the careers women tend to find fulfilling and interesting -- could explain much of the gender imbalance in software development.
Feedback about work. This is more of a manifesto on his views on women, homosexuality, etc. Seriously who cares what some engineer thinks about those things.
Some drunk jackass DJ groped her during a meet & greet, Taylor Swift complained to his company, he got fired, and now he's suing her.
Didn't read the memo, huh? Just the media articles about it, right? It's obvious.
Here's a link for you; https://diversitymemo-static.s...
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
It would still not be appropriate to post beliefs in eugenics or any of a long list of outdated and repressive ideas
> there is a bell curve.
Since you brought up a specific mathematical structure, let's be specific here.
What % deviation is there between the male and female bell curve of "being good at computers"?
Is it 1% we are arguing about here? Is it 50%? 0.1%?
You can say "Guys are better" all you want, but until you are willing to quantify it, don't bring math into it.
It is still a "soft" qualitative argument as far as I'm concerned.
The company got political first. Rather than focusing on what was relevant to the bottom line they have been doing social experiments. They do these political diversity seminars... they invite employees to comment.
Its going to court. And that will be that. If the court agrees with you then so be it. But if you are familiar with US labor laws... then you have to be aware that google has some liability and vulnerability here. The firing can easily be argued as retribution for complaining about labor conditions. Which I believe is a violation of US labor law.
All of this is very ironic because the people defending google are members of the same broad ideological faction that put these rules into place in the first place. And it could easily lead to an issue where the labor unions have to side against their presumptive ideological allies out of self defense... because the precedence set by google winning this would put those entities in threat.
There is a lot of tough talk coming from the SJW dude bros... they want everyone to know that anyone that has a problem with this is a pussy and a whiner. The hypocrisy of this is obvious and won't be explored beyond this sentence. However, the "everyone who complains is a pussy" or a snowflake or whatever argument doesn't really work in a labor dispute in a court room. So... Looking at US labor law... Google looks like they're in trouble.
But the courts are unpredictable sometimes. We'll see what happens.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
When were Russians kicked nation to nation?
Dumbass.
Is Google being harmed by its gender policies? Was he? At the end of the day, one presumes he was hired as a software developer or engineer, and not to write screeds against his employer's hiring practices.
Then what of other employees' calls for his punishment and declaring that they'd refuse to work with him? Were those people hired to issue screeds and ultimatums regarding personnel issues? Should they be canned too?
Write all the manufacturing manifestos you want. Just don't write manifestos on things you have no clue about or offend half the company.
The echo chamber has been punctured. The first step on the road to fixing a problem is to admit there is a problem.
Clarification: you'd get fired for writing that women are superior to men.
ROFLMAO ... no you wouldn't
There's a huge logical fallacy in Damore's argument, and this guy nailed it. Damore's argument boils down to this:
A) There are biological differences between men and women, as science has shown.
B) Men and women, on average, do different things in the workplace, as statistics show.
C) Therefore, A causes B.
D) We are trying too hard to change this because A causes B.
This has all been such a complete waste of time.
Don't shop Google products until he's re-hired!
He became a distraction! You never want to be a distraction in any job. Your reason for being there is to help the company get it work done. Once YOU become the topic of conversation rather than the objectives its a problem. Unless you are a C-Level and even than it can be a problem.
Now I find Google's policies and this diversity business "deplorable" I think companies should hire the best qualified candidates they can get that want to work there for what they are offering to pay, full stop. The moment you start giving special consideration to someone's skin color, gender, sir name, or any other damned thing that isn't immediately relevant to their expected job functions you are off in heave bullshit territory in my book. I would even go as far as to say I agree with almost all the content of his little manifesto.
I still understand why he got fired though!
He was not a hiring manger, he does not work in HR. If he thought Google was engaging in some kind of illegal discriminatory hiring practice there were probably a small number of official people who should have raised that concern with and likely given them more than a couple weeks to respond to serious matter like that. He kept circulating the document, he should have reasonably know would cause controversy, though to a wider audience of people who did not need to be involved.
So Boom gets fired. Now I hope I am right I hope he was fired for being a distraction and not just because someone important "disagreed."
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
"Real people" is meant by this people who use ad hominem in place of rational argument?
Most of the "science" that the Google guy cites has been thoroughly debunked, as have most of the theories that say that "evolutionary development" justifies structural inequity.
Also, there is a bell curve, but "The Bell Curve" is a pile of racist claptrap designed to make white guys feel justified in their racism.
Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
.
It is a shame he still seems to be unable to comprehend why he was fired. As an Engineer he should know that the has to identify a problem in order to fix it. Unless he recognizes what the problem really is, then he will just continue spinning in place, looking more and more foolish.
He wrote about it while on a 12 hour plane flight.
If Google has channels to share their thoughts then clearly just writing about company culture and sharing it with coworkers isn't considered to be a bad thing there. Except of course when it goes against groupthink.
...for drama. You want to write a manifesto? Don't do it at work. Put it on your blog. I would fire you for wasting everyones time with your personal issues.
It wasn't a manifesto, it was an article.
He posted it on an internal group where such things were supposed to be posted. Yes, at work.
Nothing of what he wrote had anything to do with his personal issues. It was a detached, reasoned and supported discussion.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Maybe you need to read the actual contents of the memo before offering an opinion. Damore NEVER says that women are inferior to men as programmers.
Yup - he got fired because he caused the company a huge amount of negative publicity, and put them in a no-win situation.
Actually, the person who caused a huge amount of negative publicity is whoever leaked an internal communication to the press. It was a non-issue until that happened.
You surely do and here is truth of JOOGLE https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10981191&cid=54993837/
Totally agree with you. The way you call it creates a bias. A manifesto seems bad, but an essay seems good, even though both seem to overlap in their definition.
Everything can become "an issue" when it gets pushed as bad by some pressure groups, in this case, feminists and all the "we are all equal" crowd. Then it gets to run in the news and you get a story.
It does seem that Slashdot has decended into 4chan territory in the last few years.
Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
Yeah, writing that women are biologically different than men is really controversial. There is no scientific evidence for this whatsoever. Anyone who thinks there are any biological differences between men and women must be completely loony. For starters, both sexes have both the X and Y chromosones. Both sexes have exactly the same types and amounts of hormones in their systems too. They have to as there are no biological differences. I mean, men and women aren't even visibly different, let alone in any psychological or mental aspect.
Most of the married men I know have given birth. And most married women I know have gotten their husbands pregnant. And vice versa.
I am a white male in my 40s, and I recently quit the engineering profession because of just this kind of political bullshit. Companies that used to be devoted to the pursuit of science and technological achievement have been co-opted by the social justice movement, and it makes for a very hostile work environment.
I quit because a certain team of HR administrators decided that white males over 40 were no longer welcome at the company. White males over 40 (and only those of us over 40, mind you) were required to take QUARTERLY diversity training and sign oaths of affirmation of our commitment to diversity and inclusion.
The last straw came when, as a manager, I was told that I was no longer allowed to determine my raise distributions and that my director would dole out my raise pool. Guess what - not a single white male over 40 in my group (myself included) were given raises the last two years.
So I said screw it. I quit. Now I'm a certified financial planner and I couldn't be happier. I don't make as much money yet but I'll be damned if I'm not thrilled to go to work every morning again. That's something I haven't felt in a decade.
No, Damore NEVER said that women are less likely to succeed in tech than men, less capable, etc. Read the fucking memo yourself before you comment on it; the media have been lying to you about what it says.
We won't miss you, either.
"How did Google, the company that hires the smartest people in the world .... hire an idiot".
A complete boycott should be supported by everyone for racism. Racism is wrong in all its forms!
JOOOOOOZZZZZ
James specifically posted it In response to a request by google for critical and controversial thoughts on equality in the workplace. James starts out by explaining that it is wrong to take the average of a group of people and assign that value to each individual, at no point does he say individual women or any other individual from a group can't do well. Instead it is a well reasoned and cited document. Later on it was backed by at least 6 experts in the fields of biology and psychology, citing scientifically accepted causes for differences beteeen groups of people. It outlines how cultural taboos create opportunity inequality by attempting to force outcome equality through sexist and racist bias. Because he was right, it inflamed SJW and the corporate monoculture so badly no one even read it before resorting to a strawman argument set aflame from the torches of seething angry internet warriors.
So what? If you don't like it, don't work for them. California is an at-will state. Sorry snowflake, put on your big boy pants and find another job.
He was trying to open a dialogue about problems with the way things were being run at work. What he did and where he did it was entirely appropriate.
Also, this kind of thing is a legally PROTECTED act, and an Employer interfering with or retaliating against employees for engaging in this type of dialog violates federal law. Section 7 rights for Protected Concerted Activity under the NLRB prohibit employer retaliation over
such speech, even if the employees are not uninized.
And Employee Rights
Neckbeards gtfo, kicking you asshats to the curb only makes Google more preferable to me
Google isn't a democracy, and just because people won't openly condemn a coworker doesn't mean he hasn't poisoned the well.
There isn't a Fortune 500 company, or indeed any company of over a couple of hundred employees that probably would keep this guy on now. If he didn't know he was going to get fired, or at the very least penalized for this memo (even if he never intended it to get to the wider audience it ended up in the hands of), well then maybe Mr. James Damore ain't so fucking bright himself.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Great. Then don't do it at all and keep your mouth shut. Even better. No one needs to read your idiotic thoughts on a blog either.
He is only pointing out the bigger issue of denying science when it hurts peoples feelings. This discussion has to start somewhere.
He'd probably just do his work, be he had to attend diversity meetings. Doesn't sound like Google cares much about just getting your work done.
What a freak show.
Considering some other unrelated things that other people did, YOU really can just shut up ;-)
He states that "...Google hires the smartest people in the world." His actions prove that he ain't one of them.
Nobody likes you.
Then quit if you don't like it, snowflake.
So you're saying there's such a thing as "non-white science"? Perhaps with "non-white universities" to teach that "non-white science"? What would they teach there, I wonder?
I note that you decline to actually engage on content. Inquisition does not do that with heretics.
Debra W. Soh is an expert in neuroscience. (PhD in sexual neuroscience from the University of York.) She wrote the following in defense of Damore:
"Within the field of neuroscience, sex differences between women and men—when it comes to brain structure and function and associated differences in personality and occupational preferences—are understood to be true, because the evidence for them (thousands of studies) is strong. This is not information that’s considered controversial or up for debate; if you tried to argue otherwise, or for purely social influences, you’d be laughed at."
The Google Memo: Four Scientists Respond
Where do you work? I have to assume that it isn't in Silicon Valley, or some other heavily leftist area.
What you're saying is perfectly true in any reasonable area, where leftism has been kept in check. But it doesn't hold true in areas where leftism is running rampant.
It was leftists who brought genitalia and -isms and -phobias into the workplace.
I don't think you truly appreciate what it's like to work within an organization that consists mainly of Millennials (aka "hipsters"), especially ones who are on the far left of the political spectrum. It's the kind of thing you can't really understand unless you've experienced it, it's so unbelievable.
The workplace doesn't revolve around work or business, like is typically the case. Such a workplace revolves around so-called "social justice" and other leftist ideologies. Work is secondary to matters of political ideology.
If you haven't experienced this yourself, perhaps the best example you can publicly see is the Rust programming language project. Its Code of Conduct should give you a sense of what the situation is like.
There's a paragraph within the Rust Code of Conduct that states that it's unacceptable to exclude people, yet that very same paragraph also threatens to do just that against people deemed to be offenders! With some emphasis added:
When working in a leftist organization, you'll find it challenging to not discuss gender, sexuality, racism, homophobia, sexism, and all sorts of other -isms and -phobias on a frequent basis, even if you're a software developer! The absurd thing with leftists is that they could very well go after you if you don't discuss such things as frequently as they do, because to them the lack of discussion indicates that you're a "bigot".
If you've never experienced a leftist Millennial workplace, then I don't think you could truly appreciate how unusual of a situation it can be. Talking about "castration" (or more likely, transsexuals) could very well be a common occurrence.
How many times are we going to have this same (group) argument?
#DeleteChrome
For starters, both sexes have both the X and Y chromosones.
No better hilarity than the unintentional kind.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
https://t.co/nSqu7JrrdS
Come on, we are all tired of hearing about this idiot. We all know what he wrote, we all know the story, we all know what Google did in response, AND there was already a front page post focused on Damore's side of this (https://tech.slashdot.org/story/17/08/10/1833254/fired-google-engineer-says-company-execs-shamed-and-smeared-him). This isn't news anymore. We don't need endless rehashings of the same bullshit.
Bullshit. He was lecturing. And really, even if he's right, what message is he sending to his female colleagues, that somehow his male brain gives him at least a statistical edge over them?
What do you mean by a statistical edge over them? His argument wasn't that male engineers were better than female engineers, simply that women may be less likely to want to have careers in computing. You may want to actually read his document.
Is Google being harmed by its gender policies?
If they're passing up talented hires due to a quota system, then yes they are. Also, from what some other posters have said in previous /. stories related to this, affirmative action is illegal in California, so they may be running afoul of the law.
There's evidence pointing in both directions, and the jury is still out on how much of the gender disparity in areas like the STEM fields derives from biological/cognitive differences and cultural differences.
Almost all of the evidence (at least everything I've seen) points to it being largely biological. I've seen a lot of people claim it isn't, but they have yet to post all of this evidence that supposedly suggests otherwise. I think that many here are more than willing to consider this other evidence, but so far no one has actually posted any of it.
Unless this is an area for which he actually has sufficient background to back up his statements, not only is he well out of his own field, but he is very much encouraging stereotypical sentiment.
Apparently he has a Ph.D. in biology, so he's probably got more background than most people here. Also, if it really is factual, I don't think it's fair to call it a stereotype. You wouldn't tell me I was being stereotypical if I told you that men were taller than women.
that somehow his male brain gives him at least a statistical edge over them?
He cited references that evidence this, AND it is extremely likely that he is 100% correct on the matters he discussed.
When the truth is being ignored.... it is a good thing to point out the errors/falsehoods being assumed.
Unless this is an area for which he actually has sufficient background to back up his statements
You are carrying an Ad Hominem fallacy. His background, work history, personal beliefs, etc, have absolutely
nothing to do with the validity of the arguments he has made either way. Arguments are to be judged based on
the sources, and evidence related to the premises of the argument, and the principles of logic used to consistently evaluate arguments.
From the sound of it. His management chain was pressured to fire him. If it had been on his blog, they could chalk it up to "personal views outside of his role at Google".
The long and short of it was that he hinted women and other diversity candidates biologically inferior. He didn't say it out right, he wink-winked it and put some favorable references give it a veneer of scientific soundness.
It wasn't a scientific paper. It was an opinion piece about his gender and racial (diversity) stereotype biases and his belief that is was based on genetics.
Experts have come out and said there isn't definitive proof that those biological differences would account for the differences. The cultural differences plays such a big huge part in all of this.
That's not how Google works. They normally encourage people working on random stuff
Pretty please? I'm tired of hearing about this story as if Google were crusading against conservatives.
At his new job at Inforwars or National Review, where he won't have to worry about pesky issues such as repression of conservative views or diversity.
--sf
"James Damore Explains Why He Was Fired By Google (wsj.com)"
Of course he doesn't, he just tells his opinion.
Why did he feel the need to spend the time and effort to write a ten page email/memo about something he thought was a problem? I cannot find anywhere where he was tasked with this. Or even the company soliciting opinions.
If he truly felt he had an opinion that could have helped, requesting a meeting with the director of HR or his boss would have been appropriate.
Frankly, I get the impression he wanted to just rant and thought if he made it look scientific enough, it'd get by.
"It does NOT MATTER if what he said was true, well, sourced"
So, you're a science denier. That's a far greater crime to humanity.
Maybe learning how to use the English language would be a good first step.
Bullshit. He was lecturing. And really, even if he's right, what message is he sending to his female colleagues, that somehow his male brain gives him at least a statistical edge over them?
Have you actually read what he wrote? Because the way you are ranting about it, it sounds like you're going off of what others have said.
He didn't say that his male brain gives him a statistical edge over women. He said that, possibly, biological and societal causes may explain why more women aren't going into technology. He didn't say anything about biology changing how they perform in technology.
Is Google being harmed by its gender policies? Was he? At the end of the day, one presumes he was hired as a software developer or engineer, and not to write screeds against his employer's hiring practices.
Maybe they are being harmed by it and maybe they aren't. If you are trying to reach a 50/50 split between male and female employees and there aren't enough qualified female applicants, how do you get to that split? You sometimes have to hire somebody who's not as qualified to get there.
There's evidence pointing in both directions, and the jury is still out on how much of the gender disparity in areas like the STEM fields derives from biological/cognitive differences and cultural differences. Unless this is an area for which he actually has sufficient background to back up his statements, not only is he well out of his own field, but he is very much encouraging stereotypical sentiment.
You do realize he has a Master's Degree in Biology and was working on his PhD. I believe he's more qualified to discuss biological/cognitive differences than you or I.
I the end, he tried to create a discussion and SJWs within Google proved his point about it being a monoculture that punishes opposing views. They leaked it to the press where it went viral.
If you want more proof, look at how the press is still picking him apart. Go out and Google his name... there are new articles every day about him, his background, things he did in the past. So he's been fired, and now they are going to work on him to make sure he stays unemployed.
Gotta love the tolerant left.
If he didn't know he was going to get fired, or at the very least penalized for this memo (even if he never intended it to get to the wider audience it ended up in the hands of), well then maybe Mr. James Damore ain't so fucking bright himself.
Indeed! Even if you (in the general sense, not the parent) agree, it's still clear he had a staggering lack of good judgement. Would you want someone like that in charge of production code?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
whoosh
No, he does not have a PhD in biology. He apparently abandoned that before completion.
http://www.businessinsider.com...
Maybe Mr. Damore isn't quite the champion of the victimized male that people want to believe. But way to go with trying to make him into an expert in cognitive studies, because he went part way through a biology PhD. In my part of the world that's called a fallacious appeal to authority. So tell me, are you genetically predisposed to such faulty logic, or was that a cultural artifact?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Bullshit. He was lecturing. And really, even if he's right, what message is he sending to his female colleagues, that somehow his male brain gives him at least a statistical edge over them?
Is Google being harmed by its gender policies? Was he? At the end of the day, one presumes he was hired as a software developer or engineer, and not to write screeds against his employer's hiring practices.
There's evidence pointing in both directions, and the jury is still out on how much of the gender disparity in areas like the STEM fields derives from biological/cognitive differences and cultural differences. Unless this is an area for which he actually has sufficient background to back up his statements, not only is he well out of his own field, but he is very much encouraging stereotypical sentiment.
you are quite the bootlicker
ITYM if *you* wind up organising a drama about something at google, you might well get yourself fired.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
There's some truth to this. Also, if you plan lawsuit (IANAL), raising it as an issue online is a really bad idea too.
There are certain lines you do not cross. In America, you get shot if you do. You assholes cannot stand anybody, and killed the natives.
Remember your heritage and plan accordingly. Also, welcome to the outcasts from elite club. This shit is why people were crazy enough to voTe.
Except even in California you can't fire someone because of their race, sex, religion, sexual orientation... or respectful conversations about issues within the work environment and how they could be improved.
If Google doesn't want such conversations happening, they can restrict them in other ways, but the fact they were open to them, and the CEO misrepresented the contents of the memo and defamed it's author as part of the firing process... leaves Google in a very problematic spot for when, not if this goes to court.
The NLRB complaint is no doubt just the first step.
If your coding quality is as good as your understanding of social research quality, you should be compelled to return past earnings. Your right to free speech was in no way impended. You spoke. Now try to accept the consequences, how to say, "like a man", rather than whining.
Google is rich. Which means they're very, very smart at business. And this guy was fired. Which means he's a loser. So anyone who agrees with him hates America.
And water is wet.
This memo has really triggered a lot of people which tells me he might have been on to something.
In a company, statements made by employees must be also judged against a company's mission, against the effect on coworkers and perceptions of the company in the wider society. Clearly, whatever Mr. Damore's gifts may be, an ability to assess what writing the memo he did would do to his career prospects at Google wasn't among them.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Most of the married men I know have given birth. And most married women I know have gotten their husbands pregnant. And vice versa.
That's impossible :D
You're the one melting down over that document, leftard snowflake.
Better companies like Google encourage expressing opinions and creating dialogs on many topics aside from purely technical. Your life experiences appear too narrow to know this.
Right one person brought gasoline and another lit it. Who was stupid here?
Whatever his intent, what he did was embarrass his employer, assert at least some portion of his female coworkers were unworthy, and got himself fired. If he wasn't aware that that was the end result of that memo, then I posit that Mr. Damore has some cognitive problems of his own.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It's a trap! /Admiral Akbar
Depending on the circumstances, an employer is obligated BY LAW to allow it. HR departments are there to try to keep the company out of trouble, not help the employees in any way. If you come to them with an issue and they do the math, figure it's cheaper to risk a wrongful termination suit than do the right thing, they'll fire you in direct violation of the law.
I've said it before, I'll say it again, I think his argument was a house of cards and he was cherry picking facts from partially understood studies, but that's another topic. I still hope Google gets reamed for this one because to not allow discussions like this in the workplace opens the door for sexual harassment and other things to go on without any fear of consequences by the perpetrators. There are a number of very good reasons why we, as a society, want to protect this kind of behavior that should transcend petty politics.
And if you are unable to grasp skills that will give you a comfortable living, well, tough shit. It's poverty for you! Because that's nature!
Just because you can't learn STEM or medical skills no matter how hard you work doesn't mean we all have to chip in and help you feed yourself, get medical care, a better education, clothing ... nope!
You should have chosen better parent who could have given you the genes and early nurturing to make you smart. Too late for you and too bad!
See, I chose my parents well - I chose white smart parents who valued interacting with their child when I was a baby and toddler. I also chose to be male.
See, I made good life choices.
I tell ya, SJWs just don't get it.
Now edging carefully away from crazy people at Google.
towards different styles of technical work than men. He said that since women are more social creatures then they'd likely excel with "pair programming", and a bunch of other things.
The whole thing reads as pretty man-splainy and pseudo-sciencey. There's also weird tangents about politics and echo-chambers and thought-police and whatnot. He's easy to see how someone could interpret it as a political statement--because that's essentially what it was.
I think he did make an effort to provide some balance, and I think he was trying to be honest. I probably would not have fired him for it. I would have given him some stern redirection.
I agree with you. And putting it on his blog would not have protected him.
How many days in a row are the conservative trolls that help run /. going to be posting more, and more, and more of the same story? When will their victim card get worn out? How about we move on to something that's actually somehow related to science or technology instead of more whining.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Interviewed him in depth on YouTube a few days ago. No paywall and very thorough conversation. I recommend it over the wsj personally.
Manifesto implies an action. You can technically apply that but that is disingenuous to any written feedback for any corporate or political policy.
If you think his suggestions to improve google were bad then there's no helping you.
We could have used more of your kind back in the 60s. Back when men were white men, black men were in the fields, and women were still in the kitchen. Mouth shut, head down, keep the status quo. That's how we like our drones. No one likes a trouble maker.
He actually had a pretty good clue. Some of the scientists he has cited in his paper have given comments that either partially or fully support his conclusions. And some of those scientists have decades worth of experience in gender biology research.
To me it seems it is you who has very little clue about what's being discussed and what the core issues are.
Perceived offense, which in reality isn't there. You're triggered, it's obvious, leave the computer and watch Cheers.
" What he did and where he did it was entirely appropriate. " for getting fired, FTFY
You, my friend, are an idiot that didn't read what was written or did and would rather misrepresent what was said to fit an agenda. People like you are the problem here.
1) This guy writes a manifesto that says that women, due to biology, are less likely to succeed in tech in general and Google in particular.
That's not what he said and you know it. He didn't say biology had anything to do with females succeeding or not in technology. He said that biology may affect their desire to GO INTO TECHNOLOGY. He never said anything about success in technology.
This is BY DEFINITION a hostile work environment. It's hostile for incoming women, as well as women who work there.
This is what the neanderthals here who think he was wronged don't fucking understand. It does NOT MATTER if what he said was true, well, sourced, worthy of discussion, etc...by having and promoting those beliefs in that environment he is creating a hostile work environment, and keeping him on opens up Google to a class action lawsuit, which they would lose if any woman could show that after his screed, she was interviewed by him and did not get the job.
That's all there is to it.
Once again, you are misrepresenting what he said to suit your own agenda. The paper was intended was intended to start a discussion on why Google's diversity program isn't really working and how it could be done better. How it could get diversity of thought as well as gender and race. Basically, the place is a single mindthink and if you don't fit into it, you aren't welcome. And they pretty much proved his point.
Anybody who objectively reads what he wrote can understand what he was saying but you have to not put your personal bias into it.
^^^ someone clearly didn't read what Damore wrote.
I think most people are inferior to me in most things. Tech included.
I'm not always right, but more often than not.
He got fired for political reasons.
"You should never doubt what nobody is sure about." -- Willy Wonka
Maybe an engineering company that wants to hire the best and brightest engineers cares what engineers think?
The problem want that he cited incorrect research, it's that he drew incorrect conclusions from them. Literally one of the authors he cites calls him out on it in a post on Psychology Today. To summarize the cited scientist, there are differences between genders, but they aren't meaningful enough to support what Damore is concluding.
Appeal to authority?? You asked for his credentials!
How about you follow your own advice and shut the fuck up? No one wants to hear your echo of an echo of the SJW party line. You should go to r/antifa where the audience would be more receptive to your brand of bullshit.
He didn't actually say he HAD his PhD. He referenced his PhD studies. He has a Master's in Biology and was working on his PhD.
He removed it from his profiles because some people don't comprehend the difference between studies and a degree.
I got the 4th or 5th call from one of their recruiters yesterday. I'd been demure up to this point. I told them to go FSCK themselves and never call me again. I don't play well with censors .
Let me see if I'm following your line of thought. I think you are trying to say it's the Jews. Am I right?
Not so bright? If he was a liberal in an age of conservative values, he would be called "brave". I call him brave for speaking his mind, which Google, up until this incident, encouraged their people to do. Open minded, is no longer open at Google.
My libtard colleague today asked me why the media lied about this guy (claiming he said women are inferior, etc.)
That's the same guy that believed every word of the Russia collusion story, had his eyes suddenly thrust open.
In a year or so, this will be called the Great Awakening, AKA the beginning of the end of the main-stream media.
Diversity does not mean everybody is the same, except to Unoi’m Carasee, Vice President of Mutually Exclusive Propositions.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
> assert at least some portion of his female coworkers were unworthy
Please quote the section of his essay that makes this claim. If you can't, I'll be forced to conclude that maybe you are the one with "some cognitive problems of his own."
Wal*Mart won't let me wear my Pepe Shirt to work, and my manager has me on notice after asking Mexicans for proof of citizenship.
The whole world is crazy now!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
If not writing about something you know nothing was operative you would have stopped writing years ago.
I doubt it... Lot's of googlers on social media wanting blood.
You're a moron. It wasn't a manifesto, it was a clear and concise essay employing state of the art knowledge. Exactly the type of feedback Google nearly demanded employees participate in.
FWIW, even if he *had* completed his PhD, how does that make him an expert?
Anecdotally, in my experience PhD's that have no additional experience aren't any more "expert" than PhD drop-outs. It appears that navigating the academic politics and simply the luck of getting your adviser to approve a research project for your doctorate that won't bore you to tears until you drop-out is about the only "skill" PhD's have on PhD drop-outs in most fields. Of course give me a post-Doc with 5 years doing real research, and then you might find a real statistical difference on the "expert" scale.
Does he really have no clue about? I bet he has more clue than you (even if he doesn't have a phd). If that document offends anyone they are very thinned skinned.
And really, even if he's right, what message is he sending to his female colleagues, that somehow his male brain gives him at least a statistical edge over them?
Clearly you failed to read the memo. The message was that female engineers deserve flex time and higher, hourly rate pay for adequate retention, where men deserve salaries and bigwhig sounding fake titles for adequate retention, based on some weird theory of heterosexual attraction I didn't quite understand.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
He wasn't trying to advance the state of neuroscience or sociology, as he is completely unqualified to do either. And he wasn't trying to present a scientific consensus, because there is no consensus on these issues: they are pretty complicated and the jury is still out.
Finally--and this is the surest indication that there was no science happening here--he wasn't talking to people who themselves are experts in neuroscience or sociology.
He was a non-expert talking to other non-experts; cherry-picking data to support his "beliefs". That's not science, that's politics.
And not just any politics, political speech that's claims that women are genetically predisposed towards different technical work than men. That is speech that creates a hostile work environment.
And that's game over.
but his ultiamte statement was "people with an XY chromosome are more likely to be good in technical fields than people with XX chromosomes.
All the evidence and studies support that theory.
It doesn't say that any/all XY are better suited than all XX. It says and cites that they are generally more likely to be, as evidenced.
File the outrage under irrational emotion and hatred.
That's not what he said... either read what he actually wrote or shut up... you are embarrassing yourself. He said that biology may be a factor is women wanting to go into technology... he ever said anything about success or failure.
I'm pretty sure we all see who created the hostile work environment. They proved his point by leaking an internal document and stirring this into far more than it needed to be.
Actually, he's had several job offers from competitors who don't judge people by gender theories.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Skeletons will say the truth.
Just wait until all the trans/torned/gender zealots die. The archaeologists will test their bones, and it'll say "I was a man/woman, not the crazy things that I said when I was alive".
Nature (meaning God) is wise, human beings not. ;)
Don't do it at work. Put it on your blog. I would fire you for wasting everyones time with your personal issues.
Except... you know... he posted it to the internal Google forum SPECIFICALLY MADE BY GOOGLE FOR DISCUSSING SUCH THINGS WITHIN THE WORKPLACE
Google: Here is a forum for discussing workplace diversity issues.
Employee: Oh hey, I have some well researched thoughts.
Google: You are fired for discussing workplace diversity issues.
It wasn't a manifesto. Stop eating the garbage the mainstream media feeds you. If they can't get these simple details correct, why do you believe they get the more important ones correct?
Try swapping "him" with "her" and "male" with "female" in your comment, read it again and see how you feel about it.
Most of us are biologically predisposed to fallacious appeal to authority. See the Milgram Experiments.
The only "biological differences" between men and women relate to reproduction, not intelligence or the ability to be an engineer.
Bingo. That's what this has really exposed. Google no longer cares about the "best and brightest engineers", as long as they hit their sexist quotas.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
THANK YOU
I'm not arguing the "he was lecturing" point because you're totally right. And that's a perfectly fine reason to fire someone if they're supposed to be working instead. But then things get weird:
Here we go again. Instead of accusing you of not reading the memo, I'd like to ask: did you read it? (And I don't mean a story about it or someone's annotations; I mean that actual memo.) And if you did, do you think it says something like that?
(This is regardless of whether he's right or wrong, and I'm even less interested in whether or not Google made the right decision about firing him. I'm just trying to figure out what people who read it think the memo says, or even implies.)
People disagree so wildly about the mere contents of the memo, that most discussions are pointless flamefests because people are talking about different things. But also, when we disagree about the contents of the memo, that makes me think you didn't read it. So it starts us off with some good ol' fashioned mutual disrespect. Damn, this has turned out to be some of the hottest flamebait ever. But is it about sexism, reading comprehension, or sabotage by trolls deliberately misrepresenting it? I can't figure it out.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Good luck. What are you going to do? Use Bing
So maybe you should not post internal company memos to social media.....hmm, why didn't the woman who did that get fired? Oh yeah, she's a woman.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
And really, even if he's right, what message is he sending to his female colleagues, that somehow his male brain gives him at least a statistical edge over them?
WHY ARE YOU LYING?
He never said anything even remotely similar to that. Quote the document and show me where he makes such claims. You can't, because he didn't, and you are LYING.
Ah, so your tactic is to ignore the question posed and hop to some other tangental argument? Do you have anything of substance to discuss or are you going to do your best to rehash talking points instead of actually engaging in conversation? You're either a useful idiot or a shill.
He's not the one who leaked it.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Why doesn't everyone shut up so we can get beck to nerd things.
The Bell Curve - that racist claptrap of a book, had something like 40 chapters - only 1 of which dealt with race.
You just said the same thing I did, except you decided to blame the victim.
Your "pseudo-science" claims is actually the state of the art scientific knowledge. But to you, it's hate facts.
Someone who is experienced and thinks logically. Yes the managers and CEO I wouldn't want them anywhere near important things.
that somehow his male brain gives him at least a statistical edge over them?
Actually, no. What he wrote was not that men on average are better at tech than women, but that it may be due to biological differences that more men are interested in tech and choose it as their career.
If that is true, then it may be bad for the company to force arbitrary quotas (I personally love how "equal rights and equal opportunities" to some mean that they have to choose who to hire based on their gender because the company has too few women in it) since they may have to choose not to hire a better qualified candidate based solely on their gender.
I do see few women builders or repairing roads or lorry drivers or security. It may be in part due to biological differences that a women is less likely to want to be a lorry driver or a programmer. But I also see more women cashiers for example (or rather, it is rare to see a man cashier in a supermarket, but it is the opposite for an electronics part store). So, I guess men would rather do something else than be cashiers.
Well, if you count MtF transexuals as women... (rather than delusional men)
Is Google being harmed by its gender policies?
If they're passing up talented hires due to a quota system, then yes they are. Also, from what some other posters have said in previous /. stories related to this, affirmative action is illegal in California, so they may be running afoul of the law.
I was at Google for 14 years, and over that time I interviewed hundreds of candidates and worked with many groups, and if there is some sort of diversity quota system in place there, it is VERY well hidden. So I think the OP's point still stands.
Funny, I just read the entire memo and I can't find a single place where he so much as implied that any of his female colleagues were unworthy.
I did, however, see this sentence: "Many of these differences are small and there's significant overlap between men and women, so you can't say anything
about an individual given these population level distributions."
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
But his memo being "wrong" or "right" is one thing, there is the other issue that the guy seems to be an ass, judging from for instance his new twitter, his antics at Harvard or his fake PhD (?)....maybe the memo was the straw that broke the camel's back and the guy was an ass at work... Anyway TFA is about his firing and his firing is not and should not necessarily be related to the scientific accuracy of the memo.
what he did was embarrass his employer
Huh? What he did wasn't embarrassing to his employer! The people who leaked it were out to embarrass Google to get him in trouble. The whole memo stayed inside of Google until then, for a whole fucking month.
assert at least some portion of his female coworkers were unworthy
Citation fucking needed.
I've seen many negative comments from yourself. You sound like part of the problem.
I know that you're probably kidding, but it would be interesting if events like this cause someone to start a conservative alternative to Google. One doesn't really exist right now, considering that Microsoft and Amazon are just liberal as their silicon valley counterparts.
Read your parent post in context. They are replying to an A/C who says the paper is pseudo-science. Should that go unanswered just because you think it's off-topic? No.
At my first real job in the 1980s there was this older guy who went on and on about why women were better suited to filing and sorting tasks because of their nimble fingers. Now nobody sorts and files with their fingers, because nobody uses paper, and that guy is dead but in another sense there are always guys like him in the workplace.
They have to carry on about this stuff then the world moves on and we largely forget about it.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
There's a lot of useful idiots, or shills, regurgitating talking points in here. It would be kind of nice if the "HE SAID WOMEN WERE INFERIOR" crew would read the memo, and if they still held that belief, would cite where he said that.
This is what happens when you hire a Coder with a Masters in Biology.
Debra W. Soh is an expert in neuroscience. (PhD in sexual neuroscience from the University of York.)
Yep. She's also an author for that esteemed peer review journal Playboy, and did her thesis on investigations of sexuality via fMRI, which has famously been used to detect emotions in a dead salmon.
So... standing up for what you think is right, despite knowing there may be negative consequences, shows "a staggering lack of good judgement?"
So MLK wasn't a civil rights leader, he was just some angry, ranting guy with bad judgement?
Fuck if I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
But way to go with trying to make him into an expert in cognitive studies, because he went part way through a biology PhD.
I didn't attempt to do that. I merely pointed out that he probably has more background knowledge than most people, not that he's an expert. You were the one who was calling his background into question, and it seems that many of the researchers who are experts in the particular fields from which the research is coming are stating that his understanding of their research and its use in his report (or manifesto or whatever it is) is correct.
In my part of the world that's called a fallacious appeal to authority. So tell me, are you genetically predisposed to such faulty logic, or was that a cultural artifact?
Humans in general seem biologically disposed to falling into certain cognitive traps, so I don't think culture has anything to do with it. Also, you seem to have engaged in a few fallacies of your own. You also ignored the rest of my post, but if you feel I've made any mistakes there, please do feel free to point them out.
Heh, that's almost exactly as Svejk put it:
Maul halten und weiter dienen - as they used to tell us in the army. That's the best and finest thing of all.
(That translates more or less as "shut up and get on with the job"). Of course, that was in the army, but in the civilian world, I think you'd make a great Dolores Umbridge.
Maybe women are genetically predisposed to being better programmers- we don't actually know what traits make for a good one. That sex-linked differences exist is uncontroversial; suggesting that there is a direct causal link from hyperspecific metrics to a squishy thing like "being a good programmer" is a leap of faith and completely unjustified by the science.
No one needs to hear any "dialogue". Just do your work.
I'm guessing no where you've ever worked has let you get anywhere close to a management position.
Sounds like an EEOC case just waiting to happen.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
He was fired for political reasons.
"You should never doubt what nobody is sure about." -- Willy Wonka
Brave, maybe. Inexperienced and not that bright, more likely. His "manifesto" is full of all sorts of stupid opinions about women not wanting lucrative or high profile positions dressed up to sound authoritative. If he 'researched' this, then he did a poor job of it.
He read the memo. He is intentionally lying about the contents. He can't attack the memo on the facts so he lies, diverts, creates other issues, and floods misinformation and dissent.
This is the same thing that got the poor kid fired. People that lie. People who won't discuss facts in the realm of reason. People who have some skin in the game and don't want to lose what undeserved advantage they already have. They aren't concerned for women, or minorities, just themselves and what they can get for themselves. They are pushing for more, and to get what they want they need to have everyone either believe the lie or knuckle under to fear. It is by their tactics that you can know completely that they are terribly misguided and broken people.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
You embarrassed your company in the News.
You Made you Boss come home early from vacation.
You Made sure Legal had to be involved.
Your manifesto read poorly in Goggle and on the out side.
If you just wrote about an echo chamber, no one would have cared, You could to bring in your personal stereotypes.
I would not keep this in the News, if you want to get another job.
Bullshit. He was lecturing. And really, even if he's right, what message is he sending to his female colleagues, that somehow his male brain gives him at least a statistical edge over them?
Is Google being harmed by its gender policies? Was he? At the end of the day, one presumes he was hired as a software developer or engineer, and not to write screeds against his employer's hiring practices.
There's evidence pointing in both directions, and the jury is still out on how much of the gender disparity in areas like the STEM fields derives from biological/cognitive differences and cultural differences. Unless this is an area for which he actually has sufficient background to back up his statements, not only is he well out of his own field, but he is very much encouraging stereotypical sentiment.
Affirmative action is to liberals what global warming is to conservatives - it provokes a knee jerk reaction that is dismissed outright. The levels of discrimination to get such large gender imbalances in various fields would be impressive. Just as getting several consecutive years of "100 year" temperature events seems beyond improbable so does a scheme where women and certain minorities (though not Asians) are kept out all while trying unprecedented efforts to recruit them. A more logical person might think square peg / round hole, but as that goes against the dogma. Moreover the usual excuses of good paying jobs being reserved only for men doesn't hold water since other professions that are women dominated yet pay well such as nursing or speech pathologists exist. Speech pathologists are 96% women - they must hate men to a shockingly high degree. Or maybe there are other reasons just as tech has other reasons.
He wasn't trying to open a dialogue. He was replying to a dialogue actively initiated by Google. Everything else applies. They solicited him for ideas concerning this topic. He responded.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
"In my document, I committed heresy against the Google creed"
I don't think this is how you would write if you really wanted to change a policy that Google had.
Yep, because if 4 scientists agree, the issue is obviously settled.
I assume he knew he'd be fired, but then again, that's no big loss to him - he already worked there and it sucked because of the monoculture. He was able to expose that publicly, and the public will react according to their values. I won't interview with Google again after this, and they get in touch with me a couple times a year.
I'd hire this guy, and I hire engineers right here in San Mateo, as long as his skills are good. My company is actually diverse with regards to whole human beings, not just skin color and genitals. I've worked for Fortune 500 companies and large - they are usually among the worst jobs you can have. James will be fine, in fact I would expect much better off.
Nope, he ain't the victim, he's the perp.
He wrote a manifesto about some rather contentious points filled with logical fallacies, poor referencing, wild extrapolation and outright un-sourced claims (yes, I did in fact read it). Basically he acted like a tit and got fired. He's not a victim.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
His research was composed of statistics that prove those "stupid opinions." The only reason people who have read the full memo are angry at this is that neo-Catholic social justice disingenuously demands that we treat statements about "women, on average" as equivalent to statements about "women, individually."
I read the memo. It implies that diversity hiring is pointless because biology and then whines that social conservatives don't have a safe space at Google.
It's just whining. Ill-advised whining, too. Did he really not understand how his message would be perceived?
The american left is the new nazi party
So... standing up for what you think is right, despite knowing there may be negative consequences, shows "a staggering lack of good judgement?"
It all rather depends on what you think is right and why you think it.
So yes, writing a manifesto on some rather contentious points about an area he's not above the level of "rank amateur" in, filled with fallacies, poor referencing, wild extrapolation and unsourced claims and then posting it to the whole company when his bosses declined to act on it---yeah that's poor judgement.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
So... standing up for what you think is right, despite knowing there may be negative consequences, shows "a staggering lack of good judgement?"
Doing it the way Damore did it? Yes.
So MLK wasn't a civil rights leader, he was just some angry, ranting guy with bad judgement?
If he had said "White people are shit" instead of "I have a dream", then maybe. But he didn't, did he?
Fuck if I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
'Bye. Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out. Oh, and should you decide to stay after all, maybe keep in mind that self-righteous indignation and actually thinking about a subject are not the same thing, 'k?
In order to even try for a PhD, you DO have to be an expert in your field.
Exactly. Millennials have no idea where boundaries are. Some even think that "unlimited holidays" actually meant that you don't have to show up at work, but that's a topic for another day. This is a work place, where you're there to work in exchange for a salary. It's certainly not somewhere to create drama. Was he spending company time on writing this 10-page document on this type of "research"? This is a job, not a country. If he doesn't like it, he can just quit and find a place that fits his ideals better. He's still whining in the media after he left, making it all about himself.
Acting like that big of an idiot deserves to get fired. Hopefully the added drama will prevent him from getting another one.
Deal with it! There are huge amount of women who are smarter than you! Really huge. A lot smarter.
And there is nothing you can do about it. No matter how much "evidence" you have against it - you all sound like holocaust-denies.
His principal argument was that girls are inn'ies and boys are out'ies. That on average girls are social oriented and guys thing oriented. What the scientific literature says about this I don't know. I can say that based upon my personal life experience, while politically dangerous to say, that's not an unreasonable idea to put forward.
Building upon this premise, he lays out how he feels Google is ill-serving women, fostering resentment among employees, and missing opportunities to promote and harness diversity. He also explained how corporate culture at Google is hostile to descent on this topic; something rather quickly proven once this memo went public. Even if, mis-informed or ill-worded, he certainly didn't deserve to be treated the way he was for trying to better the company for which he worked. He saw a problem, wanted to start a dialog, to debate his ideas and figure out if there was a way to do things better. This isn't a right vs. left issue; and certainly not the way he saw it either. It's a "here's a goal, now what works and what doesn't" problem. A thing he did everyday as a software developer.
Setting up "minority/female only" employee development classes is going to be resented by those excluded. If you're socially oriented, female or otherwise, you'd probably better serve the company in a collaborative environment; he suggested pair programming as an example. If you're not, male or otherwise, that'll just annoy you and be counter-productive; the traditional environment would be a better fit.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
Think of Google as a company run and populated by fundamentalist Christians. If they told you they want to have "an honest debate about the existence of God", would you think they mean it? When fundamentalist Christians tell you that they would like to pit their scientific evidence for God against your scientific evidence, do you really think they are talking about science? Progressivism and the social justice movement have become like fundamentalist religions; you can't argue with these people, they are inaccessible to reason and argument. And like fundamentalist Christians, they are often wealthy, powerful, and vindictive. The only thing you can do is roll your eyes and leave quietly.
Its going to court. And that will be that. If the court agrees with you then so be it. But if you are familiar with US labor laws... then you have to be aware that google has some liability and vulnerability here..
Not really, unless there is evidence we have yet to see. His firing could be argued as retribution for complaining about labor conditions, but it won't prevail. He doesn't argue labor conditions that are actionable in this case.
1) Google's management decide to have a quota on how many men and women are supposed to work there.
2) There is an open position. Two people apply for it - a man (more qualified) and a woman (less qualified).
3) The woman is hired because currently there are too few women working for the company.
This, to me, looks like the opposite of "no discrimination based on sex" or "equal opportunities".
Classic ad hominem. Classic. Ignore the argument, attack the person that made the argument. Discredit their social standing. Do not engage in debating thousands of scientific studies.
It's the liberal version of denying global warming.
Considering that conservatives had to invent their own definition of truthiness and rely on alternative facts to create a world view that conforms to their narrative, you really can just shut up.
In truth both liberals and conservatives have made things up - see diversity as an example. The data points to women and men being different. Shocking to nobody who has ever been around kids yet consider heresy to point out that boys and girls are actually different, have different capabilities, and different interests. This leads to, shocking I know, differences in career choices. If you have eyes you can look around and see this, this is as obvious as the sun rising. Yet somehow it's made out to be taboo to state the obvious. This is why I compare diversity / affirmative action to global warming. Liberals ignore all evidence about social issues outright, not unlike conservatives who ignore all evidence on global warming outright. This is why independents like me look at both sides, neither has a monopoly on good points.
I suppose he wrote it because he didn't feel like he could be productive, even with the fine $$ Google is paying, in what he perceived as an oppressive environment. If your company issues a "call for employees to give each other hugs at an all hands meeting because the wrong candidate won a presidential election in the country" and you don't accept that unbelievably self-righteous assessment, going to work every day becomes difficult.
I also suppose if it had been only him he would have just quit, but he must have felt that a number of other people feel the same and that it's a problem for Google. Turned out he was right.
So you shouldn't bring up problems with the workplace at the workplace? Should women who feel discriminated against just shut up and put it on their blog too?
Fuck you. Google provides a means for its employees to write things for discussion. Damore just happened to write on a topic that debunks the bullshit narrative that's crippling the country.
Who told you Google was a ideological think tank? Maybe you weren't hired to evaluate the validity of gender stereotypes, you self righteous prick.
It does NOT MATTER if what he said was true, well, sourced, worthy of discussion, etc......
That's all there is to it.
You really should think about your ethics if the truth is not important. I for one wouldn't want to ever be quoted as saying that someone can be correct, well sourced, and it still doesn't matter.
If MLK's goal was to stay alive, then yes, he was an angry, ranting guy with bad judgement. If his goal was to effect change, then he's got excellent judgement.
Open discussion of taboo subjects makes some people emotionally uncomfortable. They're the people who matter, in case you couldn't tell.
Their emotional comfort is required and must be protected and actively solicited at all times because their discomfort is opportunistically called a "hostile work environment" and can result in legal liability.
What do you mean by a statistical edge over them? His argument wasn't that male engineers were better than female engineers, simply that women may be less likely to want to have careers in computing. You may want to actually read his document.
His language was far less nuanced than that. He basically took some very valid research into culture and time invariant differences in preferences between men and women (which, if you read the source material, the researcher acknowledged as correlation and not something he has established as causation, but it does suggest a biological link) and -- like a typical Libertarian -- jumped to conclusions and stated definitively that this means women find software engineering less interesting and that's what's causing the disparity.
Ignoring that in particular, software is drastically non-diverse *even compared to other STEM fields* by a huge margin.
Ignoring that the possible biological link to "thing based" interest doesn't necessarily translate into disinterest in computers (computer science, prior to the 1970's, was predominantly female).
Ignoring that -- even though he admitted there is systemic bias -- that there shouldn't be counter-measures for said systemic bias.
Almost all of the evidence (at least everything I've seen) points to it being largely biological. I've seen a lot of people claim it isn't, but they have yet to post all of this evidence that supposedly suggests otherwise. I think that many here are more than willing to consider this other evidence, but so far no one has actually posted any of it.
This is false. Even the original study that started most of this (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/) acknowledges:
1. It's correlation. Though the fact that it's culturally invariant suggests a biological link.
2. It's only really relevant for *one axis* of a 5-axis personality measurement (thing vs people interest).
3. It's based on self-reporting. Where people report their own *relatively* interest compared to what they think their place falls in society.
So much of it is non-conclusive (and the author, a proper scientist, acknowledges this). But it *does* suggest there is some biological link to one axis of a personality trait.
The problem is that blogs, armchair pundits and apparently young and impressionable Libertarians take a scientific finding of a possible link and does that classic "science says men are X and women are Y!".
What's sad is that normally, this type of behavior would be laughed at for being the sensationalist over-simplification that it is by critical thinking minds. But somehow, because it re-affirms some pretty deep-seated existing stereotypes, it's not thought of as critically by otherwise critical thinking white men.
Sounds like that army was in the business of killing Jews.
Damn right shut up and get on with the job!!!
Now, there may be a deeper issue here, where the author, you and millions of other neckbeards are soooo deeply involved in trolling that they cannot separate that behavior from 'normal' and 'accepted' behavior
And who decides what is "normal" and "accepted"? Where I live, the so-called "manifesto" seems quite uncontroversional whereas the kind of loudmouths most recently seen in action at Google is regularly viewed as batshit-crazy.
Ezekiel 23:20
Even though I've tried to find something about it several times, I've never been able to suss out why some users on slashdot appear with orange stars next to their names.
After seeing them consistently appear (extremely vehemently) on the same side of this and other political issues, I'm starting to suspect they're just this site's version of blue checks.
On account of smaller hands and more slender arms, women are particularly suited to being automotive repair/service technicians, especially with the crowded engine compartments of modern cars.
I had this discussion with U.S. Air Force, and my question whether women had a higher G-load tolerance (such as in high-performance aircraft), and this was answered affirmatively.
[citation needed]
But way to go with trying to make him into an expert in cognitive studies, because he went part way through a biology PhD. In my part of the world that's called a fallacious appeal to authority. So tell me, are you genetically predisposed to such faulty logic, or was that a cultural artifact?
He does have a Master's in biology. Are you arguing that it is a logical fallacy to posit as an authority a person with a Master's degree in the subject from an ivy league school?
How long did it take them to train you to ignore data and basic logic in your cultural anthropology/sociology/gender studies program?
Do something stupid, reap the consequences. Boohoohoo. Go home to mommy, dumbass!
That makes me uncomfortable! I demand you be banned or I won't post here anymore!
. . .you have nothing to fear from the police wanting to search your car.
That's not what happened. He showed the memo to people at Google and no one gave a shit until the witch hunt started.
He seemed pretty clued in to me and offended, at most, 19% of the company.
Before you go off and say that should be 50%, show me how many qualified male and female applicants Google has had. Having experience hiring for tech positions, I can posit that, even if you include unqualified female candidates (and still discard unqualified male candidates), the number of female applicants will have been less than 19% of the total. That means they're turning away qualified male applicants at a rate far higher than they're turning away female applicants regardless of qualification.
If that doesn't represent a problem to you, we should all hope you're never in a position of power within any organization.
The ideal gender makeup of a given company is equal to the ratio of qualified male applicants to qualified female applicants. In a company that has, say, 10 employees and a ratio of 9:1 male to female qualified applicants, the ideal is 9 male employees and 1 female. That is, 90% of qualified applicants were male, 90% of hired applicants should, ideally, be male. Now, if the ratio of applicants were flipped, 1:9, the ideal would be to hire 9 women and 1 man to fill the 10 positions.
If you're in either scenario and you find yourself striving to hire men and women at a 1:1 ratio, you're part of the problem. In my company, that ratio is 1:0 because there have been 0 female applicants; in order to achieve a 1:1 ratio of men to women I'd have to only consider applications from women for at least my next two hires. That would be just as illegal as it is immoral and unethical, so I won't do that.
But, back to your point, no, he did not offend half the company. A very small percentage of the company's 81% male population and at most half of their 19% female population will have been offended by this. I'd be amazed to learn that the total exceeds 15%, a far cry from half.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Actually, no. What he wrote was not that men on average are better at tech than women, but that it may be due to biological differences that more men are interested in tech and choose it as their career.
The percentage of female engineer students in Hong Kong and China is much bigger than in the US. It's not quite at gender parity, but it's close. Something tells me that this undermines the "biological difference" arguments pretty heavily.
But way to go with trying to make him into an expert in cognitive studies, because he went part way through a biology PhD. In my part of the world that's called a fallacious appeal to authority.
Actually, you were the one guilty of the "appeal to authority" (or lack thereof) originally since your first post clearly suggested we should dismiss his arguments because he was not an expert. Given this, it is the height of hypocrisy to criticize the person who effectively refuted your argument of committing the error which you made. This is doubly true when the only reason he mentioned the engineer's credentials was to show that you own fallacious "appeal to a lack of authority" was wrong because the engineer did actually have some expertise in the area!
Affiliate-spam-free link: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004N9RTRQ
He'd still get fired for putting it in his blog.
Google didn't fire him because they wanted to, its because they were forced too.
the SJW's lead a witchhunt against him and wouldn't have shut the fuck up until he got fired regardless of where he wrote his document or where he even worked.
1) He stated that women were less likely to succeed or desire a career in tech as the environment lays, not that they couldn't or wouldn't. He explained ways he thought things could be done differently so that women could.
Everything following rolls downhill due to the misinterpretation of 1).
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
He didn't write a manifesto, he wrote an argument for reviewing some of their procedures and practices at the company.
Yes, he did write an obviously inflammatory manifesto, citing cherry-picked data to promote conservative views (affirmative action for conservatives) and to stop anti-bias training to make sure fewer minorities are hired.
And as usual, like any good white male anti-SJW warrior, he started virtue signaling to the usual right-wingers by whining like a 2-year old. Just yesterday he's been comparing Google with 6-figure salaries to work camps in Soviet Russia.
Fuck you. He didn't do any of that in the way you described. Nothing he wrote was incorrect, untrue, and it wasn't a company policy statement. It wasn't an attack on anyone and he was trying to improve a situation that had CLEARLY gotten out of hand.
If he was my employee I would have promoted him. And people such as you and the rest who had WAY too much time on their hands trying to destroy him I would have fired immediately.
He's a whistleblower now. And Google retaliated. Anyone involved in that is probably going to get canned in the next few months. They won't be able to avoid giving depositions in his lawsuit and any good lawyer will stick it to them. And Google must keep all company communications for discovery now - if they delete any they could be hugely fined by the state of California for evidence destruction.
I'd recommend the original founders take their company back from the ridiculously wrong social justice crowd now, before it's too late. The real talent at the company will start leaving soon now that they know the company doesn't care about them and Google is heading for some serious investor lawsuits if they don't fix this situation.
Here's a free clue: when you reach the "inventing shit" part of the argument, it's a tacit admission you've lost.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Actually, he's had several job offers from competitors who don't judge people by gender theories.
Who don't judge him by what he wrote this time. Just wait until he spouts something they don't agree with. All companies have lines employees cannot cross.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Does he really have no clue about? I bet he has more clue than you
That's an ad-hominem (and not just the butthurt accusation of ad-hominem where someone is just angry they were insulted). 11000's expertise is not relevant to the question of whether Damore has any expertise. What matters is that actual experts on the topic disagree with him. Like this woman who teaches statistics at Harvard and actual neuroscientists.
Thank you. And yet my first post on this thread has been labeled as -1 Troll. There are a lot of Libertarians who desperately want women to suck bad at things, it appears.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
... based on some weird theory of heterosexual attraction I didn't quite understand.
Don't worry. I sure Damore didn't quite understand them either.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
This argument is a lot like arguing that a woman who raises the problem of male chauvinism in the 1950's and got fired displayed terrible judgement. You are confusing the point.
I do see few women builders or repairing roads or lorry drivers or security. It may be in part due to biological differences that a women is less likely to want to be a lorry driver or a programmer. But I also see more women cashiers for example (or rather, it is rare to see a man cashier in a supermarket, but it is the opposite for an electronics part store). So, I guess men would rather do something else than be cashiers.
In a more coporate-y setting: how many men are in HR?
The idea that women may be biologically superior in two traditionally male-dominated domains offends a person so much that they reply with two untruths?
There are all manner of serviceable components on modern cars, that is, unless you buy your cars new and never drive them long enough to need to replace an O2 sensor or any number of challenging-to-access parts.
Australia is putting in service the human-piloted Joint Strike Fighter.
https://www.bing.com/videos/se...
"... circulated the document about a month ago to our diversity groups"
How dare he write about his views on diversity to internal diversity groups. His MIT credentials further show he has no business being all academic and stuff.
From Uber?
So you didn't read the summary of this Slashdot post either.
She's also an author for that esteemed peer review journal Playboy
Your personal attack is meaningless. Why wouldn't someone specializing in sexual neuroscience publish articles in Playboy? It is natural fit to reach a large audience of people with an active interest in sexuality.
and did her thesis on investigations of sexuality via fMRI, which has famously been used to detect emotions in a dead salmon.
What does that have to do with anything? Your attempt to discredit fMRI is all based on someone scanning a dead fish, applying human brain imaging models, and getting a weird result? You'd be an idiot to expect anything different. Next you are going to tell me that we can't trust DNA testing because genome mapping fails when used to analyze motor oil.
Most of the "science" that the Google guy cites has been thoroughly debunked, as have most of the theories that say that "evolutionary development" justifies structural inequity.
Also, there is a bell curve, but "The Bell Curve" is a pile of racist claptrap designed to make white guys feel justified in their racism.
Most of your "comments" that you have made has been throughly debunked, as have most of the sjw comments/lies about the memo and it has eroded the structure of culture and society.
Women who are particularly good at technical and mathematical subjects often happen to be very good at many things. There are, relatively, more men who are good at technical subjects and not outstanding on others.
If you're asserting a hiring diversity policy is leading to the employment of people in positions for which they are statistically less capable than their opposite gender counterparts, then you're asserting that there are coworkers of the other gender which do not deserve the positions they got. And please, don't try to deny it, because the entire memo was an attack on Google's diversity hiring policies. Clearly mr. Damore believes that unworthy people have been hired to meet HR diversity rules,
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
...he is actually protected because he filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board before publishing his memo, and the NLRB protects people against firing once they’ve lodged a complaint under whistle-blower statutes.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
But he's not making an argument based on individuals, he's making what he believes to be a statistical analysis. No, he doesn't say Martha two cubicles down is unworthy of her position, he is saying that there are a percentage of Google's female employees who shouldn't have been hired for those positions. His concession that individual abilities may vary is simply his way of trying to couch his argument so he isn't calling out Martha specifically. After all, she may be that statistical outlier that is qualified!
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
MLK was a Republican, so the Democrats did call it "a staggering lack of good judgment" when he was assassinated by a Democrat.
"His name was James Damore."
t would still not be appropriate to post beliefs in eugenics...
Supporting Planned Parenthood, especially in California, is 'inappropriate'!?
And if you don't believe PP is essentially a massive eugenics program, you need a dictionary.
The entire fucking memo. Why write it at all? And why play coy. We all know what Damore was arguing. We all know what he thinks of Google's diversity policy. All of a sudden a memo claiming to have detailed research about cognitive and behaviorial differences between men and women in technical fields isn't about claims of detailed research into cognitive and behavioral differences between men and women?
I love how your lot try to play both ends of this; that Google's hiring practices are irrational and "SJW", but at the same time that Damore somehow wasn't making that point at all. At least Damore has the fucking balls to stick by his views.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Preach it Doctor White Knight! His Masters in Biology is nothing compared to your Biological Master Baiting! Anecdote Sch-Manecdote, your experience is wanking while fantasizing about the women you let shit on you in hopes of getting laid!
I'm the AC you replied to.
It's amazing how many PC people are so stupid they can't even tell when what they believe is being mocked. It's no wonder they believe all the PC garbage. I wrote that piece to be as overtly wrong as possible, and you still couldn't tell it was mockery.
How's it feel to be a snowflake?
Before I comment specifically on women on tech, I would like to digress a bit. Few years ago, there was a discussion about US should profile Muslim young man at airport screening and I opposed the idea despite the overwhelming statistics showing that Muslim young male were the most likely culprit of terrorist attacks worldwide. The reason was that it will reinforce the idea even when the threat is gone. Imagine you are with your 5 year old kid at airport security queue and 3 Muslim men are taken aside for stringent checking. Your kid asks you why they were taken away and you say it is because they were Muslim. Next day they go to school and see another Muslim boy in the class. How do you think they will react?
Are there any biological differences between men and women which is responsible for lower women representation in tech? I don't know. But the topic should be discussed in scientific and academic community and not inside a corporation where many readers involved have the power to make the decisions directly related to the discussion. This will poison the very environment at Google. You are not a PhD in gender psychology and not hired in Google for your specialty in that field. You will get fired for saying many things in Google or Microsoft or Goldman Sachs or at any other company which is far beyond your role and is completely against your corporate philosophy whether you are right or wrong. If I say, non-veg eaters are murders, I can get fired as well. He didn't post his memo on FB, he posted on company board and that was the reason he was fired.
Coming to main topic, I don't believe that biological differences are directly holding back women. Most indicators show that women do as well as men in similar surroundings but due to biases women are selected less than men or are paid low which starts a downward spiral. Most men will not marry a women as successful as men, so the first bias you will see is that even the successful are married to even more successful men. These successful men manages to destroy carriers of less successful women easily. I had a friend who made his wife earning 75k leave her job in 2005. He was paid around 120k. In the beginning, she was earning 80% of what he was working. But then due to pregnancies leave and the fact that she had to do most of house chores while her husband worked hard at work, she got her promotions slowly. Also, she had two pregnancy leaves. Eventually, they were making about 100 in investment income and 160k was men salary, so they fell in 44% marginal tax range in California (including SS, state tax, medicare and Federal tax). Add another 25k of child care and 10k extra when two people are working, his calculation was that her net cash contribution wasn't more than 15-20k a year. 5 years later when the kids had grown and she tried to go back to work, she got a job with 120k while her husband was getting 220k and investment income had grown to 150k. Once again she quit after one year as husband complained that her take home pay wasn't worth. Currently, she is not on job and taking care of her children. A good engineer (though not as qualified as her husband who is from Ivy league and MBA from top university. He refused to let her do MBA saying it would be waste of money) had to leave her carrier thanks to her "successful" husband.
Yeah - the phd thing or not phd thing is a red herring. Stop fixating on it. Let's look at what he actually wrote, perhaps ?
He read the memo. He is intentionally lying about the contents.
This. These fucking lefties have abandoned even attempting honesty or veracity.
They are lying fucks with an agenda. Post-modernist shitfucks that are waging a war.
Since these fucks are waging a war, I no longer feel compelled to show any fucking respect because they are the enemy.
"His name was James Damore."
...with their "gender is a social construct" line, and all their other ideological sacred dogmas, either fired or cowed into submission.
Or, conversely. high tech finally realizes just how toxic SJW ideology is and stops tolerating SJW mobbing and bullying in their ranks.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Jews believe this of others they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Perrone, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above. Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud. This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Khazar/Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple):
Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.
George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis. Zucker @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.
There are three types of people who call themselves Jews:
1. True Torah [Sephardic] Jews: these are the descendants of Prophet Jacob-Israel (Jacobites or Israelites) (about 5%-10% of all Jews)
2. Khazarian or Ashkenazi Jews: these are the descendants of a Turkic idol/phallic worshiping tribe who migrated to Russia in the 7th Century A.C. and whose nobility converted to Judaism in the 8th Century A.C. and now inhabit mostly Europe. (about 90%-95% of all Jews)
3. Zionist Jews: these are the ones from the 2 above who are pretending to be Jews for political reasons but whoâ(TM)re are actually Illuminists-Luciferian-Masonic-Satanists as Harold Wallace Rosenthal admits in this interview.
They are led by the neo-Pharisees (occult-priest-banklords). They want to establish a Zionist Luciferian state from the Nile to the Euphrates from where they plan to rule the Earth. The new Israeli Supreme Court funded by the Rothschilds Banklords is full of Masonic Symbols, just like the B.I.S. Bank of International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, which is the Mother of All Private Central Banks.
The hexagram symbol on the Israeli flag is the ancient Star of Moloch, a Satanic-Baal deity to which people were sacrificed. There is no such thing as a Star of David which the modern Jews have been fooled into believing; however, the True Torah Jews are not fooled by the Zionists Illuminatis and you can visit their websites for more info .
1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."
2. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."
3. Sanhedrin 59a: "A goy (Gentile) who pries into The Law (Talmud) is guilty of death."
4. Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age."
5. Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."
6. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death."
7. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Show no mercy to the Goyim."
8. Choschen Hamm 388, 15: "If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth."
9. Choschen Hamm 266,1: "A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to the Akum (Gentile). For he who returns lost propert
The freer women are to study anything, the less that have to choose boring mathematical vocations.
I hear she also sometimes farts in public.
What holocaust?
A Harvard representative confirmed to Business Insider that Damore was enrolled in the program but hadn't completed the doctorate, though he did receive a master's degree in biology. The representative did not say why Damore left the program, but it's not uncommon for people to pause their doctoral studies.
Especially when thinking they can start to settle into a new career with a big company like Google. He probably thought, like many, that working for Google would be great! The brightest minds must revere Science and love dialogue and debate, right?
I'm guessing his head is still spinning a bit from cognitive dissonance.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Presumably, you can provide a credible source for the "debunking" then?
"appeal to a lack of authority"
Would be an appeal to ignorance.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
... then hire them. Problem fucking solved.
Oh wait - they're not lining up in droves ? Back to square one.
Victim shaming.
How very liberal of you. Do you also shame men that have been raped? What about white people that have been discriminated against? Shame those folks as well?
You are a disgusting dishonest lying piece of shit
"His name was James Damore."
This was your opportunity to point out one specific thing at the very least. Instead you wave your hand and say something specifically non-descript so you can weasel your way out of this. It's clear you have zero intent of actually discussing this issue, but are here to regurgitate talking points you were fed by the MSM. You're either a shill or a useful idiot.
Jews believe this of others they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Perrone, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above. Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud. This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Khazar/Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple):
Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.
George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis. Zucker @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.
There are three types of people who call themselves Jews:
1. True Torah [Sephardic] Jews: these are the descendants of Prophet Jacob-Israel (Jacobites or Israelites) (about 5%-10% of all Jews)
2. Khazarian or Ashkenazi Jews: these are the descendants of a Turkic idol/phallic worshiping tribe who migrated to Russia in the 7th Century A.C. and whose nobility converted to Judaism in the 8th Century A.C. and now inhabit mostly Europe. (about 90%-95% of all Jews)
3. Zionist Jews: these are the ones from the 2 above who are pretending to be Jews for political reasons but whoâ(TM)re are actually Illuminists-Luciferian-Masonic-Satanists as Harold Wallace Rosenthal admits in this interview.
They are led by the neo-Pharisees (occult-priest-banklords). They want to establish a Zionist Luciferian state from the Nile to the Euphrates from where they plan to rule the Earth. The new Israeli Supreme Court funded by the Rothschilds Banklords is full of Masonic Symbols, just like the B.I.S. Bank of International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, which is the Mother of All Private Central Banks.
The hexagram symbol on the Israeli flag is the ancient Star of Moloch, a Satanic-Baal deity to which people were sacrificed. There is no such thing as a Star of David which the modern Jews have been fooled into believing; however, the True Torah Jews are not fooled by the Zionists Illuminatis and you can visit their websites for more info .
1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."
2. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."
3. Sanhedrin 59a: "A goy (Gentile) who pries into The Law (Talmud) is guilty of death."
4. Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age."
5. Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."
6. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death."
7. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Show no mercy to the Goyim."
8. Choschen Hamm 388, 15: "If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth."
9. Choschen Hamm 266,1: "A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to the Akum (Gentile). For he who returns lost propert
So, offers from Uber, then?
... writing a manifesto on some rather contentious points about an area he's not above the level of "rank amateur" in, filled with fallacies, poor referencing, wild extrapolation and unsourced claims and then posting it to the whole company when his bosses declined to act on it---yeah that's poor judgement.
Good thing the so-called "manifesto" isn't any of those things.
Stop lying.
I think that's the point though.
His arguments are made about populations not individuals, but western civilisation is now so obsessed with individualism it can comprehended such an argument in a reasoned way.
Uh, no. State of art science is that there is no relevant biological differences in female and male brains and that any broad-based differences are purely the result of social conditioning.
The majority of his arguments are based on one poorly-designed study about day-old infants, a study that not even the study's own author has been able to replicate.
I think he did make an effort to provide some balance, and I think he was trying to be honest. I probably would not have fired him for it. I would have given him some stern redirection.
Of course you aren't responsible for the stock price of a Fortune 10 company with a bunch of SJWs screaming at you to fire him... And they say that one of the hallmarks of an evolved society is the elimination of mob justice... I guess we need to do some more evolving...
You left out the most relevant quote:
"Sex researchers recognize that these differences are not inherently supportive of sexism or stratifying opportunities based on sex."
I say they are a liability.
Quietly manage them out before it costs too much.
In the past we worried about profits and products. Maybe it is a good idea to send all of our careers overseas.
Yup, I read the memo, and the cherry-picked evidence he presented (come on, you don't really believe he didn't start with his conclusion already in mind).
Damore explicitly makes the observation in the WSJ that Google "hires the smartest people in the world". Of course that does mean that you would have to be really careful when attempting to apply some general result to the heavily preselected population at Google. I mean you wouldn't just, say, point to some average like around 50% of people having an IQ score of 100 or less, and say that therefore half of all Google engineers are dopes.
And the effects he supposedly isn't blindly applying to female colleagues ("reducing people to their group identity and assuming the average is representative [...] is bad and I don't endorse that", "women, on average, have more..."), are very small. Even the "biggie", neuroticism, the most pronounced result of his supporting references, has a z of 0.4. That is, there is about a 58% chance of you guessing the sex of someone correctly from their N score (compared with a 50% chance when just guessing). And their overall sex difference across all the "Big Five" personality traits is 0.19, whereby you might expect a 53% success rate in guessing the sex of someone from their test scores alone.
In comparison, when the effects of gender bias are examined, e.g. by presenting the same results/report/resume under male and female names, differences of 20% in perceived worth are not uncommon, and effect sizes are of the frequently of order of 0.6, 0.7, 1.0 or more. You would be able to guess correctly whether someone had read a resume with a man's name at the top or a woman's 70% of the time, simply from the salary they suggest the applicant should be offered.
Damore's "scientific and reasoned debate" ignored much larger effects of conscious and unconscious bias, gender stereotyping and social and peer-group expectation to argue for the accommodation of vastly more minor influences.
It's akin to being stood in a pool arguing that the human's biological inability to breathe underwater removed any obligation for you to take your foot off someone's neck.
I wear my "Kill White Men" shirt at work in the Castro District on a daily basis with no problem.
At Starbucks we support Diversity!
That's just survivor bias. Lots of liberals suffered for stating their views, it's just that in the end society got more liberal and we look back on them as heroes.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
How the fuck would anyone know how a random set of SJW fuckwads would "perceive" something?
what message is he sending to his female colleagues, that somehow his male brain gives him at least a statistical edge over them?
What? Is that how statistics work?
Sounds like that army was in the business of killing Jews.
Actually no, the time Svejk was talking about was before the first World War.
They supported diversity in name only.
Google Inc. just gave that sort of behavior the rubber stamp
Unfortunately, for all the biased organizations out there, firing someone for political beliefs is illegal.
He is going to win his lawsuit, and take them to the cleaners. Also, he will become a famous iconoclast.
The Man that crushed Google's Diversity Myth.
The percentage of female engineer students in Hong Kong and China is much bigger than in the US.
Got a legitimate source for that? Because everything I can find shows HK and China are a lot like the rest of the world... between 20 and 25%... the places I found that quoted 40+% were all including "other sciences" in addition to engineering.
These days, I don't think a degree from an Ivy League school is worth what it used to be. Unless maybe, you're a corporation like Google that values ideological conformity.
It might be better to say that Google expressed a staggering amount of bad judgment.
They've censored an employee who was supporting diversity in the worst possible way.
They slimed him in the media and enabled biased stories to come out.
They did this AFTER he contacted the NLRB
Even here, the voting was around 32-33% should fire, vice 66% shouldn't
Overall, this is more of a Google screwup than anything.
You seem to think that if someone read it there is only one possible conclusion they could reach. That's frankly silly.
Some people don't think his interpretation of the science is correct. Some people point out that some of the sources don't say what he thinks they say, and ones data that contradicts him. And by far the most common differing opinion is that he is entirely missing the point.
If he really wants an honest debate he would address those points, as would others on Slashdot who immediately claim that anyone putting forward a different view to the echo chamber hasn't read it or is lying or is too stupid to understand it.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Even having a PhD and having five years of research experience isn't enough to be an expert now.
Technology doesn't exist for that period of time anymore. Apparently there are no computer experts according to slashdot.
There is a lot about gender differences known to biologists, anthropologists, and other sciences. And that’s great, and we should avail ourselves of that knowledge.
This is something Damore DID NOT DO. (I did read the manifesto, BTW.) He *speculated* about the impact of fundamental differences, without citing any evidence, and then like some fucking propagandist, he *assumed* his speculations and went on to make groundless recommendations. This is bullshit of the highest order, and it’s a TRICK that is actively used by people trying to mislead others. I don’t think Damore is smart enough to be doing this intentionally, though. He’s just stupid, but it still pisses me off when people use tactics like this (intentionally or otherwise). His recommendations are based on more unsupported assuptions than that. All these training programs and efforts to maximize deversity, *might* make Google inefficient, but the extent to which Google would be inefficient was also left entirely vacuous, even if you were to make the mistake of taking his speculations as fact.
There was no scientific debate here. NONE. Because there was no science. Indeed, something conveniently left out here is any evidence *against* biological differences being a significant contributor to gender disparity. A simple google search reveals plenty. How about "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270278/“? You don’t want me to spam you with all the publications I’ve found on this topic that contain ACTUAL EVIDENCE. No. We don’t have scientific debate here. Just some moron looking for an excuse to not have to show women respect equal to men or silence the people talking about diversity, which apparently offends him. Damore feels offended because his point of view is being disparaged, but people who believe in a flat earth will feel similarly, and they should not be given equal voice either.
Maybe there are some differences between men and women that, all other things being equal, might make fewer of them enter tech professions. The problem is that all other things are not equal. Not even by a long shot. The inequalities imposed by society may be improved compared to what they were 60 years ago, but we still have a long way to go before half the population (women included) subconsciously question a woman’s qualifications more than a man’s. Or a black person’s more than a white person’s. We’re just not that far removed from the civil rights revolution, and the civil rights revolution has not reached everyone. Biological gender differences *plausibly* have some impact on the disparities. But only plausibly, in that we have not totally ruled it out, and for sure there is no evidence in favor of this postulate that isn’t drowned out by other factors.
Even if you disagree with me there, it’s also not the role of HR employees and hiring managers to make decisions on the basis of gender differences. They do not research these things, they are not educated in them, and it’s really not their job to know them anyway. Their job is to facilitate evaluation of potential employees based exclusively on skills relevant to the jobs, by evaluating resumes, checking references, and collecting feedback from interviewers. (There are very few other reasonable criteria, with the exception of maybe a few things like criminal background and the relevance of that to the specific position being applied for, and even that has to be handled carefully.)
Once people are hired, the next thing we need to so is foster a comfortable work environment. If Damore were do damn concerned about “efficiency,” he would consider the impact of sexism (regardless of biological differences) on women working at Google and the impact of that on their work productivity. People who actually give a shit about the feelings of others besides themselves don’t feel “oppressed” when they have to curb their behaviors and langua
So you're saying your more qualified than he is, to assess the accuracy of the studies he referenced from evolutionary psych and biology?
Please, tell us your qualifications, and whether or not you've actually read all of his memo, with the references?
... and I would've fired that kid as quickly as I could. He's an idiot for wasting company time on something that doesn't effect him. He's an idiot for wasting who knows more time by upsetting most the people he sent it to. He's an idiot for talking out of his ass about something that has nothing to do with his job. He's a liability. Firing him immediately was the right thing to do.
I don't respond to AC's.
From the memo:
"Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance)"
Not "less willing to deal with stress", just simply a lower tolerance for stress. He then doubles down by suggesting reducing stress as a way to counter this weakness.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
part of the Ideological mafia there too?
I'm sure that would explain things.......
Small correction: it's not invariant. In some cultures it's near parity or even reversed, e.g. China, Iceland, New Zealand or Iran.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Social science? What about behavioral genetics and psychology?
Not really. Biology can be subverted by sociological cues. The question is, and I have no idea of the answer, is the difference still statistically significant? Also, each culture is likely to have it's own preferences for careers for their children. For instance, if in China, as in Russia, the only careers seen as significant in any meaningful way are doctors and engineers, then families that do not have male children and are looking secure their future would apply great pressure to women to do that career which best serves the family.
The better study and something more easily controlled for would be a wealthy country with a very supportive social system and high status mobility. It seems that the Scandinavian countries would be a good place to look.
Not arguing, but pointing out that your choice of cultural sample may have been suboptimal.
Maybe he's just trolling you
There's a line between being brave and being stupid. He was stupid.
Not only was his manifesto a joke, he decided to broadcast it to the whole company as if it was the golden truth. He was either:
1. Blinded by his own ego.
2. Incredibly naive.
3. Plain fucking stupid.
Or some combination of the three. He went about things in just about the worst way possible. What the fuck was he thinking? He was going to inspire a mass cultural revolution at a multinational company?
Regardless of what this idiot wrote, the main point here is there's a right way of doing something and a wrong way of doing something. He chose the wrong way to do something and received a swift boot to the ass as a consequence. No one with even an ounce of corporate experience is surprised by what happened as result of his actions.
~X~
you never read the memo.
Horrible attempt at a hatchet job on Mr. Damore.
There are biological differences between males and females, not that the average slashdotter would notice or appreciate. Men and women complement each other and become one when they're together, even better when they're a perfect match. Understand your strengths and weaknesses, and those of your partner. Cooperate and live happier.
It's nice. You ought to give it a try.
It's because it's better to treat people equally that Liberals are better people. Those who refuse to treat people of color, women, lgbtq equally are simply the scum of the earth. Truth has liberal bias. That's because it's better to love than hate.
There are two classes in this world: those who treat people equally and those who don't. Those who don't are scum.
You are scum, don't ever forget.
Those guys measuring skulls to explain why black people are poor and in jail would say the same thing. In reality you would have to be naive to not know that such arguments are favoured by some rather unsavoury people and thoroughly debunked already.
If he had done research beyond just trying to find stuff supporting his established view, he would have anticipated the criticisms and addressed them. Instead he appeals to biological imperative.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
any good points you made there, besides some rabid name calling.
If you want to make a cogent argument - let's hear it!
There is no evidence both ways, (what passes for evidence now is laughable: men and women are exactly the same, but gay men and straight men are of dramatic genetically programmed difference ), and the guy has had some background in biology.
No, he was not. That's either pure idiocy or a deliberate attempt to distribute misinformation.
I strongly suspect the latter, and that you're fully aware that you're lying.
More than amateurish too.
And yet, you've waxed eloquent on how unqualified he was. This, despite other professors saying his paper represents the current science.
You never read the paper, and all you can do is attack because it conflicts with your worldview.
Am waiting for you to actually post a scientific rebuttal.
Bs. That's is no research , it is propaganda. Real research relevant to the case is monkey ethology; that's how we know about sexes being different, males being disposable and females precious.
1) Somebody writes a manifesto that says that new college grads that don't come from Stanford are less likely to succeed in tech in general and Google in particular.
2) Enginneers at Google and other places are required to interview other people as part of the interview process.
3) A person that doesn't graduate from Stanford comes in for an interview, and is interviewed by somebody, who has said that by default that person is less likely to succeed.
This is BY DEFINITION a hostile work environment. It's hostile for incoming people that didn't graduate from Stanford, as well as those who work there.
Although this is all hypothetical, (from what I know, nobody wrote such a manifesto), in the earlier days of Google, this was quite a pervasive thought process (quite a few Stanford "snobs" in the early days of Google) but probably nobody was stupid enough to write a manifesto... But had they done so, I'm not so sure it would pass your logic.
Sometimes what is true or makes sense isn't logic or isn't legal. You might be correct about him, but your logic fails you. What he said was simply bad because it was both illegal and against the political tide. Saying the same thing about non-Stanford graduates even if true wouldn't be illegal and might not tickle the political tides and would probably simply only be stupid, even if hostile to non-Stanford grads BY DEFINITION...
Jews believe this of others they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Perrone, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above. Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud. This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Khazar/Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple):
Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.
George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis. Zucker @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.
There are three types of people who call themselves Jews:
1. True Torah [Sephardic] Jews: these are the descendants of Prophet Jacob-Israel (Jacobites or Israelites) (about 5%-10% of all Jews)
2. Khazarian or Ashkenazi Jews: these are the descendants of a Turkic idol/phallic worshiping tribe who migrated to Russia in the 7th Century A.C. and whose nobility converted to Judaism in the 8th Century A.C. and now inhabit mostly Europe. (about 90%-95% of all Jews)
3. Zionist Jews: these are the ones from the 2 above who are pretending to be Jews for political reasons but whoâ(TM)re are actually Illuminists-Luciferian-Masonic-Satanists as Harold Wallace Rosenthal admits in this interview.
They are led by the neo-Pharisees (occult-priest-banklords). They want to establish a Zionist Luciferian state from the Nile to the Euphrates from where they plan to rule the Earth. The new Israeli Supreme Court funded by the Rothschilds Banklords is full of Masonic Symbols, just like the B.I.S. Bank of International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, which is the Mother of All Private Central Banks.
The hexagram symbol on the Israeli flag is the ancient Star of Moloch, a Satanic-Baal deity to which people were sacrificed. There is no such thing as a Star of David which the modern Jews have been fooled into believing; however, the True Torah Jews are not fooled by the Zionists Illuminatis and you can visit their websites for more info .
1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."
2. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."
3. Sanhedrin 59a: "A goy (Gentile) who pries into The Law (Talmud) is guilty of death."
4. Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age."
5. Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."
6. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death."
7. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Show no mercy to the Goyim."
8. Choschen Hamm 388, 15: "If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth."
9. Choschen Hamm 266,1: "A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to the Akum (Gentile). For he who returns lost propert
We shouldn't be arguing that because it was never a supposition of the memo. Skill at programming was never the issue. The issue was all of the other shit that isn't programming that gets lumped in with a standard programming job, and how much of that shit men and women are willing to take to do that job.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Pinker vs. Spelke
Apparently, nothing has changed. I thought Pinker argued the issues and Spelke mostly engaged in an end run, but the audience (a tweed of elite leftish sympathizers) voted for Spelke.
Yeah, androgen is just a confound, leave it out.
Besides, only half the debate is about capacities. The other half is about drive and narrowness of focus. Women generally don't wish to be as mentally narrow as the most extreme men, and sometimes choose balance over advancement.
I get it. Women resent the past and present reality that choosing balance over wonk navel-gaze has such a striking impact on the pocketbook, at the top end of the curve.
Society can decide—collectively—to diminish the natural premium of an unconstrained market. And maybe we should (sometimes naked incentive is quite the bitch), though you won't get many of the more strident voices in this debate to admit that this is what we're actually talking about.
Here's the butt-naked truth: a lot of young males who aren't getting laid don't give a flying fuck about life balance.
I get it. It's hard to compete with testicles hell bent on a self-destructive war path of personality implosion.
Hitchens: Why Women Aren't Funny — 2007
This was written precisely to lampoon the cognitive morass surrounding this issue.
Natalie Morales Calls Christopher Hitchens an 'A–hole' for Saying Women Aren't Funny — 2017
Awesome! Di
To be more clear, what I am saying is illegal is creating a hostile working environment for women (as they are a "protected" class). Creating a hostile working environment for non-Stanford grads does not seem like it would be illegal nor tickle the political tides, but probably simply only be stupid.
Yup. He's posturing for a big, nasty lawsuit. I hope it gets tons and tons of media attention.
He has enough of a clue about Biology to have a Masters in Biology. Hence why he was pursuing a PhD in it.
We all know this — the "free speech" Amendment only applies to government. You must not prosecuted for calling Trump "traitor" or a policemen — "an asshole".
Though the work to abolish the Amendment is in progress, it may take a while for us to become "more like Europe".
So, in order to control, what people say — and what politics they support — the statists have invented a new trick. Instead of pursuing the individuals, they would go after employers. See, the First Amendment may protect James Damore's speech, but it does not protect Google from charges of "creating hostile work-environment".
And just what constitutes such an environment? Whatever the government says it does (somehow "gender identity" is on the list already, for example)... Sure, sure, to actually win in court, the prosecutors/lawyers need to persuade a judge and the jury. But the process is daunting and very costly — and whereas the employer has to pay their own expenses, the "attackers" are paid by the taxpayers.
It is to protect themselves from such nonsense, that employers establish these "internal policies" and set up positions like "Vice President of Diversity" in the first place. These people sincerely believe in the justice of their causes, doing the government's job for it...
By inventing "protected categories" the government gets to decide, what Americans aren't allowed to say. At least, at work — where we spend about half of our waking time. And then come Social Justice Warriors, who would gleefully pursue you even for convictions privately held...
First Amendment? Yes, sure — you still have it, but best talk in your shower, where no one can hear it and get offended.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The percentage of female engineer students in Hong Kong and China is much bigger than in the US. It's not quite at gender parity, but it's close. Something tells me that this undermines the "biological difference" arguments pretty heavily.
The percentage of female engineer students in Finland and Norway is much lower than in the US. When the most egalitarian countries show a biological difference, there is a biological difference.
Well, what if that is indeed the case? That there were female coworkers of his, hired not by merit but through a diversity, female-hiring program?
In fact he tried to offer a solution, that female coworkers would be put in jobs that they are better at.
At-will employment is still subject to labor laws. Maybe you should grow up and learn to discuss things like an adult.
Or academia. Or for that matter, Yahoo.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Yeah, few unmarried 20 year olds realize that money and power isn't attractive. Oh wait.....
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Look in your pants. Is there a penis there? Then you're a man, and if there's no penis, it means you're a woman, and you have naturally inherited biologic tendencies toward certain behavior. Culture molds and shapes itself on many environmental factors, not the least of which is biology. Anyone who can't see that is doomed to disappointment, and the "gender theorists" are basically completely in total rebellion to their own biological reality. They're not that much different to the materialists of the 19th and 20th centuries who thought that it was man's right to completely dominate and control nature, overcome it and subdue it, and destroy it in the process. These people are in for some serious reality checks. While they may have temporary power in the media right now, it won't last and they're cutting their own throats with all their insane "diversity" agenda. Women and men are different in their basic reactions to life. Those that think otherwise are really basically in denial of their own nature.
So... standing up for what you think is right, despite knowing there may be negative consequences, shows "a staggering lack of good judgement?"
So MLK wasn't a civil rights leader, he was just some angry, ranting guy with bad judgement?
Fuck if I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
What about Hitler?
"I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. "
That LITERALLY means that because of women's biology, they are less likely to make it to positions of leadership.
that explains why we are seeing so many personal attacks on Mr. Damore's memo.
Just like the other idiots here defending him, you ignored his writing.
" I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership."
I'm not misrepresenting anything. I'm quoting him DIFUCKINRECTLY.
That means, to anyone who can read, that he believes that women's biology contributes to them being less likely to be found in positions of leadership. This is why those of us on the left get so fucking frustrated with people like you. You knee-jerk defend him when his sexism is right there in his post. Fuck.
I would suggest that he got fired for everything between the headings of "Personality differences" and "The harm of Google's biases", where he belittles every traditionally feminine strength. His belief that the male way of being an engineer is inherently better than the female way of being an engineer demonstrates a deep ignorance of what the company is trying to do and the way he handled it is exactly the sort of thing the company is trying to get rid of.
He's not that bright, face it. He's whinging about females because he doesn't understand them at all.
He claimed he had no idea it would become such an issue. That's the bad judgement. Rosa Parks knew she'd be arrested. MLK expected assassination attempts. This guy claims he had no idea there was the possibility of a backlash. That's the lack of judgement that proves him incompetent.
Learn to love Alaska
his paper was trash, it had no purpose, it was designed to hurt females, and oppress them. it suggested his IQ was a little low, because he didn't see the full world for what it is. he didn't analyze how the existing work landscape formed, or why it existed. this is where you find the real reason women are disadvantaged. at the dawn of the United States, women were mere items to be owned, as were blacks. women and blacks were both slaves, enjoying only the freedoms their oppressors offered to them. women could not vote, work, or own property. it was men predominately that gave all the privilege to themselves, and they set off across America putting their names on all the land and resources, giving themselves the title deeds. later, blacks and women became slightly less enslaved, but the system of capitalism still existed which shifted the power over to who owned the money and resources. it was predominately men, who passed the wealth down in inheritances. women never got much of the money or resources, nor did blacks, even when they gained the right to vote, be free, go to schools, etc. till this day money and owned resources are the predominate deciders of status, including what schools you can get into, where you can go, what you will do in the world, and if you will have enough money to do it all. men continue to have so much money and resources, they can elect anyone they want, controlling who gets elected. the same is true within business, men are favored, favoring themselves, and keeping all the money and resources to their own. women are being barred from being given money and resources, and are being barred from being governors, presidents, senators, congressman and the like. it costs quite a bit of money to try to contend with mens money and resources, so few challengers make it very far.
women will continue to be oppressed for some time, because they aren't the owners of all the money and resources, men are. mostly white men too, blacks can't even hardly compete..
racism and sexism thus were installed into our very governance by the use of the capitalism system.
obamasweapon.com
by posting someone's lucrative writing gigs, attacking their thesis, without posting it, or having a scientific discussion.
You've committed a classic ad hominem. You came out against her solely because she argued scientifically, to support the claims Mr. Damore made. Since you are fumbling, why not attack on University of York next?
The height of unscientific hypocrisy, and pedantic mediocrity!
She works for Playboy therefore her degree doesn't count and the obvious fact that men and women aren't exactly the same in all ways is negated!
Strawman defeated: SJW's win again!!
(I personally love how "equal rights and equal opportunities" to some mean that they have to choose who to hire based on their gender because the company has too few women in it)
There is a simple reason for that: it is very hard to measure "opportunity" or "equal rights", but it is trivial to count heads. This is why gender equity always reverts to counting heads.
This is why schools who do not want to face Title IX problems from government regulators will cancel popular boys sports programs when they are unable to interest an equal number of girls to play something, anything. You cannot say 'girls at this school don't want to play sports' is the reason why 10% of the boys but only 5% of the girls are involved in athletics. Nobody cares about native "interest", only that you aren't doing enough to make them interested. Your failure to express gender equity is not because you didn't try, but because you failed to achieve equal outcomes. Outcome is more important than actual equality of opportunity.
Since head counts are the only easy measurement (albeit a proxy for what is intended), head counts are the weapon of choice, and equal headcounts the expected outcome, of anyone who challenges gender equity in any area.
Unfortunately, for all the biased organizations out there, firing someone for political beliefs is illegal.
But firing someone for disobeying a corporate policy that they signed as a condition of their employment is not. That includes a code of conduct, which I'm certain Google has.
Breakfast served all day!
Check thru the comments here and the usual suspects who cheer the persecution and firing of this bloke are all posters who have previously expressed their love for the mass murdering war criminal Hilary Clinton.
Here's where it gets interesting. While America falls over itself to give financial incentives to women and minorities who show any kind of interest in certain areas traditionally associated with white males, Syria under Assad already ensured that women and minorities were well treated and given equal access to every area of society. Outside of the wahhabi controlled areas clinton supporters love, secular muslim nations see plenty of women following careers in advanced subjects. Thta is they did until their nations were bombed back into the stone age by the USA.
The filth pretending to white-knight women at Google are the same filth that cheered from the rooftops when Syria was destroyed, and wave after wave of USA recruited, USA trained, USA funded and USA armed wahhabi terror gangs were sent in to finish off all traces of civilised society in that nation.
Where America partnered with Saudi Arabia- with the full backing of all Clinton voters- Human Rights for women vanished. Curiously this fact is never the basis for stories of Slashdot. But fake news propaganda claiming Assad murders 'programmers' (as seen on slashdot a few days back)- had the Google backing monsters here bashing the Syrian government in the comments in that section.
It is a FACT that during the Iraq war, identical 'atrocity' propaganda was used by the mainstream media in the USA to sell the war. And it is a fact that years later the 'atrocity' propaganda was shown to have been manufactured by the CIA in conjuction with Iraq stooges like 'Curveball' (go google him). Amnetsy Internation, the MI6 operation fronted by so many celebs, produced the infamous 'babies thrown out of incubators' LIE that was used to justify the bass bombing of Iraq and the 'Highway of Death' in the first Gulf War.
But the owners of Slashdot know that the retractions and admittance of wholesale lying is the small print buried in some serious newspaper that very very few even notice. The dribblers that cheer Google over this firing, and cheered when Clinton destroyed Libya and the hopes of every woman there don't even hesitate when proof finally appears that everything they said was based on propaganda falsehoods. Why- cos they're onto to backing the next Deep State propaganda drive stating once again that the 'masters' have all the 'facts' and that ordinary clods don't have the 'expertise' to challenge the words of their 'masters'
Want to understand those here backing Google? Go read 'Animal Farm' again.
As an interviewer you assigned a score. You don't know how these scores were weighed in the hiring process afterwards. Heck, since you are not the final say on the hiring decisions, you don't even know if the scores were different depending on the interviewer/interviewee gender/race/age differences.
It makes him more knowledgeable than you, dipshit.
You are a science denier when it suits you, and proclaim "the science is settled" only when you agree with it.
You are a massive fucking hypocrite.
You really don't need the wall of text. This should be all anyone ever needs to see.
So... There are biological reasons... It isn't 100% sexism... You literally just repeated what he was saying, you fucking imbecile.
Ummm, I have not heard ANYONE call Mr. Damore a "champion of the victimized male". OK, that is not entirely true, I have heard people who defended his firing, and who apparently did not actually read what he wrote, refer to him that way.
What I have repeatedly heard said by people defending him is that he approved of Google's goal of having a workforce which is more diverse and has a better balance of men to women. From there he went on to cite research which showed that men and women have different interests as a result of biological differences (he noted that the evidence for the different interests is solid, while the evidence that it was a result of biology was less well supported). He then suggested that if Google wanted to increase the percentage of women in its workforce it should make changes to the work environment which would increase its appeal to those different interests which women had while stating that its current approach would continue to fail.
Ultimately, he was fired for saying that Google was an inhospitable environment for anyone who expressed opinions which did not agree with the groupthink of the company...which Google promptly proved to be correct.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Thank you. The amount of butthurt alt-right shitlords has been out of control these last few days. Slashdot can't get enough of this guy. What a snowflake. Who exactly are the "SJWs"?
He still hasn't learned - it was his whining about "heresy at Google" that got the CEO's attention and showed to him that Google is a large American Corporation and not some sort of anarchists collective.
I doubt if much was read beyond the title of his screed before he was fired.
We all noticed how you weren't able to quote anything.
You should really consider just shutting the fuck up. You look like a fucking moron.
unfortunately this is also why more peaceful men are not in power and why poor men obtain very little status and have no chance to. the entire system is being chosen for us by the wealthy and what you can do as an individual does not matter.
the women, poor men, and blacks who rise are being chosen to rise for the purpose of whatever the rich controllers of the world desire.
Clearly mr. Damore believes that unworthy people have been hired to meet HR diversity rules,
I have heard tales of woe of the unworthy people who have landed jobs at Google. But more often they got there by having advanced degrees and an aptitude for solving puzzles, as demonstrated in the interview process, rather than any aptitude for doing actual work. Diversity policies had nothing to do with it.
Breakfast served all day!
Try it out at your job, let us know how the discussion goes.
Really? Pulling credential because you dislike the fact that she states the state of the current science and you dislike that state? Really? Well, if she needs her credentials defended (and I suspect she doesn't), her thesis committee did sign her thesis.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I bet you would not. No one would consider this seriously and It would hardly make a noise. At worst, HR will ask you not to publish your memos using company e-mail anymore. There would be no waves of demands from masculinists (?) requesting that you and anyone who condones your behavior be disciplined right now this instance or else. Most men would just shrug their shoulders and move on.
Actually, he stated that they were less interested in the software engineering WORK ENVIRONMENT and that, if Google wanted a higher percentage of women software engineers, which he thought they should want, they needed to change the work environment to one which women had more interest in. He seemed to have a subtext suggesting that such changes would improve the productivity of the workforce outside of its impact on gender recruitment, although that may be a result of my own bias and not a conclusion he intended people to reach.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
No, we have simply asked you to quote from the memo to support a single fucking assertion you've made.
You haven't, because you can't, because you are either lying or fucking stupid.
Perhaps you have some reading comprehensions problems. Absolutely none of the content in the manifesto merits to be characterized as 'filled with fallacies, poor referencing, wild extrapolation'. The author is an extremely intelligent and highly educated scientist. In his defense, and the corroboration of his arguments came several scientists and researchers, some of them female. This was an internal memo, not the resulting report of a federally funded 5-year long study. Use some common sense, please.
If he got fired for drama, it wasn't any he started.
Reality is a slackware box running on a 386 tucked away in god's sock drawer.
He was trying to open a dialogue about problems with the way things were being run at work. What he did and where he did it was entirely appropriate.
You might like working at a stagnant company where everybody is scared to rock the boat, but I would prefer to get things like this out in the open so that the company can improve.
One look at him (I saw his photograph) and I just wanted to bitch-slap him over and over. I mean come on, who wouldn't?
Nothing to do with my being a lib-turd or a con-turd.
Can't just get over his stupid looking face.
*Yawn*
Oh look, another boring appeal to authority, a.k.a. the stupidest logical fallacy ever.
Argue against the content of the memo. Or just come out and say that your religious beliefs prohibit you from accepting the scientific evidence referenced in the memo. Either course of action would at least be intellectually honest.
Sure so nothing is worth anything anymore... Bachelor? Nothing. Master's Degree? Nothing. PhD? Nothing. It's all the same as the expertise obtained by some keyboard jokey while browsing reddit. Get a grip.
He had completed a couple years of PhD studies in systems biology in Harvard. So that's too little relevant qualification to have an opinion about the topic, as far as you are concerned? Makes him a "rank amateur"?
These scientists agreed with him and thought his citations and references were OK.
1. Blinded by his own ego.
2. Incredibly naive.
3. Plain fucking stupid.
4. Fed up to the point where he no longer cared if they fired him
FTFY
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Good comment and most insightful of those that got the mod.
I hope the truth actually comes out in the resulting lawsuit, though I think the legal truth will be completely distorted here. I'm reasonably sure that none of us will be able to recognize the truth after the lawyers get through mangling it.
From one perspective, I'd say it is a double HR problem, one part with policies and another part with the public humiliation related to those policies. I think people are mostly forgetting that the underlying cause was the gender discrimination query related to salaries. If you go back to that level, Work Rules! and other books about the google can give you a lot of insight to what is going on, and Damore's comments fit right into the analysis, though from an awkward perspective.
However the dominant perspective is a religious violation. You may think that human beings are important and deserve respect, and that corporations are soulless immortal monsters inclined towards EVIL and that they should not abuse human beings as wage slaves. Nice thought that, but today's leading religion in America can best be summarized as:
"There is no gawd but profit, and the google is profit's prophet!"
(Actually, I favor the form with "... and Apple, Exxon, Google, and the big banks are the profit's prophets!")
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Wrong answer, for a number of reasons. If applied consistently to anyone complaining about labor conditions (including women and minorities complaining discrimination), it would lead to terrible results. If applied only to people of specific gender or race, or only to people complaining about discrimination against specific groups, it would be outright illegal.
Bullshit. He was lecturing. And really, even if he's right, what message is he sending to his female colleagues, that somehow his male brain gives him at least a statistical edge over them?
Yes and no. Neuroscientists no longer even debate the issue of whether men and women are hardwired differently prenatally, as the evidence supporting this has been very strong for a very long time now. This means that the social liberal position of men and women (and indeed other races) being a blank slate that would otherwise develop identical behaviors, preferences, and mannerisms if raised identically can not be true. Or put another way, the tabula rasa theory is false.
Because they are different, therefore, they can not be equal. However, this does not conclude or even suggest that one is inherently superior to the other. What it does conclude is that, inevitably, different people will excel in different things more than others, with phenotypes and genotypes absolutely playing a role somewhere.
So on one side yes, women can overall be one or both of:
1. Less likely to be interested in tech work to begin with than males
2. Less likely to be as adept at tech as males
But on another side no, in that it does NOT mean that women can not be as interested and adept or more interested and adept than a typical male.
This is also why you'll never be able to meet diversity/affirmative-action quotas that are pegged to match the general population (i.e. 49% male, 51% female, 14% black, etc) without sacrificing something else. Furthermore, equality and diversity are in fact mutually exclusive of one another (there is no tabula rasa.) In order for any two people to be equal, you'd have to create a perfect clone of somebody, and even then they would diverge over time as their experiences change. So you have to pick either equality or diversity, but you can't have both.
He was trying to open a dialogue about problems with the way things were being run at work
There were no fucking problems to discuss. The only problem is his attitude.
This is a man who, while in MIT, had the brilliant idea of doing a vulgar joke at a meeting, so vulgar that professors had to apologize for it.
We know now that before his manifesto, he was at a HR session where he felt "harassed" because he was told he couldn't say certain things because they were inappropriate and sexist. Considering his previous experience at MIT, I'd side with HR first.
Stop making excuses for this asshole. Now we have alt-right assholes making death threats against google employees. Fuck that guy and all that he stands for.
Is Google being harmed by its gender policies? Was he? At the end of the day, one presumes he was hired as a software developer or engineer, and not to write screeds against his employer's hiring practices.
Then what of other employees' calls for his punishment and declaring that they'd refuse to work with him?
Oh yeah, employees (in particular female) are going to want to work with him after he lectured them in how their biological differences and lack of testicles would probably make them less efficient than him at software (the job they do.)
Yeah totally the others' fault for not wanting to work with him.
Do you guys even hear yourselves? Do you think Google owes you assholes a place where you can spew your views?
You might want to look up the term "at-will employment," a term that I 100 percent guarantee you was in Damore's employment contract with Google. Google was within its rights to terminate Damore for any reason or for no reason.
Breakfast served all day!
So... standing up for what you think is right, despite knowing there may be negative consequences, shows "a staggering lack of good judgement?"
Depends on what you think is right. There are people out there standing up to their belief black people are inferior, regardless of obvious consequences. Should we not then consider their stupid behavior a staggering lack of good judgment?
Since when the strength of a believe makes it right or moral or worth having?
So MLK wasn't a civil rights leader, he was just some angry, ranting guy with bad judgement?
MLK's beliefs were right. Damore's are not. Fucking false equality.
Fuck if I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
Find a rope. If you can't own your own know why your analogy is wrong, you won't be missed.
Hi, I see that you have written a lot of negative comments on James and the memo he shared with the Diversity and Critique group at Google, what is it that you object to in the memo? It would be interesting to have your perspective in a more rational scientific manner on the content of the memo.
If they were an anarchist collective maybe, but they are a corporation and it seems it's only people here that are astonished when a corporation acts like one.
Insult the boss and you are out the door.
MLK was a Republican, so the Democrats did call it "a staggering lack of good judgment" when he was assassinated by a Democrat.
Because apparently the great switch didn't happen during Nixon's Southern Strategy, and the Republicans of old are the same as the Republicans of today, and the Democrats of the time weren't a bunch of fucking bastards that jumped to the GOP when they were forced to let the darkies drink from the same water fountain.
... political speech that's claims that women are genetically predisposed towards different technical work than men. That is speech that creates a hostile work environment.
And that's game over.
You've used a sequence of imbalanced approximations to reach an incorrect conclusion. This is clearly not his intent and reading his document to come to this conclusion is deliberate misrepresentation.
There's less opportunities in those countries. You don't choose what you want but what will bring food to the table.
This, to me, looks like the opposite of "no discrimination based on sex" or "equal opportunities".
You've touched on what this whole issue boils down to, which is affirmative action. A tenet and sacred cow of the ideology that dominates Google.
Since the position of Damore's detractors can't be supported by logical reasoning, misdirection and strawmen arguments such as 'hostile work environment' and 'inappropriate forum' must be applied. Even when the lies and distortions are so easily disprovable, the sheer zeal in which Damore is being smeared suggests to me that he may have hit a little too close to home in pointing out the hypocrisy.
Look above your head.. find point.
That is EXACTLY what his detractors said. They kept lambasting him, not for his views, but supposedly for his methods of protest. It was thinly veiled racism. Same garbage is happening here.
There are studies which show that women are better at filing and sorting tasks than men, although the reason is certain cognitive abilities. Those cognitive abilities are related to Strider's comment about female drivers for contracting equipment. Those some, or similar, cognitive abilities make women better at certain other jobs which are dominated by men as well. I wish I remember where I found the article because it showed that the same logic that made administrative assistants primarily women should make certain other jobs (which were considered jobs for men) primarily women as well.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
He used 4chan-worthy pseudoscience and charts to accuse his female coworkers of a predisposition to poor aptitude. In a 10 page manifesto. Try that at any job and see how far you get.
His essay cherry picks stereotypes (men are "aggressive" but women are "nurturing") and acts as if these are remotely interesting rationales for choosing employees. I can think of half a dozen stereotypes of female superiority (faster learners, better listeners, more socially accommodating, good at planning, and better at multitasking) that would be preferable to "aggression" and "ambition" at an engineering job.
They're not hiring MMA fighters.
Or that they have cultural elements able to compensate for biological imperatives. Kind of like Mr Damore tried to suggest we introduce here in the west.
No, he does not have a PhD in biology. He apparently abandoned that before completion.
http://www.businessinsider.com...
Maybe Mr. Damore isn't quite the champion of the victimized male that people want to believe. But way to go with trying to make him into an expert in cognitive studies, because he went part way through a biology PhD. In my part of the world that's called a fallacious appeal to authority. So tell me, are you genetically predisposed to such faulty logic, or was that a cultural artifact?
This. Something else went on that he's deliberately not telling us. His own memo opens with "Reply to public response and misrepresentation". Reply to what I have to ask?
CEO's don't get called back from holiday to deal with a politely worded memo that goes against the groupthink. That's what HR deals with no matter how "Lib-rle" the alt-right thinks the organisation is, as others have said Google is a Fortune 100 company, this means HR is done properly. Given that the memo is dated July 2017 and he was not fired until the 7th of August... What happened between that time?
Meanwhile, Damore has been crying foul all over alt-right media but ignoring major publications without an obvious bias. What was he saying about Google's ideological echo chamber? Even the WSJ only counts as semi-legitimate having become yet another Murdoch mouthpiece.
Reading between the lines, his actual philosophies are much harsher than the memo eludes to and likely got into an argument with other employees. Something was said or done that was harsh enough for a lot of employees to make a complaint about, harsh enough that a CEO had to be called back from holiday. If this is true, trying to create a media circus will eventually backfire, especially the way he's currently doing it. The only thing saving him would be that it is illegal for Google to release the actual details on why he was fired, if he sues, this comes out.
We've heard Damore's side of it, I'd like to hear Google's, which is probably being parsed by some very high priced IR lawyers as we speak. As always there's three sides to the argument, your side, their side and the truth.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Actually no - substantially less RELEVANT BACKGROUND than many people here (probably even the majority) as you should have noticed on reading the thing. He's gone way off the reservation and biology can only be seen as a spot on he horizon - he's way out of his depth, so far out that even an MBA looks good in comparison.
The darkly amusing thing is his effort to shout from the rooftops that women are less suitable employees for Google has indicated that he personally was then seen as the least suitable person at Google. It's kind of sad that he didn't see the obvious consequence coming.
The bar seems to be getting lower and lower.
Since when is a recent graduate an expert?
Agreed. And even if he made it generic, it wouldn't have mattered.
"The Left" has been known to go after people and demand their jobs no matter where someone says their opinions. So it literally wouldn't even matter if it was just in a personal conversation. Just look at Brendan Eich. He gave a "Right Wing Cause" $1,000 (which is NOT a lot of money) and was expected to step down because of it.
I'm sure people will try to make excuses for that, but stuff like this happens all the damn time. Also I suggest people refer back to the fact it was ONLY $1,000. I consider it pocket money for a cause particularly for a CEO. That wouldn't even allow them to pay for one person or barely anything really and yet a complete and total fit was thrown about it. In fact, with the low sum he gave, I'd say he did it on behalf of a friend most likely. Showing "token-level support" is nothing of importance. Also, some of his detractors have thrown money into the "anti-gay" category as well. But since they were busy virtue signaling, I guess that doesn't matter.
Point is, you can get forced out for doing virtually nothing, which is EXACTLY what that was.
It's about on par with engineering as a whole.
Certainly not. In 1967, 11% of Computer Science majors were female. It's certainly true that programming was a female dominated field when six women were recruited for the ENIAC project during WWII, but that's a rather special case.
... did her thesis on investigations of sexuality via fMRI, which has famously been used to detect emotions in a dead salmon.
So many people refer to that paper to rubbish fMRI, so few people have read it. Let me TL;DR the article you just referenced for you:
Bennett's point is that a suite of methods known as multiple comparisons correction can allow researchers to maintain most of their statistical power while keeping the danger of false positives at bay.
The point of the salmon study isn't to prove that fMRI shouldn't be used or is worthless. Brain scientists can do things with fMRI machines they otherwise couldn't, said Ed Vul, an MIT neuroscience graduate.
In short; the whole point of the salmon paper was "Yes, fMRI works, but you have to remember to do the stats right."
"Use to work", Google literally got ideas for their "diversity training" recently directly from Anita Sarkeesian, yes that Anita Sarkeesian. Google has lost their way, basically no one in their google ideas summit on how to get more women in coding actually had any scientific background at all.
>the question is, and I have no idea of the answer, is the difference still statistically significant?
The answer is: Yes, it is!
But now, we have another question: what is the cause of this statically significant difference?
By a great miracle, a statically significant answer exists: more freedom (a consequence of social well-being) to choose you career orientation increases the gender differences!
Going to look up how to boycott Google now and.. Aww dammit!
So your response to a story about someone fired for merely expressing an opinion in a civil way is to post lies about Jews...
I loved the one about killing denouncers before they even denounce. That doesn't make any sense. You and the James Damore haters would get along great on the same irrational boat.
Here we go again. Instead of accusing you of not reading the memo, I'd like to ask: did you read it?
Yes I've read it.
It tries to sound authoritative by adding in references without proper citations. Fair enough it was an internal memo, not a scientific paper but that means it shouldn't be treated as a scientific paper. He doesn't properly link the citations to his assertions and in many cases, the differences are not actually large enough to be significant. I.E. he quotes that women are less competitive than men, whilst its technically true on the whole, it fails to account for individual variations, some women are quite competitive, some men are very passive. Peaks and valleys.
The problem I have with the way a lot of people are reading the memo is that they're using it as validation, not critically evaluating it. He uses a lot of generalisations that cant be simply applied to every sample size, ironically I might add.
You may have read it, but you didn't think critically about it. This is as bad, if not worse than someone who has only read soundbites about it. In both cases, you're just trying to justify beliefs you already hold, not challenge them.
Secondly, it was dated July 2017, if he was fired over the memo alone... why was he not fired until the 7th of August? The memo is a smoke screen for what he actually did to get fired. I'll put money on that.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Is that not the current scientific consensus?
Ok, so you can't quote anything like that. Oh well, I guess I'll amuse myself by shooting down the logically unsound claims you make, even though they have nothing to do with Mr Damore's memo.
>If you're asserting a hiring diversity policy is leading to the employment of people in positions for which they are statistically less capable than their opposite gender counterparts, then you're asserting that there are coworkers of the other gender which do not deserve the positions they got.
That someone is statistically less capable for the position does not imply that they are actually less capable. Consider a pool of ten female candidates, two of whom are capable, and ten male candidates, one of whom is capable. In this example the male candidates are statistically half as likely to be capable. After interviews are over, the capable man was hired and one of the capable women. Note how in this scenario the male candidates were half as likely to be capable, and yet no positions were filled with anyone who wasn't capable. This is what Mr Damore's memo suggests is happening at Google - he NEVER in his memo claims, implies or insinuates that any of the women working for Google aren't perfectly capable. All he says is he thinks Google would be able to attract *more* capable women by complementing the company's reward structures which (he claims) are currently biased towards traits statistically more frequently shared by males, to include rewards statistically more often appreciated by women as well. Not exactly misogyny.
Here is 4 professors in biology that basically say James Damore was correct, but sure you are the expert. Funny the strongest argument comes from a female PhD in neuroscience. But sure MBAs know more than them and you do too.
http://quillette.com/2017/08/0...
Quite the opposite, it supports those claims rigorously.
You see, programming is an economically sound choice in China, and the economically sound choice far overrides any personal preference in countries where being poor equals being abused to death or getting sold off into marriage (this also includes Iran, another country with a close to 50% parity). Hence, you would expect to see 50% parity in students assuming that male and female students are equally likely to pass the admission tests.
In order for this thesis to hold, we would also need to look at countries where the economical motivation is close to 0. A good choice for this would be the Nordic countries, well-known for having the strongest social security nets around. What does the distribution look like there?
Let's have a look. These are the number of applicants to the various CS programs in Sweden ("datavetenskap") for the second semester of 2016. They are split into three columns: University, Number of female applicants, number of male applicants, (I think, please correct me if I'm wrong since my Swedish isn't that good)
Univ/högskola Kvinnor totalt Män totalt
Göteborgs universitet 60 345
Högskolan i Skövde 38 339
Karlstads universitet 3 9
Linköpings universitet 5 50
Linnéuniversitetet 29 65
Linnéuniversitetet 1 18
Malmö högskola 111 571
Mälardalens högskola 59 408
Stockholms universitet 192 848
Stockholms universitet 40 116
Umeå universitet 28 278
Umeå universitet 33 285
Umeå universitet 4 18
Uppsala universitet 91 604
Uppsala universitet 9 52
Uppsala universitet 1 7
Uppsala universitet 5 22
A quick normalization on these two lines will tell you that in Sweden about 15% of applicants to CS programs are female. And this is from Sweden, the equality capital of the world.
So, when there is no strong economic incentive and no social norms to push women away from CS (assuming there ever was), you can expect around 15% of CS majors to be female. Unless you think the women are more free and equal in Iran and China of course.
HE was lecturing? He was the voice in the wild. He merely adopted the tone of the contrary, monocrhomatic dogma that was being preached, in a corporate forum which was uncharacteristically not video taped.
tone
The title alone was picking a fight with management. Whether the contents were correct or not wasn't going to get him saved from being fired since he was working for a large American Corporation.
WAS. When did you leave?
Not a pointed question; I have no inside perspective. But companies change, to suit the times and their own scale.
tone
He "leaked it" to more than ten thousand people didn't he?
And so, the other partner in this healthy collegial dialog of ideas, FIRED HIM?
A cudgel is quite the counterpoint.
tone
tone
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Hundred_Flowers_Campaign
In case you forgot, google allows you to spend 20% of your time on your own projects. No one said you have to be an expert on something to present your own opinions. To the contrary -- it's the experts that demoted Pluto in closed session. More often than not, experts spout their field's latest dogma as fact which is later reversed due to more research. Being an expert doesn't mean you are right -- just well versed in your fields latest gospel.
Seriously? You don't think multinational corporations are conservative enough? Do you want to being back the King or something?
Again with that one link to that one website? They should really set up some kind of affiliate referral program. Fair is fair.
Or a stronger societal pressure, say pushing kids into high-paying jobs even against their desires, working against a biological norm. Until studied, it can't be determined.
> Secondly, it was dated July 2017, if he was fired over the memo alone... why was he not fired until the 7th of August?
Because someone inside Google with an axe to grind didn't make a copy of the Google-internal memo and send it to the "press" until late July or early August?
There have been equally controversial memos (such as the anti-"Real Names Policy" memo (a policy which actually caused many Googlers to resign their positions)) that circulated throughout Google without being revealed to the "press". Google has a long-standing tradition of _robust_ dicussion about contentious topics; especially when they're about how best to run the company.
It is _radically_ outside the norm for the contents of such discussions to be leaked to the "press". I guess Googlers are now getting a taste of the concern that WikiLeaks causes World Governments and the Ruling Class. This is a _very_ sad turn of events for those who supported Google's culture of Radical Internal Transparency and Openness.
> The memo is a smoke screen for what he actually did to get fired. I'll put money on that.
It's not. If there were a site that would allow us to make publicly auditable and accountable short-term bets, I'd take you up on this. Sadly, Long Bets only accepts bets that have (at a minimum) a two-year horizon and are about things that are _actually important_.
Someone needs to make a similar site for short-term trivial bets that's also accessible to USians.
That LITERALLY means that because of women's biology, they are less likely to make it to positions of leadership.
You are only demonstrating your inability to understand the document here. It's as applicable to populations, not individuals. Meaning biological differences are what discourage more women than men from pursuing positions of leadership. That says nothing about the capabilities of individuals.
A subtle but critical distinction.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
[He] deserved to get [fired] for [constructive criticism] at work.
s/He/She/
s/fired/raped/
s/constructive criticism/showing skin/
Hey that looks a lot like victim blaming doesn't it? Hypocrites.
Given several of the scientists whose data he reference spoke out on this declaring his analysis of THEIR work effectively 'spot on' I'd suggest HE has a far better understanding of the work then you do (http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/)
What kind of 'stereotyping' are we doing NOW. 'Software Engineers are incapable of understanding anything outside their chosen profession'? Seriously? I'm a 'trained Physicist' (M.Sc.) but that isn't my chosen profession (at this time) and I can understand, analyze and 'critically criticize' or summarize a whole lot of research outside my chosen profession. If you can't do it that's your problem don't put it on this guy or anyone else.
But of course you don't care WHAT he said only that he said it & since YOU have no idea of the veracity of the research he sited you just want to claim it was a 'screed' (e.g. 'having no inherent value just shouting at the ether') & dismiss his comments & thereby dismiss him (as Google actually did).
Where in his memo did he make any claim that 'his male brain gives him a statistical edge over them in software engineering'? And are you claiming the females are incapable of reading a logical argument about 'statistically significant scientifically supported evidence' for differences between men & women & thinking that this must somehow mean 'women are not as smart or as capable as a man'...wow you really have a high disregard for the mental capabilities of women. Who is the asshole here Mr. Martian?
And yes Google (and other companies on the whole 'diversity hiring' train) could very well be harmed since as one of the scientists in the link I posted made the most obvious and cogent argument on this topic I've seen. There are only 2 'logical outcomes' here:
1) If the disparity in professions is all cultural (e.g. 'discrimination') and 'every one is the same regardless of gender' then hiring for 'diversity' makes 0 sense from a company point of view since everyone has the exact same 'skills & abilities'. There is 0 benefit to the company for selecting one gender over another and thus hiring for diversity doesn't benefit them 1 iota and is both a waste of time & money. Which means they should only hire based on merit (e.g. best person for the job from the applicants available) as anything else would be discriminatory & would in fact harm the company as they would be getting inferior employees vs the 'best person available' (whatever gender he/she is).
2) On the other hand if the capabilities across genders is different than hiring within a company for diversity is not a 'bad thing' as it cultivates different skill sets & abilities BUT then you should not be surprised at all to find that different genders populate different professions within an organization to a higher degree than the other gender. In other words the disparity in genders within 'Software Engineers' within the larger company called Google (or Alphabet) may very well be a proper thing & further more hiring for diversity is its own PROOF of this or at least it is proof that Google HAS to believe this is true, otherwise go back to 1).
A quick normalization on these two lines will tell you that in Sweden about 15% of applicants to CS programs are female.
Can you blame them? What woman would want to apply for entrance to a "technical hogschool"?
Hitler breathed oxygen. You breathe oxygen. You're just like Hitler.
You obviously have the who love thing down.
Is Google being harmed by its gender policies?
If they're passing up talented hires due to a quota system, then yes they are. Also, from what some other posters have said in previous /. stories related to this, affirmative action is illegal in California, so they may be running afoul of the law.
I was at Google for 14 years, and over that time I interviewed hundreds of candidates and worked with many groups, and if there is some sort of diversity quota system in place there, it is VERY well hidden. So I think the OP's point still stands.
I still work for Google, interview candidates virtually every week and work with many groups... and if there is some sort of diversity quota system in place here, it is VERY well hidden.
FWIW, Damore never claimed there was a quota system. He just said that Google had affirmative action programs in place designed to reduce the probability of false negatives for diversity candidates.
That is actually true. I know of three specific programs, personally, two of which I know I'm allowed to talk about in public. The first takes freshmen and sophomores who are of underrepresented classes (which aren't necessarily gender or racial classes; anyone from a small university like my alma mater qualifies, regardless of race or gender), who couldn't normally pass the interview for a Google internship and gives them a 12-week internship that includes CS courses as well as work with product teams.
The second does something similar for new grads who are on the edge of being able to pass the Google interview process, but aren't quite there. They're brought in on a one-year contract which includes mentoring and training as well as work. At the end they're run through the regular Google interview process and if they pass they get converted to full-time.
I don't know if I can talk about the third, so I won't. But it also does not involve any lowering of the bar. Diversity candidates are offered some extra opportunities but at the end of the day either they can pass the interviews and hiring committee, or they can't. And if they can't, no job offer.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
You may find this interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... (don't give up partway, when he crosses off biological causes)
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
The problem is that blogs, armchair pundits and apparently young and impressionable Libertarians take a scientific finding of a possible link and does that classic "science says men are X and women are Y!".
Pretty sure geneticists say women are X and men are Y ;)
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Offence is not given. It is taken...
It was his job at the company. It is what they pay him to do. Yes, there are psychological differences between men and women and proof of this is in the height difference between men and women. Logically physiologically due to carrying a child, women should be bigger not smaller (it makes them more physiological capable of carrying that child in womb and post womb). A interesting example of this, would be matriarchies where men and women are of similar stature and patriarchies where women are definitively shorter.
So to be fair to both, allowance needs to be made for psychological inclusion of both, not forcing work places to be biased in one direction and any that dislike it are threatened and attacked. A gender neutral work place will only attract the gender neutral. It is pretty clear a misandrist group was allowed dominance in google in the name of diversity and they are now running riot pushing their own mental divergence agenda on everyone else. Instead of disciplining those making threats, the choose to attack the victim (gees I remember stories exactly like this, where men were the attackers and women were the victims, boy was there a hue and cry from the likes of google, but I suppose if women threaten men it is OK to punish men for it if sufficient women attack them).
Nothing to do with men or women, just the mental disturbances and bloated egos of a bunch of individuals, pushing their will upon others and attacking any who threaten their position, especially when that position is based on incompetence protected by diversity ideology, the word spaghetti wafflers.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
I can find more well-credentialed scientists that disagree with global warming.
Your argument is absurd.
Thanks for stating your case in such a mature manner. The world needs more people willing to stand up to people who want to shout down anyone with differing views.
The "Minister of Diversity at Google" did not claim any expertise about the current state of neuroscience, and he didn't claim any nonsense about "White Male Patriarchy". Those are two things that you made up in your mind--they didn't happen in reality. Does that make sense to you? There's no morale equivalence because one party erred in the actual real physical universe and the other offended you exclusively within your imagination.
If you are ready to join us on this plane, why don't you post what the "Minister of Diversity" said which triggered your snowflake reaction? and then we'll deal with the reality of what he actually said.
A PhD is a research apprenticeship which he did not manage to complete. He also lied about it on LinkedIn. We do not know if he lied about it when he was hired.
Yes, statistics about people with long ring fingers >20 years ago, not statistics about women employed at Google. If you can't understand that applying larger generalizations to a particular group is the very definition of stereotyping, and if you can't understand how gender stereotyping is damaging to the morale of a workforce and a company's legal position, you're not smart enough to judge the merits of the dude's writing.
All of this is very ironic because the people defending google are members of the same broad ideological faction that put these rules into place in the first place.
The truth is, all these so-called liberals are not actually left wingers. They are corporate fascists. They are
- against freedom of expression
- side with the multiblillion corporation and against the workers
- support at-will termination
This is one of the reasons I grew to hate the word "liberal". I declare myself a socialist (a word vilified in the US) just so I can distance myself from liberals and progressives. I don't recognize those as the standard bearers of true progress, advancement of human values. Fuck "liberals", virtue-signaling coward pieces of shit.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
The 25 altcucks who threatened Google's town hall meeting put of existence and doxxed a bunch of employees are not a liability though?
So what? If you don't like it, don't work for them. California is an at-will state. Sorry snowflake, put on your big boy pants and find another job.
You're proving the point that "liberals" are nothing but corporatists.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
If he's fed up at his age he has no chance of making it in the tech industry. Just fire the moron and put him out of his misery.
That's the same reason he put Phd on the resume in the first place. He was hoping people wouldn't notice the weasel wording and just assume he actually earned it. He'll, I studied ten different Phd programs. Doesn't mean i took a class or passed a class, much less AM a Phd.
Naw, that can't be.
It's because he's a massive fucking tool.
We're talking about interest, not result. That is to say, women tend to self-report themselves as more interested in people-related tasks rather than tasks that focus on things. That doesn't mean they don't end up going into money making fields like engineering though.
When surveying interest, the personality traits of things vs people were indeed invariant amongst all the countries surveyed.
It's called Proof-texting. It's been a hall-mark of pretend scholarship for hundreds of years.
This is how it works: You start by writing whatever nonsense you want. Once you're satisfied, you go digging around looking for anything that you think you can claim supports the crap you wrote. Morons think that your work is "well-researched" or "supported by science" even though it's clear to any minimally educated person that you're full of shit.
Who said anything about being smarter or dumber? The discussion is about desire.
I would tell you you were stereotyping people if you said that men that work at Google are taller than Women that work there. Because you don't fucking know. Just like that guy has no clue whether the subset of women that work at Google share any attributes with the groups in his cited studies or indeed with women in general.
Get this through your misogynist heads: applying broad generalizations to a smaller group of people without basis is the very definition of stereotyping.
he is saying that there are a percentage of Google's female employees who shouldn't have been hired for those positions.
Nowhere in the memo does he make that case. Instead he makes the case that the male/female ratio at Google is correct -because- Google hired only the women who were qualified.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
For clarity's sake...
Federal protected classes include:
- Race
- Color
- Religion or creed
- National origin or ancestry
- Sex
- Age
- Physical or mental disability
- Veteran status
California protected classes include:
- Sexual orientation
- Gender identity and gender expression
- Race
- Color
- Ancestry
- National origin
- Religion
- Sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions)
- Medical conditions
- AIDS/HIV
- Disability: physical or mental
- Age (40 and older)
- Genetic information
- Marital Status
- Military or Veteran status
- Political affiliations or activities
- Status as a victim of domestic violence, assault, or stalking
Beware of the Leopard.
nt
"At-will" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
Firing someone can always be in violation of labor laws - firing someone for being black, or for voting, or for not giving bribes to the boss, or for not putting out are just a few examples of illegal firings.
In California, political expression is a protected act. And both in California law and Federal law, it is illegal to fire someone for complaining about workplace conditions or reporting potential discrimination or other unlawful employment practices.
I'm a little uncomfortable with comparing MLK and Rosa Parks to a guy who thinks women, statistically-speaking, are on average less able to work in IT.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Getting hired by Yahoo these days is like being appointed Minister of Finance in the Flensburg Government.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
He wrote a manifesto about some rather contentious points filled with logical fallacies, poor referencing, wild extrapolation and outright un-sourced claims (yes, I did in fact read it).
Did you though? Here's a link to it for people to decide for themselves if your claims are correct.
Captcha: vilified
According to Dan Eaton, an attorney and ethics professor at San Diego University, the engineer certainly has grounds for a case on two fronts. "First, federal labor law bars even non-union employers like Google from punishing an employee for communicating with fellow employees about improving working conditions," Eaton writes.
And second, because the memo was a statement of political views, Eaton says Google may have violated California law which "prohibits employers from threatening to fire employees to get them to adopt or refrain from adopting a particular political course of action."
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/google-is-more-afraid-of-liberal-outrage-than-federal-law/article/2630905
I do see few women builders or repairing roads or lorry drivers or security. It may be in part due to biological differences that a women is less likely to want to be a lorry driver or a programmer. But I also see more women cashiers for example (or rather, it is rare to see a man cashier in a supermarket, but it is the opposite for an electronics part store). So, I guess men would rather do something else than be cashiers.
I think it's quite clear that men are biologically disposed to, on average, spend more time decrying efforts to increase diversity. This is true across all cultures in which there are efforts to increase diversity, so we have to assume it's a biological trait not a cultural trait.
[Sarcasm. I'm copying the same formal structure of argument from one of the points Damore made.]
Funny, I just read the entire memo and I can't find a single place where he so much as implied that any of his female colleagues were unworthy.
If all you read is the memo, you don't have the full story. That is what is pissing off Google the most. The dude has form, plus there are about 25 other dudes who so far have threatened the town hall meeting out of existence and are now actively doxxing alleged SJWs internally.
In a year we'll all look back at this and wish it was about a memo.
They'll just pay him some money to get rid of any potential legal hazard. He'll get a big fat check, but good luck working at any of the big IT firms again.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
So, when there is no strong economic incentive and no social norms to push women away from CS (assuming there ever was), you can expect around 15% of CS majors to be female. Unless you think the women are more free and equal in Iran and China of course.
How about Russia today, where 40% of computer programmers are female?
http://www.bbc.com/news/busine...
I think your general conclusion isn't warranted by the specific data points you picked.
WTF.
I offend half the company every lunch hour with my political or other opinions. I don't get fucking fired over it.
Firing people because they disagree with you is fucking insane.
What kind of insane totalitarian place is California where it's even legal to fire someone for having a dissenting opinion?
So what?
I express my opinions, say a bunch of dumb ill-researched shit and offend people every day at work., I don't get fired for it.
When that happens, it's called totalitarianism. It's not ok, and in most countries it's not legal either.
You're basically saying people should all be fired if they don't walk lock-step in orthodoxy. Whether the orthodoxy is truth or lies is immaterial. Brutal oppression of dissent creates toxic culture.
Please point me to a neuroscience textbook that indicates a scientific consensus that female brains are not well adapted to solitary programming (but possibly would do better at "pair programming").
If you're not claiming scientific consensus, then you're saying we should act based on some unproven boutique hypothesis from a subset of the scientists in a completely different field. Do we do that with any other type of science?
If a handful of semiconductor device guys tell us that we should be able to build carbon nanotube quantum computers in a few years, does Google start porting all their software over to that now? If a few chemists somewhere tell us that putting fluoride in the coffee should help us to code better, do we go ahead and start that now? or maybe wait until there's a scientific consensus?
Running off to the WSJ to mansplain why he got fired for mansplaining to all of Google is a good indication of that.
> Fuck if I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
Feel free to leave, we'll try to get by without you.
Oh, just shut the fuck up. It's clear that you haven't read what he wrote, you're just looking for justification to be a miserable asshole.
Just like the other idiots here defending him, you ignored his writing.
" I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership."
I'm not misrepresenting anything. I'm quoting him DIFUCKINRECTLY.
That means, to anyone who can read, that he believes that women's biology contributes to them being less likely to be found in positions of leadership. This is why those of us on the left get so fucking frustrated with people like you. You knee-jerk defend him when his sexism is right there in his post. Fuck.
Uhm, no. Nice try, however.
You ignored the word "may." See, the word "may" means something very specific. One thing it does not mean, however, is, "does." It also does not mean "I believe."
So it's not just reading the words, it's understanding what the words actually mean.
Then, of course, there's the variability of the statement. The quote is that the biological differences between men and women mean they have different abilities and preferences. Is this true or untrue? e.g. Can a biological male human give birth? If not, then men and women have different abilities.
If true, then it is theoretically possible that biological differences between men and women influence the way they see the world. Which would mean that there are diverse viewpoints in the world rather than mostly similar viewpoints.
If THAT is the case, it is also theoretically possible that those differing preferences lead populations to prefer one set of attributes over another set of attributes that describe a task for which they are paid money.
Of course, you won't agree that the quote, when broken down, reflects that, so this is useless. Fuck.
"I suggested that at least some of the male-female disparity in tech could be attributed to biological differences."
How could any female employee work with this man, or hope to get a fair assessment from him on their work when he thinks you are biologically inferior to male co-workers, or when because of being female you are unsuitable to certain jobs in tech, engineering or coding.
Labour laws also account for creating a toxic work environment - which he did to every female employee he claimed was biologically inferior.
A number of female google employees have already spoken out. They'll be paraded through a court case and he will be sunk.
Their is no way Google could keep him on when he had poisoned the environment for so many female employees.
"I suggested that at least some of the male-female disparity in tech could be attributed to biological differences."
aka A women's biology makes them suitable for some jobs, but not others.
And what happens when he as to assess a female employee for a promotion, raise or other job opportunities? Will he assess on merit, or their biology? I could not trust him to make a fair judgement, because I would always wonder if the outcome was because of my work or my biology.
No wonder so many female google employees have come out to call this BS.
You may want to actually read his document.
But if he did that, it might weaken his rage boner!
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Or maybe he just don't give a fsck about PC totalitarianism. I stand with him. There isn't a real place for most women in the trenches in tech. Oh and I have two XX chromosomes.
Wow. Reading comments about this whole thing has been the funiest shit i've read in years.
So u want to claim that even if he had a PhD that doesn't make him an "expert" because your anecdotal evidence makes you an expert on what qualifies a person to be an expert.
Do you people bother to engage your brain when you write such contradictory shit? You read somewhere that "argument from authority is a logical fallacy" and than you oroceded to invoke a different logical fallacy, 2 actually,
1) Anecdotal evidence is not evidence
2) Assuming A implies B...eg. Arguement from authority implies having authority makes your argument invalid
Oh, well, a young man
Ain't got nothin' in the world these days
I said a young man
Ain't got nothin' in the world these days
Well, you know in the old days
When a young man was a strong man
All the people, they'd step back
When a young man walked by
But you know, nowadays
It's the old man
He's got all the money
And a young man ain't got nothin' in the world these days
I said
Ain't got nothing
Got sweet nothing
Everybody knows that
Everybody knows that
Everybody knows that a young man ain't got nothin'
Ooh, yeah
Everybody knows that a young man ain't got nothin'
In the old, in the old days
I think it's quite clear that men are biologically disposed to, on average, spend more time decrying efforts to increase diversity.
Does this apply only to gender diversity or any diversity? Do black men spend more time decrying efforts to increase diversity in a predominantly-white field?
Take the example of nurses. Male nurses are quite rare, hell, in my native language the commonly used word for nurse literally means "medicine/medical sister", though the official name is one that can be made male of female (all nouns in my native language are either male or female, for example, a table is "he" and a chair is "she", but an armchair or bench is "he").
I am quite certain that there is no discrimination against men in that field, but for some reason mostly women choose this profession. The opposite is true for construction. I am sure there are some women who work there, but when I see a building being built or a road being repaired, I pretty much always only see men doing the job. Again, since my country has "equal rights" laws, I think that if a woman wanted to work there and could do the job as well as a man, then she would be welcome (especially since there is a shortage of workers in some fields).
Now, if a company wanted to have women as 50% of construction workers, the company would probably have to offer higher salaries for the women to work there (and that would be against the equal opportunities law).
One place where there is discrimination against women is the army. Men have to serve in the army after finishing school (not everyone, the list is chosen randomly), women volunteers are allowed, but but only men can be lucky winners of the lottery that forces you to serve. I do nto know why this is, but I also do not see feminists protesting this completely sexist law.
You know way, way too much about the Nazis, friend. That kind of knowledge is suspiciously alt-right.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
"...like a typical Libertarian -- jumped to conclusions"
LMFAO. No jumping to conclusions here...nope...move along. Nothing but reasoned debate. Serious question, do you get severe headaches when such cognitive dissonance occurs?second serious question because i just have to know, when you write that kind of shit do you expect people to take anything else you have to say seriously?
"Ignoring that -- even though he admitted there is systemic bias -- that there shouldn't be counter-measures for said systemic bias."
So its ok to discriminate against others to correct some 3rd parties discrimation? I presume you belive this about murder, slavery and robbery. So if i come and rob you thats ok because "robbery happens"...good to know
I won't bother with the rest, here's a link with the scientists he referenced basically saying "yeah, he got my research correct", http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/...but of course you know better than the scientists he referenced.
What's REALLY sad is that people who don't have a clue about how to apply critical thinking are in positions of power that requires it. And other idiots of the same type think anything they say is "critical thinking".
The nice thing is that you aren't attempting to hide your a bigotry..."white men"... thanks for outing yourself you fucking bogot.
Your SJW is showing.....
Seriously though, do you really believe what you just wrote? You managed to be wrong on every count.
As I recall, the memo is not claiming proof of anything, merely evidence. There is plenty of evidence, as you concede, that women and men tend to have different preferences. Is it unreasonable to think that maybe some of those preferences result in more men than women wanting to be programmers?
Understand that I'm not saying anything about women being qualified to be programmers or even liking programming. All I'm suggesting is that women may have valid reasons for liking something else more than programming.
Do you really want to go back to the 1960's, where women's carreers were chosen for them? Heck, if you want "equality", just look to India, where practically half of CS majors are women. Why? "Varma finds for Indian women, parental support is key. Teachers and advisors play lesser role. Fathers think CS is good job for girls."
That's right, India has gender equality in CS because their fathers tell them which jobs are acceptable to have.
In other words, when you tell your kids "you can be anything you want to be", you'll get a whole lot more boys who want to be programmers than girls.
dom
You do realise that the idea of treating other people without regard to the color of their skin was outside of the mainstream during King's life, don't you? Many of King's contemporaries would have criticized him harshly for the same stated reasons you mention above ^^^
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
Please explain how someone with a Master's degree in biology from Harvard qualifies as "rank amateur" in your book when it comes to whether biology plays a role in behavior? Because if that's a rank amateur, then all the morons floating around with degrees in things like "gender studies" would have to fall somewhere below cretin on that scale.
...and I have to shut up and not say that women cops are worse at their jobs than male cops...
And I'm being paid a google engineer's salary in exchange for this imposition on my constitutional right on my free speech....
I shall happily comply.
Employment contracts do not supercede the law, ever, under any circumstances.
"at will" has limits in California. You cannot fire someone because they expressed fear of persecution, or spoke with coworkers about working conditions.
He absolutely has a case. Google is going to pay him an incredible amount of money, either privately to shut up, or in the most embarrassing court case imaginable where they must argue that men are 100% psychologically identical to women.
I don't know if I can talk about the third, so I won't. But it also does not involve any lowering of the bar. Diversity candidates are offered some extra opportunities but at the end of the day either they can pass the interviews and hiring committee, or they can't. And if they can't, no job offer.
Which probably explains why, despite their programs, they haven't 'improved' their diversity quotas. Until they begin selecting candidates on criteria other than technical ability you're going to continue to see a huge gender gap.
While were on the gender gap, why does nobody question the gender gap in nursing, or cosmetology, or HR? Why is the focus solely on male-dominated professions? You can't say it's because of pay, because RNs make more money than most developers. It's part of a concerted effort to dismantle societal institutions built by and traditionally occupied by white males, and to distribute the spoils to people who could not earn it by out-competing them. Institutions traditionally benefiting others are immune from this purge.
I don't think he was saying that the current ratio is correct, just that the current methods will not achieve the correct ratio.
Google is assuming that as many qualified women will want to work for them as men, so if there are fewer women who end up working for them, it must be due to some systemic bias.
What Damore said is that it's likely that fewer women will want to work for Google in the first place, so they should figure out why, so that they can attract more of them.
He didn't go so far as to give examples, but I will put some words in his mouth to explain what I think he was talking about.
For example, Google may like to tout its benefits like video games, fooseball, and an on-site gym. I'm guessing that those benefits appeal to more men than women, and to appeal to more women they may have to add benefits that aren't so appealing to men, such as an on-site manicurist or a service that picks your children up from school for you.
dom
No. He did not "embarrass his employer", whoever leaked the memo embarrassed them, and than Google made it worse by proving his point by outing him, disparaging him and his character and firing him. Basically proving that his main thesis of there being a monoculture at Google that tolerates no opposing views no matter how dispationately presented will be tolerated.
That should be huge number of women, not amount.
"Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance)"
What's your point?
Lynn, Richard, and Terence Martin. "Gender differences in extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism in 37 nations." The Journal of social psychology 137.3 (1997): 369-373.
Mean gender differences on Eysenck's three personality traits of extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism were collated for 37 nations. Women obtained higher means than men on neuroticism in all countries, and men obtained higher means than women on psychoticism in 34 countries and on extraversion in 30 countries. The relation between the magnitude of the gender differences and per capita incomes was not significant for any of the three traits.
If you are contesting this research, you have to cite better research that does not replicate these findings. We'll wait.
So a masters in a field doesn't count as "sufficient background" but a phd does? Can I assume you have a phd in allt he relevant fields for your statements then?
When the only two options being allowed are "expert" and "slashdot poster".
It's not a manifesto. By using that word you showed your agenda again just like the rest of you trolls in that tread. Thanks for perpetuating the lie.
But he's not making an argument based on individuals,
Actually, he seems to be doing exactly that, and he is arguing that Google is trying to move away from this, which he says is wrong. Diversity quotas and affirmative action do not look at individuals, they look only at groups, and under their theory those groups should have representation in similar ratios to that of the general population.
Let's do a thought experiment:
Suppose that on Europa, the general population has 50% orange people, and 50% violet people. According to the diversity theories mentioned above, the given job/position/college acceptance must be at 50% orange people and 50% violet people, and if it strays too far from this then there is obvious discrimination going on.
Suppose only two jobs exist on Europa: Underwater basket weaving and Zamboni driving. The "all people are equal" argument says that underwater basket weavers should be 50% orange people and 50% violet people, and zamboni drivers should be the same. Diversity! Awesome!....If only things were so easy.
On Europa, violet people tend to like to swim in the water more and can hold their breath longer due to a biological trait, so 70% of the violet population prefers to be underwater basket weavers, while 30% decide they don't like being in water all the time and would prefer to be zamboni drivers, hence only 30% of the violet people even try to become a zamboni driver at all.
Orange people tend to be laser focused on the task ahead of them than violet people because, dammit, that's just how orange people roll! And so, they're very resistant to ice rink fatigue. Therefore, 80% of orange people want to become zamboni drivers and most are quite good at it, while another 20% have found that they're very good swimmers and they like doing that instead, and furthermore, some of them are much better at it than many of the violet people.
The hiring manager for Underwater Basket Weaving, Inc. has already met his 50% quota for violet people, and European (as in Europa) law says that he now must fill the remaining 50% of the job positions with orange people. Problem is, only 20% even apply to begin with, and furthermore, only 5% of them do the job better than the typical violet person, and only another 15% can even hold their breath long enough to be able to do the job at all.
So what does this hiring manager have to do? Well, the 5% of the orange people who were better qualified for the job than all other remaining violet candidates will get the job for sure, but the hiring manager will have to give 15% of the underqualified orange people the job in favor of some more qualified violet people, which means that productivity suffers. Then the real stickler becomes: How do we fill the other 30% with orange people who weren't even interested in applying for the job to begin with?
Thus we have a conundrum. So what do we do about it?
Affirmative action says we must create grading metrics that lower the scores of violet poeple on the entrance exam for the Underwater Basket Weaving Academy so that fewer violet applicants can get the education for the job they're passionate about, while at the same time creating grading metrics that inflate the scores of all orange applicants so that they can get an education for a job that they're passively interested in, but they're not all that passionate about.
Diversity in the workplace says that Underwater Basket Weaving, Inc, is obviously racially biased, because why else would they have 70% of their workforce being violet and 30% being orange when the general population is 50% violet and 50% orange? So we obviously need to start a government investigation and everybody must publicly shame this company on Twitter.
And then there's the hiring manager who said to HR "guys, not enough orange people are applying for the job at all, and to be honest, very few of the ones that do are even qualified for the job to begin with!" HR secretly knows this because they themselves see
It is such a shame that all you people are so offended about the wrong thing. Look around you and be honest, woman are physically and mentally different from man. Your fight should be about diversity and difference being equally valid. Not about ignoring reality and pretending all is equal.
Why is this troll moderated to +5? What has become of /. ?
filled with fallacies, poor referencing, wild extrapolation and unsourced claims and then posting it to the whole company when his bosses declined to act on it---yeah that's poor judgement.
You are a liar and a cheat. Did you think using that string of lies makes you sound wise and intelligent? There is no single fallacy in the essay - if you claim otherwise show it to us. And it is not a manifesto - just like the rest of the trolls using that word shows your colors. The only thing he wanted to show was that hiring quotas are counterproductive and do not solve anything, quite the reverse.
If you truly believe in Google's response and policy then you also believe that any inequality of outcome signals discrimination. Therefore every female dominated profession is just as discriminatory and sexist as male dominant areas as tech. The why are we not trying to solve ALL the outcomes? Do yu realize the magnitude of your hypocrisy?
You are not stupid, alas! Stupidity and ignorance can be rectified. But a clever man who is an ideologically brainwashed asshole is infinitely more dangerous.
Google requires employees to write manifestos for six hours every week.
lol, it's funny how you're eager to challenge climate change deniers but when someone suggests that men and women have different aptitudes you're all "THE SCIENCE ISN'T THERE".
do you even know any women?
> There isn't a real place for most women in the trenches in tech
There isn't a place for most men there either, but don't let that sway your logic.
You truly are gigantic BS, aren't you? What a piece of work!
Are you so desperate to fuck that you morally castrated yourself? Newsflash - the vast majority of women actually do not support the rabid men haters and look down (as it should be) on men like you, who bend backwards at any PC. You are not gonna get laid more often, idiot; those extremist bitches do not open their legs for anyone, cause all men are evil.
Oh no,I just noticed the ID - you are an old fuck and the missus is watching over your shoulder. I feel for you, pal! Sad!
...man, Google must be the nicest, least authoritarian, near-democracy of a workplace ever. Where I worked, you couldn't send out to co-workers ANY kind of criticism of, or input into, any kind of corporate policy, standards, or work processes. If you had a problem with anything about your work conditions, you took that up with your boss, privately.
If you really needed to discuss hiring policy because you were doing some of the hiring, say, you take THAT up with your boss and have a committee struck to sit about discussing your issues for long enough to write up your concerns and pass them upward. If Management, at its discretion, thought, yeah, our hiring policies need revision, they'd tell you. Otherwise, thanks for sharing, and please go back to implementing the existing policy, and smile while you do it.
Obviously, anybody can gripe at lunch. But leaving a paper trail back to your complaints, would get you at least a talking-to.
How anybody can imagine this guy can sue successfully is beyond me.
The policy does not have to be relayed to you. You do not have the last word for hiring or not so you don't actually know if there are quotas. And at the end of the day they are not needed - the effect can be achieved in many hidden and not-so-hidden, but unspoken ways. Fuck it, it is even enough that most googlres share the group think - then the PC candidate will get small push by all people involved in the process and voila! Nothing is on paper. There is no policy. No sir!
BTW, what happens if the final two candidates are really difficult to distinguish based on their merits and the only difference is one is from the PC group? 10 out of 10 for the PC candidate, right? Do you think this is a good approach?
Actually, it doesn't. It turns out that this is a known phenomenon.
"Previous research suggested that sex differences in personality traits are larger in prosperous, healthy, and egalitarian cultures in which women have more opportunities equal with those of men. In this article, the authors report cross-cultural findings in which this unintuitive result was replicated across samples from 55 nations"
http://www.bradley.edu/dotAsse...
Man-splain is just a sexist hate term.
It comes down to the distribution curve of intellect.
;)
Women and men have pretty much the same AVERAGE intelligence, but men have a wider spread: more geniuses AND more idiots.
But only just slightly.
If a company filters to try and pick up genius-level, it's just a simple fact that they're going to get more men in the harvest.
Likewise, if you're looking anywhere for idiots (slashdot is just as useful a source as any), you'll find that the men are over-represented in your result set. [sarcasm]MEN ARE STUPID! MEN ARE STUPID! MEN ARE STUPID![/sarcasm]
There's no genuine conspiracy, it's just the world as we know it.
This kind of spread is probably true for a great many characteristics, beliefs and behaviors, especially when comparing men vs. women.
And this is similarly likely to occur when comparing black vs. yellow vs. white, or homo vs. hetero vs. bi.
Or whatever else you think is important for mankind to listen to you preach about.
But calmly just OBSERVING the emergent effects isn't enough for the desperately helpful - they need a mission, an identifiable enemy, and they'll grab at anything to "help" other people in a vain effort to award themselves brownie points.
I've been there and made the mistake myself many times, an expert "do-gooder" and "ranter", still struggling to recover and adjust.
As for google, well, clearly the executive board is just FULL of MEN (=IDIOTS), so you can only expect braindead over-reactions, right?
See how that works?
And it "works" with just about ANY property, ANY population, ANY measure.
You're going to get disparities, but just don't overthink them or assume that you've discovered something more than simple reality.
Damore poked a bear with a stick, like he was ASKED to do by his own management, and he was too clever by half to ignore the provocation.
He'll learn himself better next time.
"become so ideologically driven and intolerant of scientific debate and reasoned argument?" Your flaw is obvious, you are part of a group of people that ignore John Nash's math. Tough break, you showed promise.
It's like expecting someone with expertise in GUI design to know how to create a compiler because it's all computers. I work in IT, with an advanced degree in computer science, and I wouldn't claim to know the state of the art in either.
Only experts in Gender Studies should be allowed to comment on gender issues. And they universally agree women are better than men in every way. And their ranks are not polluted by men.
(It is a bit like experts at a psychic conferences about the paranormal -- you will get a solid consensus.)
filled with fallacies, poor referencing, wild extrapolation and unsourced claims.
I have heard this repeatedly, and yet every time I have seen an example given, it's been of a claim that I haven't been able to find in the text of the paper. Could you please give at least one substantial example of this. Preferably a couple. Otherwise I just have to assume that you are going on these misinformed media reports without having actually read the paper yourself.
In fact, he wrote a 10-page memo identifying the problem. Go read it, it's enlightning.
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
That means, to anyone who can read, that he believes that women's biology contributes to them being less likely to be found in positions of leadership.
No, it means that women's biology contributes to them being less likely to WANT to pursue such positions. That's different from what you keep saying.
Pretty simple really.
The statistical edge is on the averages, not the individuals. The men and women who make it past the google hiring gauntlet (if that gauntlet is run fairly), should all be on the same level. The fact that there is a disproportionate number of men who make it compared to women SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE WOMEN WHO MADE IT.
Here's where the lefties are missing the boat though - they're setting a precedent. Just like the fucked themselves by blowing up judicial filibusters with the Reid Rule, giving power to Obama that Trump used later on, they're giving their opponents a weapon that can be used on both sides.
"We've come to find that you said something that was disparaging of the 2nd amendment, and the right to bear arms. This is against our Code of Conduct, so you're fired."
"We've come to find that you said you support gay marriage. This is against our Code of Conduct, so you're fired."
"We've come to find that you said that government should redistribute wealth. This is against our Code of Conduct, so you're fired."
If you truly believe that James Damore was righteously fired, you're a super hard-core libertarian on freedom of association, and should be ready when the next private company decides that it will fire anyone who disagrees with their Code of Conduct.
How about Russia today, where 40% of computer programmers are female?
http://www.bbc.com/news/busine...
I think your general conclusion isn't warranted by the specific data points you picked.
A country where homosexuality is a crime. A bastion of egalitarianism.
Frankly, I think Damore has some righteous beefs with the media outlets who maliciously and willfully defamed him by mischaracterizing his memo.
The cynic in me thinks that this is a ploy on google's part to fight off the greater threat of women suing google. The cost of settling a lawsuit with one Damore is going to be less than the cost of settling a lawsuit with 1000 snowflake SJWs. And if the Damore thing gets to court, and all his shit is proven *correct*, that's an instant legal refutation of all the snowflake SJW lawsuits in the wings.
"I'm sorry, but if it please the court, despite Jane Doe's insistence that the 80% male 20% female ratio is prima facie evidence of discrimination, it was shown in Damore v. Google that in fact, this statistical disparity can be effectively explained by free choices rather than by malice."
"Progressives" sure do hate democracy and love capitalism.
Funny how now that these liberals are in charge, instead of developing a system that would have protected everyone from suffering as they did, all they did was develop a system where their opponents now suffer the same indignities they endured.
Make no mistake, the precedents set here are dangerous ones, because when the tide turns the other direction, the same abuses will occur against people the left adores.
"I'm sorry, you believe that simply by cutting of genitals, taking hormones, and dressing in stereotypical female ways that a person can be a real woman? That's perpetuating harmful gender stereotypes, and that's against our Code of Conduct. You're fired."
Make rules and systems that prevent suffering no matter who is in charge, and you'll be safe when the time comes when you're not.
three specific programs [...] The first takes freshmen and sophomores who are of underrepresented classes (which aren't necessarily gender or racial classes [...])
What I'm reading here, between your weasel words, is that this program takes in people of certain classes, which includes gender and racial classes. Which is sexual and racial discrimination.
Nice work blurring it, though. When I first skimmed this, I missed the word "necessarily". Without that, it's completely unobjectionable: your description would then indicate that the program doesn't discriminate on the basis of sex or race.
If google would highlight what parts of his memo were acceptable, and what parts of his memo were not, I'd have more sympathy for that point of view.
As it is, there is nothing in that memo that in any way violates Google's code of conduct, period. Nothing in it perpetuates harmful gender stereotypes - unless you believe that truthful, scientific research on gender cannot be quoted.
The bottom line is he believes in increasing female representation in tech, and believes that to do so requires making it a more welcoming choice, rather than by imposing quotas and illegally discriminating against people based on sex. For all the alt-right cheering, Damore was fired for giving recommendations on how to *increase* the number of women in tech. He's a lefty, eaten by his own.
Why is there so much hate in your writing?
You knew what you were doing and you knew you'd probably get fired.
You've had your 15 minutes now go find a job on fox news, a&#hole.
He wrote something that was alienating to the majority of Googles customer base effectively giving Google bad press. The fact that it was "internal" is irrelevant he created a situation where google had no choice but to fire him in terms of PR.
That's before going into the facts of whether what he says has merit. You are working for a commercial company, you can't write stuff like that just like you can't write that Jews are great accountants or Asians are good at math... That makes the company responsible for your opinions and they were smart to fire him.
About his claims they are utter nonsense...
- Women are different than men biologically (no shit Sherlock)
- The claim that this is the reason they are under represented can't be proven. There is no experimental basis for that
The fact that Google and other companies need to use corrective gender bias to increase female representation is unrelated:
- It's good politically - Women are a big demographic and so are men who believe in that
- It's great for the GDP - increasing female participation in the workforce is great for the entire country
- It's not a zero sum game - if you look at a micro level it looks like a woman took a job meant for a man but increasing workforce participation doesn't work that way. It increases the market in general and opens new options for everyone
- There is a lot of research that shows that Women with higher skill levels don't apply to the right job because of lacking support network and confidence.
- Diversity is important as the demographic targeted by Google includes Women
- Everyone is doing that and going with consensus is good
"Progressives" always stoop to credentialism, because they lack the discernment and vigorous intellect required to make one's own judgements.
So, if we can agree that there might be some debate on the science, and even the conclusions, then what is left?
Is his firing justified because it's not okay to bring up debatable subjects?
Is his firing justified because it's not okay to be "wrong" about a debatable subject?
Is his firing justified because he brought up the debatable subjects with malice? Or with a professorial tone?
If we're having an honest debate, not a single person in the room would be accusing Damore of malice, or of bringing up any subject so evil and terrible that it must not be spoken of in mixed company. His memo went out of its way to be gentle, and was more about the idea of having a polite debate, than on whether or not his part in the polite debate was definitively correct.
Again, it seems to hold - Russia, being more misogynistic, and having less freedom for women, shows less of a difference than free countries, where women are offered choices.
Or do you think Russia is just as progressive as Sweden?
Mod parent up. This is the Paradox of Diversity.
If diversity really matters (of race, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, favorite color, disability, economic background, geographic background, etc, etc), it's because different people are really, substantially, and significantly different, and those differences help create a better widget.
You cannot expect different people to make the exact same life choices.
A few problems.
1) It's absolutely true. Women are more prone to higher anxiety and lower stress tolerance.
2) Women, making free choices, might rationally prefer lower stress positions.
He recommends lowering the stress in order to make the position more welcoming, so that women, making free choices, prefer it.
Here's the thing - even if you're prone to higher anxiety and lower stress tolerance, and you suffer because of it, you can still do a job that causes high anxiety and high stress. You might throw up when you get home, or go catatonic off hours, but you can have all of those issues and still be a high performer at work, producing more widgets than your peers.
Interest != ability
So, there is literally nothing wrong with him suggesting that Google make tech more attractive to women - in fact, he gets a win-win, because frankly, it'd be better for men too!
You're the one who assumes that lower stress tolerance is a weakness - his assumption is that it can lead to different life choices.
MightyMartian is likely both a shill and a useful idiot :)
Like a lot of lefties, this is a team sport, not a reasoned debate. You cheer for your side, and boo the other side. It's not about anything except tribal loyalty.
The section you have quoted without context
From the memo:
"Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance)"
Is part of a section which is reviewing known gender based personality differences. From the wikipedia article
The review found that "research in large samples has shown that levels of N (neuroticism) are higher in women than men. This is a robust finding that is consistent across cultures. This is especially the case during the reproductive years, but is also. visible in children and elderly."
He could hardly avoid addressing this and it's not his "accusation" it is simply a scientific observation and one of the major known measurable sex correlated psychological differences.
Not "less willing to deal with stress", just simply a lower tolerance for stress. He then doubles down by suggesting reducing stress as a way to counter this weakness.
This is not doubling down, it's addressing the issue, and in fact he has a quite the opposite view in general, take this quote for example
For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences.
This is deeply wrong; people who manage to do their work within the allocated hours have been show in many studies to be more efficient and better in the workplace. However, it's in no way suggesting 'counter[ing] this weakness"
And it would have been better if they had not given him any reason.
By stating to him that it was for cause, specifically for perpetuating harmful gender stereotypes in his memo, they put themselves in a real bind. When it is shown in court that the memo did not perpetuate harmful gender stereotypes, and that in fact he was retaliated against for his critique of company policy, he's going to win.
Write all the manufacturing manifestos you want. Just don't write manifestos on things you have no clue about or offend half the company.
He's writing a manifesto about working conditions and hiring, things that directly affect him. Whilst he's clearly got biases and some level of groupthink himself, he clearly knows more about the issue than 99% of the employees I know. If he doesn't know enough about these things for the role he has (employee) then Google is responsible to increase that knowledge.
The problem is when they decide genitalia are part of the qualification because reasons and feelz :)
Frankly, the entire male staff of Google should simply identify as women at this point, and then complain that there aren't enough men in the company.
https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/ma...
Have one look at that graph that shows mens and women's IQ is the same. Then, understanding that Google only chooses high IQ talent, you will know everything you need to about gender discrepancy and tech. Men and women are on average just as smart as each other, but different enough from each other to make a difference in SOME fields, such as tech. That same graph explain also why men outnumber women in some of the worst drugery and dangerous jobs.
Cynical takes:
Damore v. Google finds for Google.
- sjw lawsuits on gender are stifled because Google obviously acted to protect women. Any accusations against Google will sound hollow, given that they fire people who even *say* anything that might hurt women feelz.
Damore v. Google finds for Damore
- sjw lawsuits on gender are stifled because Damore proved that women aren't discriminated against by Google, they just make different life choices than men. Minor payout to Damore, but massive benefit from 1000s of avoided lawsuits from sjws.
Russia misogynistic? Seriously? Right now Russia has one of the world's highest proportions of women in top government roles. Reference: https://www.forbes.com/sites/d...
There is very little misogyny in Russia, it's one of the achievements of the USSR. China is a similar story - Communist party actively promoted gender equality and it pays off now.
It's a hallmark of the 21st century that intelligent people don't even care whether a Darwinistic screed is well written, or even self-consistent, never mind whether it's ridiculous on its face.
Instead we're reduced to watching people argue as Eric Cartman repeats, "I'm only asking questions."
Here's my thinking. While you're working at your amazingly well-paying tech job (I have one of those too), save your random epiphanies about race and sex for your favorite group of drunks at your favorite cigar bar.
Or, you could circulate your boneheaded manifesto on company-wide mailing lists/bboards where it is certain to become public and also publicly associated with your company name, and see where that gets you.
Surely you don't expect us to believe that the science is settled in favor of your perspective, do you?
He found stuff supporting his view. I'm sure there is stuff supporting the opposite view.
But his point wasn't to say he was right - his point was to say that there should be a conversation. And unless you truly believe that we know everything there is to know about sex differences in personality and life choices, it would be silly to shut down the conversation.
And he didn't say anything about race - which as you know, has no biological basis and is an illusion. XX v. XY, on the other hand, is a real difference.
So, when there is no strong economic incentive and no social norms to push women away from CS (assuming there ever was), you can expect around 15% of CS majors to be female. Unless you think the women are more free and equal in Iran and China of course.
How about we reverse it? Why is Sweden and the US considered to be countries with no societal pressure on women? The proportion of female engineers in Sweden even 30 years was much lower than now ( https://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/... ). So you've basically proven my point that women have no problems at all with technical aptitude, it's the society that forces them away.
Sort of like creating a hostile work environment for people who don't believe the same things you believe about sex differences, or the second amendment, or the freedom of speech - none of those are protected classes, since they're just opinions. So maybe not illegal, but definitely stupid. And google stepped right into it.
#DiversityInEverythingButThought
Read the quote again.
"differ in part"
"differences may explain"
There's nothing controversial there. Of course men and women differ in part due to biology. No, really, they do.
Of course these differences *may* explain things. Not "they do explain" or "they must explain" but "they *MAY* explain".
To anyone who can read, he believes that men and women differ *IN PART* due to biology (implying that the differ also because of other external factors like socialization), and that this *MAY* explain observed statistical differences.
Why is it that people on the left literally quote him, but don't READ him. You cannot *possibly* defend the assertion that women's biology contributes NOTHING at all to them being less likely to be found in positions of leadership. It's like saying CO2 has zero influence on the climate - it's preposterous.
Shouldn't that mean a point-by-point scientific refutation by Google's diversity team would be an excellent response?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/art...
"I have visited a fair number of countries this year in the course of filming a documentary series on the history of women. Some could hardly be described as bastions of tolerance and equality. But only in Russia dis I witness sexism bolstered by state-sanctioned menace and contempt."
Maybe the highest proportion of women in top government roles is due to a lack of choices they have.
full article: http://russia-insider.com/en/o...
Can you post a list of the beliefs you find acceptable, whether evidenced or not, so we can all correctly walk on the eggshells around you?
If we get everyone else to do the same, problem solved!
Thanks
If he didn't put Dr. in front of his name, it was strongly implied those studies were ongoing.
Yes, but in Sweden during the same time we've had a sea change in medicin (both human and veterinary), law, and journalism.
All these areas are now gender imbalanced, but with women being in the majority (sometimes very clear majority; 57% of judges overall, more in younger cohort, about 2/3 of younger doctors. etc. etc.). Even if the imbalance isn't as great as it was in favour of men in the eighties we're getting there.
But while these changed drastically, engineering OTOH is about the same as it always was. No great change.
So, the only conclusion then is that we have a society that "forced" women to take down the male bastions of medicin, media and law, but left engineering untouched? It's OK to decided about life and death in law and medicin, but for the love of God don't design a bridge? (Well, that's a poor example as there were always more women in civil engineering than comp. sci.) It doesn't sound like a realistic argument.
Look, we have our fair share of screwed up policies and notions, but we're not that inconsistent... It's pretty clear to me that the answer has to lie elsewhere.
Stefan Axelsson
Tell the boss what he wants to hear and see yourself promoted faster than warp speed. In ancient China, every dynasty ended in the hands of exactly this kind of people.
And your point is?
I mean, you're just proving the opposite of what you wanted to prove.
If you need to work, you can do any job. Women are as adequate as men to do stupid jobs, such as spending all day in front of a screen and having no human interaction. Taylorism ftw, yay.
Red herring and you know it. Even if he was the world's foremost expert on the subject, he would have got slammed for it just the same.
Are you really saying that economic factors are not motivating people in the US, a country with minimal welfare, high healthcare costs (especially for women) and where education is extremely expensive?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
It isn't sexism if it's the actual truth, and validated by our current scientific understanding. Being controversial and unpalatable doesn't make it incorrect.
It would be really helpful if we could move past these two straw men.
1. No one is suggesting that men and women are the same or that all differences are social.
2. No one is suggesting that 50% if employees should be black.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Bullshit. He was lecturing. And really, even if he's right, what message is he sending to his female colleagues, that somehow his male brain gives him at least a statistical edge over them?
No. What he was saying, in round terms, is that GENERALLY, women don't go for STEM jobs because they do not want the sort of compromises to lifestyle such jobs require.
He's not saying "all women". As such, artificial (and illegally discriminatory) methods to pump up numbers by taking on unsuitable candidates is an ideological fallacy, a waste of time, and hurts the company. Simply going "Numbers no match! SEXISM! ALL SEXISM!" isn't a valid viewpoint.
A certain type of person gravitates towards jobs at Google. Male or female is irrelevant.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Bullshit.
This memo was circulating for over a month before it was leaked.
The management at Google seemed happy enough with him until it blew up in the news.
THEN they decided to virtue signal by labeling him some sort of misogynist and booting him for wrong-think.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Except you weren't making those points. Your points were, "sexist and misogynist!", even when asked to clarify your stance all you did was double down on "sexist and misogynist!"
Why is this alt-right asshat getting any column space at all.
He deserves to be on unemployment.
If you want an actual answer I can provide one.
The memo does not *literally* say that women are genetically predisposed to being bad at STEM. It does not *literally* say Google should hire more right-wingers. It does not *literally* say to stop caring about sex-based diversity.
It does however *imply* all these things.
This is why people are arguing about the contents of the document. It comes down to where your own 'line' is for these matters. To pick the less contentious point for example; from when I read it I'm pretty sure the document doesn't actually say Google should try to hire more conservatives, but it spends so long complaining about how Google is all of the same political persuasion and about the beliefs of those on the left, that the implication is very clear.
One: Not a manifesto. A manifesto is a form of action plan. This memo calls for discussion and doesn't actually even suggest a form of action beyond that.
Two: While he isn't a PHD, he has a Masters in Biology and was, at one point, working towards a PhD.. I don't think "rank amateur" is an appropriate description for the man.
Three: It's NOT filled with "fallacies". Well, it IS if you're one of the emotionally driven ideologues who ignore science if it hurts their feelings. Actual scientists, people with PhD's in biology and sociology have already SAID that the science in the memo is good. It's not "wild extrapolation", nor is it unsourced.
Four: Your timeline is broken. The memo was posted, openly, a month before it blew up and he was fired. Why did it take a month before the outrage caused his bosses to virtue signal and fire him? And it was posted, initially, to start the conversation. It wasn't an end-run around his bosses.
Your post goes to show exactly how activist ideologues have twisted this story to meet their narrative.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
You're right, this could be more cultural than biological, or some mixture. There's definitely something going on. First consider the lack of women in STEM fields combined with the fact that more women than men are going to universities and earning degrees. Women just simply aren't choosing STEM as their choice of study for a career path, whatever the reason might be. 20 years ago a big push started with engaging young girls in education and STEM topics.
If we look more closely at the STEM stuff, there's been a decline of women wanting to get STEM degrees, not more women, in that same 20 year push. Women are largely choosing other areas in STEM.
Maybe it's cultural, maybe it's biological, maybe it's both. The big push that started 20 years ago is an effort to balance out the cultural aspect. Either the efforts, as far as tech go, have horribly failed, or, women have a predisposition against tech.
It's incredibly difficult to get something close to a 50/50 split in an industry, if that's the companies stated goal, when the available pool of candidates just aren't there.
He poisoned the well? Are you kidding? The well was poisoned by cultural Marxism a long time ago to a point it can only be repaired by burning it in a hellfire.
It's not true. Even the sources he cites say it's not true.
Women on average have more sources of stress in the workplace. Women tend to be more open about the stress they are experiencing, rather than keeping it inside and not admitting to it like some men tend to. It's true that as a result of the high base line level of stress there is less headroom, so to speak, but that's different from what he said.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Yep, he has actions in both the federal and state courts and if he is smart will sue in all of them. At minimum he's getting a 7 figure payday out of this, possibly 8 if he can swing things just right.
If he wanted a conversation then why didn't he have one? He didn't actually address any of the arguments put forward countering his rather stale, well-worn ideas. I think that's what really undid him - he either ignored or was unaware that his views are hardly new and that there has already been a great deal of discussion and research into them.
If someone starts bringing up skull measurements again people then there are only two possible conclusions: they are naive and too lazy to look at all the discussion of it already, or they are racists pretending to be rationals. There is a tiny, tiny chance that they came up with some new insight into the matter, but unless they put it in a paper and submit it for peer review rather than posting on Reddit or circulating a memo at work, I think we can rule that out.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
You are assuming that interest is a free choice.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Too simplistic.
Here's an example: My IQ has been internet measured well above average at 105. Bobby Fischer had a reported IQ of 164. Obviously he he out-argue me on pretty well any subject, including his raging anti-Semitism. Should I then be convinced?
People have a sense of right and wrong, justice, what's fair and it's more like they will hunt around for 'evidence' to 'prove' they are right. Anytime a member of a 'privileged' group argues that somehow it's the natural order of things you should be extremely suspicious. I generally just ignore them.
Even if he was experienced and even if he thought even a little bit rationally and even if he had the skills to complete a PhD, none of which seems to be true, I still wouldn't want someone like him near production code. Too much of a legal liability.
If by died you mean will end up getting a multi-million dollar payout/settlement from Google alone and probably several others from media outlets which have clearly acted with libelous malice if he plays his cards right, sure. Google is fucked, especially since between the tone of the memo, it's actual content which at worst can be said to have read too much into certain area of evo-psych, the fact that he doesn't recommend shutting down any of the programs but opening them up to everyone, the fact that it was posted to a workgroup that explicitly encouraged discussing Google's diversity initiatives, that he wasn't the one to leak the memo, that various information leaks after his firing will be virtually guaranteed to grant him full discovery, and that the reason for his firing is inherently bullshit(the idea that men an women have different interests is about as harmful as a pair of warm woolen socks[Cotton kills]).
Like many other circles, companies and societies, Google is poisoned by Social Justice extremist ideology, which is a decadent corruption of previous virtuous movements. This ideology is a challenge to freedom and democracy, and distracts the people from the real and grave problems of our time. We need to all keep our guards up, and the best defenses are critical thinking, skepticism, rigoruous science, and keeping informed about the world events.
That's not what Damore said. Look at the distribution he drew. We knew that unless we are at the very far right of the curve, there are tons of girls who can kick our asses.
Now, I wait to see you twist the paragraph above into an endorsement of the far right (and hence a trumpists Nazi who should be punched).
We'll see who prevails here, cupcake. Me thinks you're going to get lots of sticky egg on your face over these statements. Google looks like they're fucked.
But we'll see. Maybe you're right. Its looking like a wipe out for google and your position here... but that's just my impression. Time will tell.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
What is it with certain white male Google employees who can't figure out when it's time to keep their damn mouths shut?
Not pseudoscience, well documented research.
Simon Baron-Cohen's "The Essential Difference" is well documented research?
He'd have been better off citing Sacha Baron-Cohen!
Watch this Heartland Institute video
CEO's don't get called back from holiday to deal with a politely worded memo that goes against the groupthink.
Not even when it is becoming a massive PR issue for the company? I mean, he doesn't necessarily have to be called back, just a phone call or email to get direction from him would be sufficient. And also this is all over the news, even on holiday, not checking emails or work phone, he'd have a hard time missing the story, and could easily decide to take a bit of time out to make a call or email to say how he wants it dealt with.
1) Google's management decide to have a quota on how many men and women are supposed to work there.
2) There is an open position. Two people apply for it - a man (more qualified) and a woman (less qualified).
3) The woman is hired because currently there are too few women working for the company.
Strawman, that is not how affirmative action or hiring preferences work -- obviously not because it would be suicidal.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
A company's job--and thus by extension that of its employees--is to maximize the returns for the shareholders, not to coddle the people it pays and make sure they are not offended by cost-benefit analyses.
HQ to smear unit 1... HQ to smear unit 1... this smear didn't work. Will backfire.
Go back to Plan A. Call him far-right, alt-right... associate him with Trump and de-platform him.
He research the subject and cited sourced. The scientists he cited, basically said he was correct. It seems like he was quite clued up on the subject.
He positioned his memo as a piece of scientific work while it was just a reflection of his subjective opinion. Even if his speculations were true (and I'm not saying they are), scientific proof requires more than sitting down at your computer desk and typing in a text. But since his memo contained just an speculative train of thoughts, it was evaluated by the group collective the same way religious ideas are and he was judged the same way heretics used to be. Stating what you, or a group of people believe is not scientific proof; it's sheer speculation and he should have known better.
Hehe, great post. Sorry but I've got no mod points left.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Cross contamination :)
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
She did wha wha what? My respect for Dr Soh has just doubled. Don't tell me she appears on the cover of Rolling Stones, too.
Read the fucking memo for God's sake!
It's not about 'capable', it's about *interested*.
If people of 1 specific gender is less interested in job X at company Y then yes, less people of that specific gender will apply for the job and appear working in that job.
Koha mo?
You're quite near becoming to be looking like you sound like a fucking nuthead of an idiot.
Now, mind you, I didn't write you *are* one, but...
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
So her previous work is to be commended for participation in search of something that's more right than magical-religious attitudes towards fMRI. And maybe for the same in assisting Playboy in either becoming less of the same old rouged plastic asshole, or more; depending.
Around the axis of getting worse before getting better we go, like a hot piece of pole-dancing ass. Oh yeah.
SJWs win so much that they are sick of winning now. That's why, they let Trump take home the wins these days.
Yeah Mr Tshekist.
Care to name them? Is there really a company that's OK with being publicly associated with this kind of bigotry? I could understand the company wanting to keep their employment of this asshat private...or the offers just being made up.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Well Said. Now, boycott Google. There is Bing, yandex and yacy.
Now if this isn't a perfect example of an ad-hominem attack... What about the content of his article?
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
That says more about your course than about James.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This^^^^ is the simple truth.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Was it your intent to clarify that it's only illegal at Google because it's in California?
> Given that the memo is dated July 2017 and he was not fired until the 7th of August... What happened between that time?
Somebody leaked an internal memo. Was this leak investigated? Was the leaker fired? What other internal document will be soon leaked by this person?
The right word is 'triggered', not offended.
Some people are waiting to be triggered into breaking all hell loose upon any person or company that they can get a handle on.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
The difference is that manufacturing processes aren't people. The rules for people are different than the rules for things. HTH.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Contentious points? Yes, uncomfortable facts can be contentious, but doesn't justify his firing.
Logical fallacies? Didn't see them, would you like to point them out?
Poor referencing? Nope, he cited his sources.
Wild extrapolation? Again, I didn't see this, can you give an example from his memo?
OK, James, you've had your 15 minutes of fame. If you are instituting any sort of legal action against Google, though, it's time to shut up. Until the dust settles on legal action, stick to "No Comment".
I'm a little uncomfortable with comparing MLK and Rosa Parks to a guy who thinks women, statistically-speaking, are on average less interested in working in IT.
If you're going to attack an analogy that you don't agree with, at least be accurate with what you're attacking.
Liberals don't ignore the evidence, liberals simply refuse to apply the evidence where it would create an ethical or moral problem, such as in hiring practices. That's the difference between denying science and abstaining from scientific racism/sexism.
Some conservatives actually take a similar approach to global warming. They don't deny the evidence but refuse to apply it where it would cause any economic changes or disruption. That's the difference between climate denialism and climate obstructionism.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
If they were an anarchist collective maybe, but they are a corporation and it seems it's only people here that are astonished when a corporation acts like one. Insult the boss and you are out the door.
Ah, but there is an issue at hand. While it is true that in an at-will work environment, you can be fired for anything, the shareholders might not like it. They might not care either, but you are taking a gamble by inserting the corporation into a social issue.
This is similar to the situation encountered by Tesla when a female who was making problems was fired. After which she claimed harassment, and hostile work environment. Independent arbitrators concluded that the firing was justified because of her actions.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Bullshit. He was lecturing. And really, even if he's right, what message is he sending to his female colleagues, that somehow his male brain gives him at least a statistical edge over them?
So let me get this straight---lecturing, WHEN ONE IS CORRECT, is now considered a bad thing if what one is correct about sends the "wrong" message? You little anti-male snide remark at the end being absolutely irrelevant made up bullshit of course. Truth, actual demonstrable truth, be damned, it's making women happy that counts is the message you're trying to send.
As everyone else has stated, his position is simply that every single bad or unjust thing that happens to any woman at Google is not necessarily caused by or proof of gender discrimination. That's a very low bar of something to accept since all you need to prove it is one person bad at her job in a company the size of Google to have consequences for, you know, being bad at her job. Yet the SJWs around here can't even get that through their thick, illogical brains.
So you agree with him that a lack of parity is in part due to biological differences between the sexes? Why are you all fired up then?
He was stupid to post the memo. Being fired was a completely foreseeable outcome.
Google is clearly a dysfunctional culture willing to ignore basic facts and logic in pursuit of social justice objectives.
It's okay to believe both things are true.
By creating a hostile work environment, you opened google up to lawsuits from other employees if they didn't fire you. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. Suck it up, snowflake.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism#Theories_of_causation
And he did not double down that it was a weakness of women, just an attribute that is statistically more represented in the female population. As a highly neurotic male, I can attest that I have thought about leaving the software industry in pursuit of less stressful work, but I also LOVE working with computers and code.
It is a shame that people attach such a negative connotation to this term (ie they hear mentally-ill) when it merely references a scale that applies to EVERYONE when it comes to psychology. In that context we are *all* neurotic to varying degrees.
It is an easy abstraction to make that if we reduced the stress in the industry there would be people who value "being stress-free" over "working with computers" that would consider entering or continuing a job in the industry.
The really sad point is that you could only find that comment out of the entire 10 page document that is even remotely negative when used out of context.
Actually, 30 years ago the economy of Sweden was stronger, and the social security was even better. So unfortunately what you are saying is perfectly in line with the hypothesis.
Also, I didn't mention technical aptitude... That's the same projection that keep sneaking into the attacks on James Damore.
If you feel that Russia is a bastion of equality and financial safety, then I don't think you are open to being convinced of anything different.
Experts on the topic said his document was on par with graduate work...
This is called the paradox of tolerance. Karl Popper concluded that:
That you and others prefer other resolutions to the paradox does not mean that Codes of Conduct are inherently wrong.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
http://crookedtimber.org/2017/08/11/from-a-logical-point-of-view/
Quoting the useful bits:
"My contention is that the true underlying distributions of computer programming ability for men, women, liberals, conservatives and any other demographic slices of the population are a) more or less totally unknown, and b) not worth the time and effort to estimate with any precision at all, because c) they are totally irrelevant to the practical questions which anyone interested in them might actually want to solve. This is true whether we’re interested in “get the best engineers for Google” or whether we’re interested in “get fair representation for minority groups and women in the workplace”.
The true underlying distributions would be useful if Google’s hiring process was to select people at random from the population, put them through a standard test of the single “quality” variable of interest, then take the ones who passed the test and discard the ones who failed. As a description of how recruitment processes don’t work, this is pretty spot on. Google (like any other company – I first started making this argument in the 1990s when McKinsey were publishing their incredibly influential, amazingly wrong and massively destructive “War For Talent” series) fills jobs by advertising for vacancies or encouraging through word of mouth and recruiters, using interview questions and tests which might have unknown biases, and recruiting people for their suitability for the roles currently vacant (which is not the same thing as “quality” because companies change all the time but keep the same employees. Each one of these stages is enough of a departure from the random sampling model to mean that the population distributions are not relevant."
I'm sitting at a waffle house reading this and I'm either missing something or I'm just dense. How do his actions have any bearing on his competency to maintain a stable production code base? These two things seem entirely unrelated.
There are a whole lot of people I disagree with and even wonder how a person comes to hold their viewpoints to begin with, but to extrapolate anything from those isolated opinions of theirs about their abilities in general is just bigotry and screams halo effect.
I'm about to try something really fanatical- I'm going to try to find a copy of what he wrote and actually try to read and understand it without getting triggered that someone else would dare come to conclusions so at variance with what is deemed socially acceptable
Based on the comments here I think it's probably time to cede the Slashdot comments system to the Alt-Right (Entitled Idiot Techbro Division).
I mean the site's always had a slight libertarian bent that was best ignored, but damn it's got stupid in here.
That is actually true. I know of three specific programs, personally, two of which I know I'm allowed to talk about in public.
Gee, now why is it that you can't talk about the third? Why the secrecy? Do you know what prompted Damore to write his memo? It was a "diversity summit" which was not recorded (which Damore said was unusual for Google) and in which he felt very uncomfortable with what was being said.
Diversity candidates are offered some extra opportunities
That, alone, is discriminatory. Extra opportunities are huge.
but at the end of the day either they can pass the interviews and hiring committee, or they can't
Now throw in a culture that puts pressure to hire diversity candidates, and secret "diversity summit" programs. Do you seriously think that isn't going to skewer your interview process?
Have you read this comment thread?
A point for point debate will get you nowhere, just like if you want to, in the US:
- introduce gun licensing or training before a purchase in the US
- any form of social assistance should you be down on your luck (even though the same people will want 100% social assistance for vets even after leaving, even though they got paid for the job.)
You didn't actually check the whole video, did you? The conclusion is that the gender "researchers" are wrong, have no research to back up their claims at all, and are quite fanatical to boot.
The biologists (and the evolutionary psychologist) all present research and studies. The gender "researchers" only provide feelings and hearsay. When the gender "researchers" are confronted with the studies that show them wrong, they accuse the real scientists of "weak" research without any reason as to why, and then accuse them of being partisan because they spend "so much energy and effort trying to prove that men and women are biologically different, and why would they do that". I'm not kidding, the gender "researchers" that have actively chosen to work specifically with gender issues accuse biologists of being too focused on gender related issues!
So, to summarize, the biology side presents research and studies (using in fact the very same argument I did earlier), the culture side presents feelings and personal attacks.
Try watching the whole video, you'll have a good laugh.
Diversity makes for a fun, productive environment but one thing had to be (as founders believed) addressed early on not to run into a can of warms: the whole "sex issue". In the heavily mixed gender environment, perhaps amplified by long stressful hours, a thought of having sex isn't uncommon. First off, there is absolutely no evidence that male are "worse" in this regard than female - just timing may not coincide, like it or not. Second, everyone consents that people may hit on one another. As long as it's mutually OK'ed and within the established social rules, go for it. The proverbial "get a room" is accommodated too; rooms are for naps, personal calls or quiet enjoyment. To address the constant nagging for sex, the rule is: a discrete sign implying "try me", or "forget it". The first does not imply the approaching person will succeed but the latter means don't even attempt to flirt. Period. After a few months we don't even think about it too much anymore. (why anonymous post: we don't want people to apply for the wrong reasons)
Well good on you for not realizing obvious sarcasm. Not that I blame you. You've been damaged by years of a-holes like John Steward and John Oliver in a way that you can't recognize obvious sarcasm mixed with scathing criticism.
And yes, please tell me about these 'morals' you're talking about? How about the 'morals' of taking an internal memo between colleges and them blast it online in a orgasm of unneeded moral outrage? How about doing so with the explicit intend to remove dissenting opinions? Please, tell me why EXACTLY how that is moral and do it without using your emotional outrage? Seems to me there is literately no better way to create a 'hostile work environment' that systemic oppression of opposition views. Especially when you're being fired for a simple opinion between coworkers.
That bit is where the context comes into play. Reading it without understanding what's specifically being referenced makes it sound like a standard "women are neurotic and hysterical" sentiment, which is offensive. But then you include a link to what he was actually talking about (which Gizmodo cut out), and suddenly it becomes a dispassive statement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You see.... uh... You've offended the SJW demographic and... well us being referred to negatively on Twitter looks kinda bad for sales. So... even though, you're totally correct and didn't do anything wrong... we're gonna have to let you go. You understand, don't you? It's nothing personal. It's just that it all turned into such a tweet-storm and it's starting to spill into Facebook.
Just about as impossible as biological differences not affecting life and career choices. .
"while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
State of the art off the top of your head ? Probably not. But I bet you'd do a pretty damn good job with some research and thought based on your background.
The reason we are talking about this article IS because he was a Google employee. Had he been an anonymous internet actor, no one would have noticed it. He used Google, intentionally or not, as a microphone for his message. It is not a wonder that the company was not happy at being used to propagate a message that discourages profits.
Let's not pretend legal persons are moral beings.
Really? If Google had asked for input on eugenics it would have been inappropriate to post a person's belief about the subject? Why?
Google asked for input on the subject Damore commented on, so why was it inappropriate to post his ideas on the subject? Just because you don't like his ideas?
"while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
After reading a bunch of your posts, you seem like the kind of person who runs around looking for things to take offense at. Here's a clue. You will always find someone who will disagree with you. Stop thinking it is a personal attack on you just because they disagree. It's a little thing called life, and life doesn't always fit pre-concieved ideas.
"while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
Lol. Men at Google are definitely on average taller than women at Google, on average. Are you a fucking moron ?
What is this complete denial of reality coming from the left now ?
And?
Is your position that we should hold women at gunpoint and force them to apply for positions of leadership that they don't want?
Don't belong in the workspace. These are explosive topics. A tech company pays you to write code and ship products. Sending a manifesto internally not only wastes everyone's time and energy, but it raises controversy which should not take place at work.
During the Dark Ages the Roman Catholic church had a vice grip over the hearts and minds of the people. Obviously this stifled free thought and innovation. Is Google doing the same thing? You betcha!!!
Hell of a world when people rail against even the idea of reducing workplace stress because it might be sexist.
We have a problem when 'Diversity Officers', start telling CEOs who to hire and fire based on current fad and fashion in politics.
I am not sure how Google will grow in the big world when the management is controlled by Queen Bee females with Greek Lit degrees.
here's the weird thing about right wing nutjobs. It appears as if you speak English,but it seems that you don't actually understand words. You seem to identified phrases that libruhls say, but you aren't able to parse the words so you hurl them around assuming they must have an impact because that's what happens when teh libruhls do it.
Thing is he ain't a victim. He did something damaging to a company so the fired his ass. That's exactly the same as how when a thief gets sent to prison be isn't a victim either.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
>that somehow his male brain gives him at least a statistical edge over them?
So, I guess you didn't read the memo. He specifically argues against stereotyping individuals by gender. I. E. His male brain does not give him an edge over a female coworker.
He explicitly points out that the overlap in the population is large. But that since there is a difference at the population level, it could affect gender ratios.
>Is Google being harmed by its gender policies? Was he?
Yes and yes. He clearly explains that solving problems while ignoring some underlying causes is bad for business. He also notes that males with more feminine traits are left out because they are male.
He also notes gender bias is a real thing.
>Unless this is an area for which he actually has sufficient background to back up his statements, not only is he well out of his own field, but he is very much encouraging stereotypical sentiment.
These four PhDs agree with him. They are experts in the field.
http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/
They also note that those decrying him are almost universally scientifically wrong.
At least he was trying to open dialog instead of spouting opinions and BS at the general public like Airbnb and all the other big tech companies.
Thank you for defining bad faith argument for us.
Also, no you haven't taken ten different PhD programs.You don't even know what a PhD program entails.
So he if was a black guy that complained about racism, and they fired his ass because it was damaging to the company, would you still be comparing him to a thief that gets sent to prison?
I can't believe this was voted as somehow insightful. This is nothing but conspiracy theories.
This. Something else went on that he's deliberately not telling us. His own memo opens with "Reply to public response and misrepresentation". Reply to what I have to ask?
What? You interpret his title, from an ongoing discussion, as evidence of a shady scheme? It's a title. That's it. What's next, Illuminati coming to steal your fridge?
CEO's don't get called back from holiday to deal with a politely worded memo that goes against the groupthink. That's what HR deals with no matter how "Lib-rle" the alt-right thinks the organisation is, as others have said Google is a Fortune 100 company, this means HR is done properly. Given that the memo is dated July 2017 and he was not fired until the 7th of August... What happened between that time?
No, CEO's get called back when media shitstorms happen, which is what happened. There's no secret conspiracy going on.
Meanwhile, Damore has been crying foul all over alt-right media but ignoring major publications without an obvious bias. What was he saying about Google's ideological echo chamber? Even the WSJ only counts as semi-legitimate having become yet another Murdoch mouthpiece.
Yes, it's crazy right? Almost as if he wants to talk to the outlets that won't try to crucify him? Almost as if he's gotten burned before by the radical lefties? Almost as if he believes that the outlets that removed his references and citations so they could lie about his claims and slander him won't give him a fair hearing?
Reading between the lines, his actual philosophies are much harsher than the memo eludes to and likely got into an argument with other employees. Something was said or done that was harsh enough for a lot of employees to make a complaint about, harsh enough that a CEO had to be called back from holiday. If this is true, trying to create a media circus will eventually backfire, especially the way he's currently doing it. The only thing saving him would be that it is illegal for Google to release the actual details on why he was fired, if he sues, this comes out.
So, what you are saying is that when you disregard what he said in favor of what you want him to have said, it's easy to believe that he has done all kinds of nefarious things "behind the scenes", but noone at Google will mention it because the people who tried to get him fired and beaten are just too kind and noble to leak whatever it was that he did? Yes, that totally makes sense. Ockham's razor and all supports you... It really does makes sense that Google would prefer to be the bad guys and take the PR hit in this scenario instead of leaking any wrongdoing on Damore's side that could justify them firing him. All companies *love* bad PR.
We've heard Damore's side of it, I'd like to hear Google's, which is probably being parsed by some very high priced IR lawyers as we speak. As always there's three sides to the argument, your side, their side and the truth.
You haven't heard Damore's side at all, you have concocted his side all on your own and then smeared him with it.
So, here's the thing these "just hire more women" morons don't seem to get: we do need more women in tech, but only if they want to be there. One company (or even many companies) hiring a disproportionate number of women, though, won't do that. Sure, it means there are more woman at that company, but there aren't more women in tech overall.
If the makeup of the candidate pool is 90% men and 10% women, and we all get jobs, the makeup of the tech industry is still 90% men and 10% women. Even if some companies hire more women! The reason for this is simple (as in elementary school level) mathematics, so it is surprising to me that anyone qualified to work in the tech industry doesn't understand it. If we, those interested in (and qualified for) tech jobs represent a 9:1 ratio of male to female candidates, are hired at that same ratio by tech companies, and we all get hired, the industry represents that same 9:1 ratio. Now, if one company, say Google, hires additional women, those aren't new female candidates, those are women leaving positions at other companies; Google's ratio approaches 8:2 while other companies' ratios approach 10:0. The industry is still 9:1, we all still have jobs, but now some companies look like they're turning away qualified female applicants. The reality is that those female applicants simply don't exist, they've been hired up by "look at us, we're bringing more women into the industry" firms like Google. And it should be reasonable to assume anyone who's qualified has a job; after all, we're constantly having a supposed shortage of tech workers crammed down our throats, aren't we?
But that doesn't bring more women into the industry.
I wish it did, as women often do (for a multitude of reasons we still don't fully understand, largely because it's not a "politically correct" subject to study) process things differently than men, and that's a good thing! I should say it's a very good thing! A man and a woman of equal competence won't always reach the same conclusions and, statistically speaking, a woman who reached her conclusion through different logic than a man will have reached a better, more complete, more correct conclusion about half the time. When the man and women, given the same task, reach the same conclusion, the woman will, statistically speaking, have reached it in fewer steps about half the time.
We need that, it improves the efficiency of our processes and our work product; but only if we listen to each other and actually make use of women's ideas the statistical 50% of the time that they're actually better than our own. Adjusting for margin of error, and the actual abilities and experience of the individual men and women involved, of course.
But, simply hiring more women doesn't solve the problem if there aren't more women to hire! The best the industry, as a whole, can do is to hire the most qualified applicants regardless of gender and, when qualifications match, only consider gender as a means to pull your company's gender makeup closer to the gender makeup of your pool of applicants. That's what we should strive for; when we can point to the 9:1 makeup of the applicant pool and legitimately point to a 9:1 makeup of the industry as a whole, then we can really say "look, we do hire women; we hire any qualified woman who's interested in the field". Then, maybe, more women will be interested in investing the time it takes to become a hire-able candidate for a tech job. Then, and only then, will we see more women in tech.
So, can we please stop playing stupid gender-based games with hiring, go back to making gender a non-issue (or at least, not the huge issue that it has become, I don't think it was ever really a non-issue), and do something that might actually attract women to the field? Women aren't trophies*, they don't want to be held up** and put on display*** so as to say "look at how much better of a company we are because we hire more women than e
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
I think you'll find he's "one of yours"
Which experts? Please name some of them so that we can see if this is legitimately the case.
a staggering lack of good judgement
Here's what bothers me about the whole thing. That speaking your mind and participating in open dialogue should be considered dangerous and viewed as 'a lack of good judgement'.
Sure he has an opinion, everyone does. Even those of us that are too afraid to speak our minds in any way shape fashion or form hold an opinion and it doesn't affect the quality of our work.
The firing of Dames Damore proves sjw bullying is so institutionalized that anyone that disagrees with the herd in this topic face legal retribution for discussing any subject surrounding what constitutes sexism, sexuality, or gender roles and their value to society.
The danger is in this topic has become an acceptable bully platform that is not only tolerated but is now endorsed by big business.
In proactive self defense from the deluge of hate I know will be following my above statement:
I am *all* for equality, the real equality. My wife is an old-school feminist, when boys are sent to better camps than the girls at church we speak up. But we will never stifle an opinion. We will never ostracise or attempt to ruin someone's life simply because we don't agree with them. That's just BS and that's what I see happening at Google.
As a case in point to the stifling effect of this sjw censorship, this post doesn't 'toe the line' and I fully expect to be modded to oblivion for stating an opinion I believe to be an honest observation. But sjw's can't let any claims that they are the bullies to have a wider audience. If not modded down, the admins of this site might remove Karma points. They are owned by big media now.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Are you really saying that economic factors are *better* in Russia, and *worse* in Sweden?
The US is certainly not perfect, but if you wanted to help women's rights, it's pretty low on the list after all sharia compliant countries, and other openly misogynistic regimes.
Of course on average they have more sources of stress - they're more sensitive to stress on average.
Things that a man might not even notice (a social dig in a meeting, a backhanded compliment from a colleague, or even the hum of conversation in a shared space), a woman may be more sensitive to. So in the exact same environment, women will have more sources of stress.
To automatically assume that there are sex-specific sources of stress (say, dirty toilets only in the women's room, or a dress code that insists on full face coverings), is silly.
As for "admitting" versus "keeping inside", exactly how do you read a man's mind to tell that they're "not admitting" something? And why do you think that if men behaved more like women and just "admitted" things, that it would be of any benefit to men?
Men and women have fairly distinct coping mechanisms - I wouldn't assume that one is better than the other, they're just different.
Nobody argued with him - they vilified him in the press, lied about what he said, and then fired him.
Show me a single moment where anyone from #Goolag leadership actually addressed his arguments, rather than simply paraphrasing them into the most unflattering light.
And again, race != sex. Race is an illusion with no biological basis. Sex is real, tangible, quantifiable, and measurable. It's like you're criticizing Buddhism because it's a religion like Islam, and Islam kills homosexuals. The two aren't the same thing, and your continued attempt to smear Damore with racism by association is both hurtful and unfair.
Bullshit. He was lecturing. And really, even if he's right, what message is he sending to his female colleagues, that somehow his male brain gives him at least a statistical edge over them?
What do you mean by a statistical edge over them? His argument wasn't that male engineers were better than female engineers, simply that women may be less likely to want to have careers in computing. You may want to actually read his document.
Is Google being harmed by its gender policies?
If they're passing up talented hires due to a quota system, then yes they are.
Actually, if you stipulate that males and females have fundamentally different talents, a quota system makes sense in order to arrive at capable teams. If you only hire the best, you may end up with 20 exquisite janitors and no engineers. And if you stipulate that males and females have fundamentally similar talents and the stats show vastly different numbers, there seems to be some unbalancing mechanism at work and a quote might be an intermediate measure for reapproaching normality. Like blood pressure medication, it doesn't cure the cause but might still keep the system from collapse.
Now the problem with Damore is that he's shortsighted. He might state that most women are not attracted to STEM and one should accommodate them better. But that may end up vastly unfair to those women actually attracted to STEM: they might be attracted _exactly_ because of the reasons he suggests to warrant change. In other words: you are doing nobody a favor if you try attracting women to STEM that aren't, well, attracted to what constitutes STEM.
You ought to get your ass fired. I don't care what the topic is.
1 page = memo
2 pages = rambling memo
3+ pages = report
The NYTimes has come out with several articles on the issue, I may be missing more of them though. Wanted to mention these, since they are somewhat divided, but do show support in some of them for not firing James, and they bring up interesting points.
Sundar Pichai should Resign
Thought Bullies or Right Move: A Divide Over James Damore Firing
Google Fires Engineer Who Wrote Memo Questioning Women in Tech
The Gender Gap in the Tech World
Contentious Memo Strikes Nerve Inside Google and Out
The Culture Wars Have Come to Silicon Valley
I'm not sure James Damore is the best person to ask why James Damore was fired. Neither am I, but from an outsiders perspective, unless it was James Damore's job to create and disseminate hiring policy, he was probably fired for not doing his job. It appears he spent a lot of time on this. If he took that energy and time and spent it on his actual job, he might still work there.
What makes you think "association" with "this kind of bigotry" isn't bigotry on your part?
I hope so, because a mind is a terrible thing to waste- and regardless of what you imagine from not being able to understand his argument, your response to his argument proves that James Damore is a genius- for the original unedited memo predicted your bigotry.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
No, James Damore posted it to an internal forum firewalled away from the world. Nearly a month later, Vice President of Diversity, Integrity & Governance Danielle Brown copy and pasted it to her facebook account, and it went viral.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
OK, so you live in a deeply sexist region, but most people do not and find his rhetoric to be damaging to groups of people who are protected in America from that abuse.
just go read some articles on conservapedia to see through the looking glass
No he didn't. Someone else at Google leaked it, otherwise it would have stayed internal and employees would have continued to ignore.
Opposition to bigotry is not bigotry. Racism is not an immutable trait. Tolerating intolerance would be self-conflicting and self-defeating.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Google should have stood their ground. It's solid ground to stand on after all. Bash back all the bullshit leftists that can't stand anything other than what they believe in their delusional world. Everyone else must have tolerance of their ideas. They don't tolerate other ideas, at all. We must demand that they tolerate other ideas. If they try to boycott something, everyone should say fuck you and go to your room until you're willing to talk about it like an adult, snowflake.
Didja see the white boy that started to cry just because he saw a confederate battle flag? What an idiot. Wasn't even a good performance.
holy moly, if you've ever wanted to see manufactured outrage over a non issue...
CNN: the mouthpiece of the alt right. ...evidently...
[TimothyHollins]: when there is no strong economic incentive and no social norms to push women away from CS (assuming there ever was), you can expect around 15% of CS majors to be female
I asked how about Russia? ...
[hsthompson69]: Again, it seems to hold - Russia, being more misogynistic, and having less freedom for women, shows less of a difference than free countries, where women are offered choices.
Sorry, what? You're altering the primary analysis. TimothyHollins made a clear claim "when there is no strong economic incentive and no social norms then XYZ". He did not make a claim about misogynistic nor about freedoms for women. He made a claim about economic incentives and social norms.
The danger with this kind of analysis is we have a small sample set of countries, and we're doing analysis after-the-fact. That's going to lead into data-mining pitfalls where you can always figure out some kind of pattern that fits your beliefs. The only bulwark against this is to make sure you don't alter your primary analysis as you encounter more data.
If you feel that Russia is a bastion of equality and financial safety, then I don't think you are open to being convinced of anything different.
Wait, what?
"no strong economic inventive" (what you said first) and "bastion of financial safety" (what you're ascribing to me now) are two very different things.
"no social norms to push women away from CS" (what you said first) and "bastion of equality" (what you're ascribing to me now) are two very different things.
I don't at all think Russia is a bastion of financial safety, nor a bastion of equality. However I understand that the social norms pushing women away from CS are weaker in Russia than elsewhere, and I'm not aware of strong economic incentive in Russia to push women either into or away from computer science compared to other professions. So I think Russia meets your two preconditions quite well.
Wait, is it controversial that women are on average significantly less interested in software engineering? Really?
I contrasted them. That you don't know the difference between compare and contrast isn't my problem.I didn't say "he's like them because..." I said "He's not like them because..." and only in response to someone else who explicitly compared his standing up to MLK.
Learn to love Alaska
If you're going to invent hypotheticals, you should try to make them marginally relevant to the case at hand. You should also provide enough details to make reasonable comments on, rather than going for vague generalities.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Russia has a very strong economic incentive for individuals because there is no social security net. If you are poor in Russia you are screwed. In that it is very similar to India and China.
Russia also has very traditional views of women.
This memo calls for discussion and doesn't actually even suggest a form of action beyond that.
I guess when you read it, you didn't get as far as the "suggestions" section then, huh?
Two: While he isn't a PHD, he has a Masters in Biology and was, at one point, working towards a PhD.. I don't think "rank amateur" is an appropriate description for the man.
wha... I don't even. I've actually graduated a few PhD students in my time (not very many) and I can say with absolute authority that a PhD is not a magic source of pixie dust credibility. He got part way through a PhD in systems biology. I've actually got a few papers in decently high profile bio journals. That should make what I'm saying like the word of god by your measure. I can assure you it is not.
Three: It's NOT filled with "fallacies".
Yeah it is. The entire thing is predicated on one.
Actual scientists, people with PhD's in biology and sociology have already SAID that the science in the memo is good. It's not "wild extrapolation", nor is it unsourced.
And actual scientists have also said it's bad. Science is not finding one person who can support your point of view. Even young earth creationists managed to find a few PhDs with relevant degrees to support their worldview.
Why did it take a month before the outrage caused his bosses to virtue signal and fire him?
Well that's a loaded question. Tell me, when did you stop being a pedo?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Here's what bothers me about the whole thing. That speaking your mind and participating in open dialogue should be considered dangerous and viewed as 'a lack of good judgement'.
All depends on what you're trying to have an open dialogue on and how you do it. If for example you try to "open a dialog" on a contentious topic bringing nothing new to the table but instead rehash a bunch of very well worn topics then yep, you have poor judgement.
The firing of Dames Damore proves sjw bullying
He did something damaging to a large corporation's reputation and they fired him. If you think that's SJW bullying you should also read up about "persecution complex".
We will never ostracise or
Well that's great for you. I guess you don't have anyone who's political opinion is that you should be murdered. I'm generally quite happy ostracising anyone who thinks I should be murdered from any group I am part of.
I fully expect to be modded to oblivion for stating an opinion I believe to be an honest observation.
And there's that persecution complex again. Meanwhile, I've had more posts sitting at +1 Insightful than ever before which means I'm getting a lot of downmods from people who don't like my opinions.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
> stern redirection.
To the reeducation camp where man-splainly people are sent for talking out of tone?
At least try to hide it.
You might want to look up the term "at-will employment," a term that I 100 percent guarantee you was in Damore's employment contract with Google.
Joke's on you, because I am familiar with the term, and it doesn't matter that it was in his contract.
Google was within its rights to terminate Damore for any reason or for no reason.
False. If federal law says that an employer may not retaliate, then they cannot retaliate.
If the term'd employee shows some evidence that it was likely retaliation, then burden of proof will be on the employer to show that the action was not retaliation.
When all is said and done, Google should fire their lawyers that allowed them to make the statement of the reason they terminated their employee.
Deal with it! There are huge amount of women who are smarter than you! Really huge. A lot smarter.
So what? There exist a number of women AND men who are smarter than just about ANY person consistent with most of the population on ANY given subject.
By the way ability is SPECIFIC to subject, and "smartness" is irrelevent --- It is developed ability and experience coupled with drive and action that matters within the context of a specific job role.
Bullshit. He was lecturing. And really, even if he's right, what message is he sending to his female colleagues, that somehow his male brain gives him at least a statistical edge over them?
Is Google being harmed by its gender policies? Was he? At the end of the day, one presumes he was hired as a software developer or engineer, and not to write screeds against his employer's hiring practices.
There's evidence pointing in both directions, and the jury is still out on how much of the gender disparity in areas like the STEM fields derives from biological/cognitive differences and cultural differences. Unless this is an area for which he actually has sufficient background to back up his statements, not only is he well out of his own field, but he is very much encouraging stereotypical sentiment.
He was responding to a secret meeting Google held with its staff to discuss 'diversity'. And comments were solicited on the meeting from Google staff. Damore has a background in the area since he did similar research at MIT. For God's sake do some research before you spout forth with such vacuous tripe.
It's a straightforward comparison in response to your blunt assessment: "Thing is he ain't a victim. He did something damaging to a company so the fired his ass. That's exactly the same as how when a thief gets sent to prison be isn't a victim either."
TOLERANCE, MOTHERFUCKER, YOU UNDERSTAND IT !!!
Cghhh)cvvcvvnhv c.f. Dbj gfdcvfa f2f yt? Ybbvvvbbvgv
Rightists and Leftists are equally retarded and if you haven't figured that out yet, you're that kind of retard.
Yeah, right. It's all just identity politics, which is based in bigotry and has NO validity whatsoever.
Judging a person because their skin is one color is just as bad as judging a person because their skin is another color. It's all bigotry and it is all entirely irrelevant to the amount of intelligence a person has.
There was no intolerance at all in the original memo, just a meta study of other studies, footnoted to 7 pages of the 10 being nothing but references.
Just because YOU hate white men does not mean your hate is better than his hate.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
You sure showed those strawmen! Or are you saying that all white men are racists and all racists are white men? That seems bigoted!
This "meta-study" said that women were biologically less fit for working at Google and therefore Google should not make an effort to hire so many of them. Women at Google read that. This wasn't a scientific study submitted to a journal. This was a recommendation on hiring practices.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
You are correct. It was the original Damore memo that made the claims about women with more freedom making more varied choices from men. I intended to defend Damore's position, not TimothyHollins.
A fair point about any social science work, to be sure. Like, if you say, a priori, decided that men and women were the same and any differences in job application rates was due to patriarchy :)
"And really, even if he's right, what message is he sending to his female colleagues"
sorry what?
"even if he's right"
Good God.
We have reached peak Social Justice.
"even if he's right"
Well, if he;s right, then he's speaking the truth. We are supposed to speak the truth. You prefer lies? You want him to spread misinformation, to disseminate propaganda, because you think being deluded is a good thing?
Jesus!
The bigot couched the beginning and end of his document to sound very reasonable, which is why he was not fired on the spot... most people do not read the whole thing at first. But his statements in the middle have 2 major major flaws. 1, They demean women and add no new substance to any conversation. 2, They also convolute Google's model of getting code out fast without checking with the Democratic Party and liberalism. There is no connection between the two. I am ultra liberal in politics and ultra conservative in coding. These two things are totally unrelated!
So basically his discussion is utterly flawed, and is a cry from a bigot who happens to be a conservative, (Not all conservatives are bigots) but he is. So Google did the right things and fired him... he has free speech, but companies are free to fire for their own reasons which are totally arbitrary, although I agree with them.
By the way I disagree with Google's coding development model and PR department which is why I do not work for them. But I totally agree with their rational political stance, goals and aims. Good riddance to this horrible employee!
You didn't actually check the whole video, did you? The conclusion is that the gender "researchers" are wrong, have no research to back up their claims at all, and are quite fanatical to boot.
I absolutely watched the whole thing. I my comment was by way of agreement, not disagreement. That's why I told you not to stop after he crosses off biological causes; I thought you might bail in disgust there and not see the eventual conclusion.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
And what he wrote is totally based on racial bias and not at all based on fact or scientific research. Women do not prefer social mumbo jumbo and such. Its all just demeaning to even imply that! I work with women coders and women non coders, and none of them fit these stereotypes, not do the women elsewhere in my life at any age of their life! Read his hairbrained document already! He also wrote that men are better coders... read it! Total hogwash! The best coders on my team are women!
I did. He made up a problem and it's full of logical errors. He must be a poor programmer because he confluates topics that are totally unrelated and some parts seem to be lifted from other documents and segments of his argument do not follow from paragraph to paragraph. There is no enlightenment to be found in his writing, just BS! I come from a school of BS masters and can see it from miles away!
He has no idea what the problem is as he missed it by a mile! He tried to say women are (a stereotype... that has nothing to do with reality) and then coordinated coding models with politics! These 2 main points both make no sense and the coding with politics only makes sense in google. In any other company there is no correlation between coding models and political stances! Its like saying Google codes liberally, therefore as a conservative I am discriminated against. That is nonsense. You can push Google to do conservative coding while it remains a bastion of liberal democracy! His arguments do not follow from line to line. It's total BS!
That is actually true. I know of three specific programs, personally, two of which I know I'm allowed to talk about in public.
Gee, now why is it that you can't talk about the third?
Because I haven't specifically been told I can. The first two were described in the decks I was given for presentations to students when I did university outreach, so I know it's okay to talk about them.
Why the secrecy?
Just general caution. Particularly in the current situation, I arguably shouldn't be posting about this at all, and definitely should not be giving out information about programs that may not already be public knowledge. I'm also not going to tell you what I'm planning to build for Android P, what any new Google Nexus / Pixel devices may be like, etc.
Diversity candidates are offered some extra opportunities
That, alone, is discriminatory. Extra opportunities are huge.
No, they're really not. As I said, they reduce the odds of getting incorrectly rejected; they don't enable people without the required talent / knowledge to succeed.
but at the end of the day either they can pass the interviews and hiring committee, or they can't
Now throw in a culture that puts pressure to hire diversity candidates
There is no such pressure. I do lots of interviews and not only have I not been told to favor anyone, I see absolutely no preference in the eventual hires. My colleagues who sit on hiring committees also deny that they have been given any instructions other than "only hire the people who you think can do the job".
and secret "diversity summit" programs
According to Damore. Although I don't know anything about the supposed summit, I will say that it's not that unusual for meetings not to be recorded. Most are, but a fair number are not.
Do you seriously think that isn't going to skewer your interview process?
I seriously do not, and I'm looking at the interview process from the inside. I'm sure you'll continue to be skeptical, but I have an excellent position from which to see what's going on, and a relatively open and bias-free mind with respect to this topic.
If you want to know where I fall on the nature/nurture question, you should read my essay at https://medium.com/@divegeek/t.... I think Damore got the science largely right, though his focus was off-base; I think gender differences in interest explain a much larger portion of the imbalance than differences in ability. I also disagree with most of his conclusions, for a variety of reasons that I'm not interested in going into here.
Well, I will mention one: I think there's ample evidence that diverse teams perform better. Given that, I think it would actually make sense for Google to reject qualified male candidates in order to hire qualified female candidates. I see no evidence of that happening, mainly because Google has a very difficult time finding enough qualified candidates, period; turning down any qualified candidate would leave a gap. I also think that since women in tech are rare, and since they bring significant diversity value, they should be paid more than their male peers. I wonder if simply paying women, say, 10% more than their male peers might not be a way to address the gender imbalance. It would be addressed initially by stealing female employees from other Silicon Valley firms, which might just end up creating a bidding war that resulted in women being paid more across the entire tech ecosystem... and maybe that would help draw more women into the field. Not so much for the money as for the respect that the money indicates.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Or free day care for employee's children. Point taken.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Or perhaps you're just the horse lacking the balls to bolt it after someone else opens the stable door?
No, they're really not. As I said, they reduce the odds of getting incorrectly rejected; they don't enable people without the required talent / knowledge to succeed.
It's absolutely huge, and for you to deny it is ridiculous. Getting your foot in the door is an amazing opportunity. Being given training and taken under wing is even more amazing.
And those are for people "who couldn't normally pass the interview for a Google internship" and "new grads who are on the edge of being able to pass the Google interview process, but aren't quite there". Holy crap, and you just brush this aside? Can you imagine how many "non-diversity" candidates would love this opportunity?
I'm sure you'll continue to be skeptical
Yes, of course, especially given your admitted leanings and your assessment of the opportunities given to diversity hires.
It's a straightforward comparison
No, it's an excessively simplistic comparison.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Refusing to work with left-leaning colleagues like James because of their genuinely-held and fairly mainstream views, is an extremist ideological position.
Considering the sequence of events - employee writes controversial essay and gets fired shortly after it becomes public, I think Google management would need a pretty good argumentation outside the essay to claim another reason for firing Damore.
BTW, I've read the essay and it avoids outright claims of women being inferior. What it does say is that men and women have slightly different aptitudes on average and that for coding jobs men might be more suited. Also, it is worded politely enough to give no offense on that account.
Overall, I think Damore's essay counts as fair debate. It may be legal for Google to fire him, but it is certainly a dick move.
C - the footgun of programming languages
I was turned down by google and told verbatim that it was because i was outside the demographic they are looking for. I was white, male, late 30s.
How the fuck is that "well hidden"?
Google is trash and has been for a while.
Such a convenient entity: no concrete example of it can be shown, yet it can always be used to excuse women's actions. If a manager is hinting a worker should provide him sexual services in order to be promoted, he can be legally sued. The looks, being mostly a subjective interpretation of others' intentions, is another convenient excuse.
You are making a serious (and criminal) allegations against ~50% of the population, that if are true, should have them trialed and punished. Can you prove your argument?
It's like Salem's witch hunting on a population scale.
Personally I'd rather have a developer in my team who can analyze recurring problems and point out what code is bad and why, than a whole team of developers who would rather tell me that all code is equally perfect in its own snowflake way and we can't remove any code, no matter how buggy, because that might hurt its feelings.
It was as simplistic as your assessment.
No, the 10 page memo was an admission of guilt. HE is the problem. All men who falsely believe they are better at X because they're not women are the problem.
He did discover the problem (himself) though, and pointed it out to the right people to solve it. Excellent work too, I might add.
I worked with him at MIT. He really isn't very smart, and would make snarky remarks about women and minorities uncomfortably often. I never thought he would get all this attention though. I noticed his writing ability has regressed considerably too.
Could you please reread his sources? The original source he cited claimed to not be 100% correct, so by definition, he can't be 100% correct. Not to mention the hundreds of sources that suggest the exact opposite of the paper he cited, which the original author admits was not scientific.
Nope.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Well boy do I feel silly. I assumed you just wanted to make a counter argument but didn't have the time to post more than a link.
Anyhoo, it was a good clip, though I wish that they could have found some gender "researchers" with at least attempts at some kind of data-supported refutations.
Yup.
Nope, and it's kind of revealing that you can't see why.
Anyway, you're clearly not going to get it, so you can have the last word if you wish.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Is this an alternate reality where Hitler won WW2? What makes you think there even would be an internet with all the biological inbreeding poisoning all of remaining mankind's DNA?
Yup, and it's kind of revealing that you can't see why. Anyway, you're clearly not going to get it, so you can have the last word if you wish.
And Lena Dunham, aka the human dumpster fire, is one of yours.
So is a college professor that swung a bike lock on a chain into someone's head because he didn't like his opinion.
Real tolerant, Jesus would be proud.
Google basically asked for just this type of feeback. They got it, they fired him.
damaged by dogma
Dude! He's already got job offers - probably because of his memo.
There is a truism that it doesn't matter so much who you hire as who you keep. I'd suggest that they fired the wrong people. They could end up losing practically all their backend programmers over this.
Who wants to work for a company that hates you? When you are that bright you can work anywhere, even in a downturn, so why stay in such a toxic environment?
A good question SJWs should as of themselves.
James Damore's morals ARE MLK's you dolt! What do you think "I dream of a day when my children will be judged NOT by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character" means? (Hint: not quotas).
It means you hire the best and the brightest whoever they are, amongst whom will be some women, blacks, and other minorities - because they are the best and brightest, not for some inane quota reason that actually undermines the women, blacks, and minorities because everyone who is aware of the quota have to wonder if they merit their position or are just quota padding.
To make some of those quotas you might have to take EVERY person who applies from a given minority, and I can tell you that not everyone who applies is that bright.
Oh noes! He abandoned his PhD! Obviously this now means everything he says is complete bullshit! Because a Master's degree in Systems Biology from Harvard is completely worthless, right ?!
Give me a break, the dude still knows his business. You don't need a PhD to reference other publications and make a point.
In my part of the world this is called Ad Hominem, a very well known and often successfully used logical fallacy.
With your failure to provide counterexamples or alternate sources, "wild extrapolation" also applies to your post here.
No, the meta study said that women were biologically inclined to respond to different compensation tactics than men- and that Google should make an effort, if they want to reach 50% saturation, to provide benefits and compensation that attract women.
I'm not sure I agree with it- but yes, it was a recommendation on hiring practices. It recommended paying men in salaries and job titles, and women hourly with more flex time. And that is ALL it actually recommended.
Anything further is just you reading your personal biases into the text.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
No f---ing brains ?. Your foul mouth shut down your brain. You really are the Anonymous Coward you claimed.
Anyhoo, it was a good clip, though I wish that they could have found some gender "researchers" with at least attempts at some kind of data-supported refutations.
True, it comes off pretty one-sided as-is.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
No, they're really not. As I said, they reduce the odds of getting incorrectly rejected; they don't enable people without the required talent / knowledge to succeed.
It's absolutely huge, and for you to deny it is ridiculous.
All I can say is that I completely disagree, and I have a much better vantage point to judge than you do.
I'm sure you'll continue to be skeptical
Yes, of course, especially given your admitted leanings and your assessment of the opportunities given to diversity hires.
What are my "admitted leanings"? Did you read my essay?
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
All I can say is that I completely disagree, and I have a much better vantage point to judge than you do.
You've described the facts from your vantage point and I am free to make my own judgments.
What are my "admitted leanings"?
"Given that, I think it would actually make sense for Google to reject qualified male candidates in order to hire qualified female candidates."
Did you read my essay?
Nope, I wasn't particularly interested after having read what you wrote here.
Jeez this guy thinks he got fired for starting a reasonable discussion. SMH.
I think this pretty much covers it for anyone who is confused why this was so controversial.
https://medium.com/@yonatanzun...
Did my personal biases make these points appear in the original text?
https://slashdot.org/comments....
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Welcome to the real world. You have a freedom to speak but not freedom from the consequences. If you damage the company you get fired. And don't pretend your comments weren't sexist and aberrant. You might as well have titled it "Hitler - he had some good qualities too". You can argue that societal norms put females at a disadvantage in technical disciplines but implying a biological one is scientifically, morally and historically wrong and is the very definition of sexist. but thank you for reinforcing the stereotype of engineers as socially bumbling fools.
Here, here.
Don't we all have better things to do in IT? The bad guys are doubling up daily and the rest of us are fighting among themselves. Sounds a lot like GoT! We will all be fucked if we don't start respecting one another for what we bring to the table.
Reading this emotional response to google's actions, which appears to jump to a number of conclusions that do not follow, it doesn't exactly fill me with the notion that he has great academic rigour in broaching the topic with his employer.
does not involve any lowering of the bar
Unless the bar is 100% quantitive it's not immune to bias.
1. No one is suggesting that men and women are the same or that all differences are social.
Yes, they very much are, especially feminists.
2. No one is suggesting that 50% if employees should be black.
This itself is a strawman because I never came close to suggesting this, in fact the example I gave was around 14%, which is probably off, but isn't even close to 50%.
Post-literate boy, can you put into WORDS the bit you mean so I don't have to watch fifty one minutes of whining just to find a bit ten seconds long?
I'd have fired the leaker for airing dirty laundry, and sent Damore for some training in research design and quality appraisal. Oh, and biostats, too. Any first year epi masters student would have a field day with the weaknesses in studies of sex difference and would understand that average difference is meaningless without understanding variance, or for that matter what constitutes an actual meaningful difference.
I had not heard it before your claim so expected you to back it up.
Thank you for the quote because now I do not have to watch fifty-one minutes of men's rights activist shit just for thirty seconds of unsubstantiated hearsay.
You have backed up what you said - Damore not so much.
I still don't get why you guys are foaming at the mouth when a corporation acts like a corporation and fires a naive political activist who believed the lie that "my door is always open". Most of you would have far more experience in a workplace than Damore and should know better.
If nothing else it's a message for millenials - take fucking notes in meetings so you can say something more substantial than "they told me a lot of things that I thought were just not right".
Yep. You're reading a meaning into those words that simply isn't there. That there is a difference between how men and women ask for compensation, and in fact how, if you want to retain women, you should be providing compensation differently, isn't sexism. And it says NOTHING about the fitness of women to be engineers, just what it takes to recruit and keep women engineers.
Your "smoking gun" is more smoke than steel.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Of you don't think that's sexism then you don't know what sexism is. Good luck with that. It also clearly states the reasons why he thinks that women are on average less suited to careers in engineering due to biological differences, although he stops short of putting those exact words together in sequence, which is the only way it could be made more clear.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
WAS. When did you leave?
Not a pointed question; I have no inside perspective. But companies change, to suit the times and their own scale.
3 months ago. I doubt things have changed that much.
No, it's all the whining about the consequences that sucks the *nobility* out of it.
Analogy.
But he's not making an argument based on individuals, he's making what he believes to be a statistical analysis. No, he doesn't say Martha two cubicles down is unworthy of her position, he is saying that there are a percentage of Google's female employees who shouldn't have been hired for those positions. His concession that individual abilities may vary is simply his way of trying to couch his argument so he isn't calling out Martha specifically. After all, she may be that statistical outlier that is qualified!
He never said those things. Instead, what he said was in order to get and keep women in the field you might want to pay attention to what interests them. If you don't realize that women have a different average on the interest scale, then you assume all people find the same thing interesting. Since it is a higher percentage of men currently, you are not getting a good indication of how to make the job better for women that way. When you see that women might have more interest in people rather than things, then you can incorporate that into the job role to get more women to stay in the field longer.
It's amazing what happens when you actually read something rather than relying on what others say about it.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
You are the one reading that into what he wrote. What he wrote was on preferences, not ability. But I'm not surprised that a sexist pig like you would find sexism everywhere, since you believe in firing men to make room for women yourself.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
So women just prefer to be paid less, to be shitty leaders, and to be more neurotic and stressed out?
This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.
Cry more for me, MRA neckbeard.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I am part of "everyone else".
I believe that if Google was implicitly or explicitly telling their hiring managers to discriminate based on race or sex, that would be a real illegal activity, and whistleblowing on it would be a moral action.
You say what is "real" to you is "The same as to everyone else obviously."
So, I'll take it that you agree that if Google was implicitly or explicitly telling their hiring managers to discriminate based on race or sex, then Damore did the right thing to call it out, and call the NLRB to complain.
They do if it means more time with their children. They do if it means more family and people time.
You clearly didn't read any of the psychological papers in the footnotes, or you wouldn't be such a clueless idiot.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
He made correct citations. His arguments were well thought out. He was not disparaging of one sex over the other. He was simply saying what most of us know: Men and women are different. What some people don't seem to understand is that different doesn't mean "better", nor does it mean "worse". It can however mean that, if you have a team made up of both men and women, you'll get a broader solution-set to various problems. You'll have more points of view, more options offered, etc. The two sets of skills will "dovetail", making the combination a positive contribution to a company. Male and female differences are complimentary. They are a good thing.
Stop quoting that fucking Damore idiot - I read it the first time and unless you are as utterly out of your depth as he was you can do better yourself than that pathetic thing.
You've got a brain - use it instead of being a sheep!
Instead of subjecting me again to the phrenology of a fuckwit applying stuff that doesn't fit from a field he thinks he understands to one where he's below average how about you find something more productive to do that hopefully makes you look less like an easily led naive idiot.
His shit is fucking voodoo.
Quoting it just makes you look as stupid as he is especially since coding at google is not exactly a high stress situation. If his shit was real it that would make coding at google the ideal career for women instead of something high stress with life or death consequences like nursing. That's how fucking stupid it is.
"I don't know if I can talk about the third, so I won't. But it also does not involve any lowering of the bar. Diversity candidates are offered some extra opportunities but at the end of the day either they can pass the interviews and hiring committee, or they can't. And if they can't, no job offer."
Don't know about you, however, if Google, or any other organization cannot pass MY interviews and hiring committee, no job acceptance.
YMMV
My dad was a public university professor. He used to say governments fund universities to provide creative and freethinking people a contained, well-provisioned and self-appreciating environment so that they don't spill over to the normal world and create a revolution.
Google is not a public university. It hires smart people to hopefully create great products - not start a social revolution.
If Mr. Damore were in UC Berkeley, for instance, he would not have been fired. On the other hand it would have belonged in research journal and a few thousand people would have read it and said "huh... sounds normal". The fact that he is a Google insider makes the "market value" of the letter very high!
If the company doesn't suppress this kind of behavior, then all those smart people in there will start spending more time writing such things as opposed to building great products.
I am not necessarily supporting Google's decision or Mr. Damore's letter. Just stating that it is a normal way of doing business !!