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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
How many times are we going to have this same (group) argument?
#DeleteChrome
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.
It's a fact that the average male could use physical force to rape the average woman.
Would you think it appropriate that that be placed in a company memo?
Not everything that is true (and there is still considerable debate in the psychological and neurological communities about precisely what the gender-based cogntiive and behavioral differences are, but let's give Mr. Damore the benefit of the doubt) should be vocalized. Part of getting along in societies, big or small, is learning what to say at times, and when to say it. When you're basically going to call out a portion of your coworkers as undeserving of their job (and let's be blunt, that is his argument, no matter how he tried to qualify it), well, you can hardly be surprised when people react pretty fucking poorly.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Damore is arguing against the position that 100% of gender differences are due to discrimination. All that is required is to show some evidence of gender preferences, and you have an alternative explanation that has to be taken seriously. Ironically, the it is you and the gender warriors who look at different outcomes and claim that they are evidence of bias. And that is mistaking correlation for causation. Jim Edwards should apply his own logic to his own position.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
If these women and minorities got the job under lower standards, then he would be correct. That's a simple fact.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
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.
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.
You've actually got it backwards. The null hypothesis in this case is "there is no gender-based discrimination." Since you cannot prove a negative (e.g. "reindeer can't fly"), it becomes the null hypothesis, and the burden of proof falls upon those trying to disprove it.
That is, the base assumption is that differences in job preference are caused by biology or other non-discriminatory factors, leading to gender disparity in the workplace. The burden of proof is upon those advocating that gender disparity is caused by discrimination to prove a causal link between discrimination and gender disparity. The burden of proof isn't on those advocating the null hypothesis because you can't prove it (short of disproving all possible alternative hypotheses).
Those advocating the null hypothesis can critique studies advocating the discrimination hypothesis, e.g. suggesting that biology could account for the difference we see, without actually having to prove it. The burden of proof then falls again those advocating the discrimination hypothesis to come up with experiments or studies which separate out the effects of biology from the effects of discrimination (this is what they're talking about when you read that a study "controlled for" factors like age or income).
If those advocating the discrimination explanation are unable to come up with a way to separate out biological effects, then that's an obstacle to proving the discrimination hypothesis. Until they are able to overcome that obstacle, the assumption is that the null hypothesis is correct.
Your post actually supports Damore by demonstrating the flawed reasoning of those criticizing him. You have made a non-falsifiable hypothesis the null hypothesis. Even if a company kept video recordings of everything that happened every minute of every workday, demonstrating that no gender-based discrimination happened, you can still argue "but they plotted it after work hours when they met at a bar." It's a non-falsifiable hypothesis. This means it cannot be the null hypothesis. The base assumption has to be that there is no gender-base discrimination, and you have to gather evidence showing this hypothesis is false.
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
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
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.