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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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