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.
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
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
who?
No one needs to hear any "dialogue". Just do your work.
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.
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!
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?
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.
If you were one of his female peers, how would you have felt about contining to work alongside Mr. Damore, knowing now that he likely felt you had got your job through what he viewed as prejudiced and unfair hiring practices?
The problem with someone like Mr. Damore is that their views, whether well researched or not, create toxic work environments, precisely the kind of environment that many organizations are trying to eliminate through increasing diversity. There's more to a job than just duties, there's also being able to get along with your peers, and not basically denigrate some portion of them as unworthy beneficiaries of unfair hiring practices.
Now I think Google management probably could have handled this better, either by putting a letter to file and either moving him out of the department he was in, or at least demanding some sort of an apology or explanation. But the fact was that he pulled the pin on a metaphorical grenade, and if he was unaware of the events that would follow, then I suggest that Mr. Damore may have his own set of cognitive and behavior issues.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
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
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.
...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.
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.
Except that it would have received an A- in a masters level psychology class.
http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/
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.
And no one without 10 PhDs in every subject involved should even postulate a question on the topic. Because it's wrongthink, pure and simple, regardless of facts or knowledge or data.
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
This same SJW death spiral is going on in the Drupal community right now. There's a bunch of self-appointed busybody BDSM police in the organization plus both a board and a committee charged with enforcing the Drupal Code of Conduct being filled with identity politics social justice baizuo types. I'll paste a recent Reddit post and a follow-up post that explains where I'm going with this:
Well, the fact that they adopted the TODO Group's "Open Code of Conduct" screams a lot about the "values" under their cranial hoods. Have a peek at the history of this document. My favorite part is this one:
Our open source community prioritizes marginalized people’s safety over privileged people’s comfort. We will not act on complaints regarding:
‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’
Reasonable communication of boundaries, such as “leave me alone,” “go away,” or “I’m not discussing this with you”
Refusal to explain or debate social justice concepts
Communicating in a ‘tone’ you don’t find congenial
Criticizing racist, sexist, cissexist, or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions
Granted, that has since been removed from the text due to the sour taste it left in the mouths of many, but the choice of this particular Code of Conduct implicates the choosers as endorsing such one-sided beliefs. I'm not even REMOTELY surprised that this kind of anti-inclusive ousting has occurred; in fact, I'd say it was only a matter of time.
The OCOC is at http://todogroup.org/opencodeofconduct/ and https://www.drupal.org/dcoc says "Edited by webchick, danigrrl, kattekrab, tvn." The Community Working Group is charged with enforcement and https://www.drupal.org/governance/community-working-group says they are: George DeMet (Chair), Adam Hill, Michael Anello, Emma Karayiannis, Jordana Fung, Rachel Lawson.
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.
The problem with someone like Mr. Damore is that their views, whether well researched or not, create toxic work environments, precisely the kind of environment that many organizations are trying to eliminate through increasing diversity
I agree if your meaning is he circulated it to to wide an audience and not just the HR folks or legal folks it probably should have been addressed to. If you argument is that certain "views" even when supported by the facts are toxic in their own right and we have to suppress them because little Johny or Jane snowflake can't handle reality than I most vehemently disagree.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
He is only pointing out the bigger issue of denying science when it hurts peoples feelings. This discussion has to start somewhere.
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!
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's a trap! /Admiral Akbar
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.
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
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.
^^^ someone clearly didn't read what Damore wrote.
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!
He didn't hint that women are biologically inferior. He did say that women are, on average, interested in different things. Haven't you noticed? Go read the memo.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
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 .
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.
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.
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.
The problem with someone like Mr. Damore is that their views, whether well researched or not, create toxic work environments,
Scientific findings are now toxic? Empirical and peer reviewed research is toxic?
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
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.
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. ;)
It is hardly a "fact" that women are inferior to men in programming or whatever he was on about.
Why do you and others keep parading this lie?
The problem with someone like Mr. Damore is that their views, whether well researched or not, create toxic work environments,
If only that were true. It is not. His research and discussion about a work environment did not create that environment. This is the big thing SJW's like you don't seem to understand.
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.
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.
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
, how would you have felt about contining to work alongside Mr. Damore
Fine, because he stated he wants people to be treated as individuals and not as a group. So, I would expect him to treat me as an individual not as walking genitalia generalizations.
knowing now that he likely felt you had got your job through what he viewed as prejudiced and unfair hiring practices
This is a sad truth to affirmative action. If there aren't enough of X and you lower the bar or create quotas for more X then you will inevitably create a view that is critical because you could be an X that got in because lower standard or quotas, not merit.
How would you feel if you were given a job because of your genitals and not the merits to do the job?
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.
He's not the one who leaked it.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Even if he wins the lawsuit, he's not getting re-hired.
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
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.
There's an old saying (though it's related to law) that when the facts on are you side, pound the facts and when the law is on your side, pound the law. But if neither the facts or the law are on your side then pound the table.
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.
I don't know what another posters race has to do with anything, but what part of what he wrote did you find unreasonable or lacking in scientific backing? By all means point to a page or a particular point and we can discuss it.
More women are going to college and getting degrees then men now. They literally make up more than half of the collegiate population, yet, for whatever reason, they still are opting out of tech for their degrees. Them wanting different things in life is a very spot on observation, especially given this fact that they are out earning men in terms of degrees.
You haven't heard his interview? You haven't read any of the articles dealing with this subject in a straightforward way?
Google had a standing requested ideas from him, and others. This was not just some random thing he thought up.
Here is an interview with him, another worker at Google, and Jordan B. Peterson.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU
Check it out if you are actually concerned with facts.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
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."
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.
In order to even try for a PhD, you DO have to be an expert in your field.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's always been interesting to try to determine nature vs nurture, and I had always suspected that the latter had more influence than the former. Right up until I had a daughter. Despite exposing her relatively equally to toys for "boys" or for "girls" she's fairly reliably goes for the "girls" toys, she does like her train set, but she's more likely to chose her dolls, cars and trucks are neat, but not as much as her play kitchen. She also chooses movies about princesses over other movies of similar level (i.e. Frozen and The Little Mermaid rather than Cars or Lion King, etc) Favourite colours: pink and purple of course.
We've been quite conscious to try not to push her to be "feminine" vs "masculine" (if anything, I push her more towards the "boy" toys) but there's no question that she does the "girl" things. There's no way you could convince me that the same isn't true of older people.
If the company had asked him to contribute to an anti-rape initiative then, yes, that could easily show up. in this case, they specifically asked for ideas in this area, and he gave them.
So, we have established so far:
1) You lie a lot about this subject.
2) You are intentional bout spreading lies about this subject.
3) Your logic and reason are severely impaired with regard to this subject.
4) There is some payoff you get from lying and thinking about this subject in irrational terms.
Just a question, but have you been diagnosed with bipolar or borderline personality disorder? A better question might be are you taking your required medication, but I don't know that there is medication for people who intentionally act like you do. Borderline seems a good fit.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
That makes me uncomfortable! I demand you be banned or I won't post here anymore!
And then allow that idot to be CEO...
. . .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!
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
Yes, they are. Especially when you don't cite opposing viewpoints.
how would you have felt about contining to work alongside Mr. Damore, knowing now that he likely felt you had got your job through what he viewed as prejudiced and unfair hiring practices?
Honestly? It would depend on whether or not he was right. Google's workforce is 19% female; are 19% of qualified applicants for jobs at Google female? If that number is lower, the hiring process is biased against males and he is right; if it is higher, it is biased against females and he is wrong. If the numbers match up, there is no bias and he is also wrong.
So, if he is right, I would certainly not take offense. But, then, I'd know I got the job based on merits, because I'm damn good at what I do. Good enough to not work for an echo chamber like Google, who asks you to discuss these topics openly, then fires you when you do.
Now it's on Google to prove a lack of bias in their hiring practices. They can do this by showing us the ratio of male to female applicants adequately qualified for the positions they're applying for. If that ratio isn't damn close to 81:19, they've got come explaining to do, regardless of which way it swings.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
You coder-bros are NOT Lazarus Long.
It was pretty clear from the later books that Lazarus was good for nothing any way.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
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. . . .
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. . . .
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...
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."
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."
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?
Is you daughter growing up in isolation? If not then your conclusions don't really amount to much. Parents normally don't want to hear it, but the influence you have on your kids relative to their own age group is minimal. Perhaps if all of the girls she plays with, and all of the stuff she sees on TV or on the street were different she would be too. But it's *very* difficult to go against "the grain" and their own social group (which they innately detect from a very young age, we are social animals after all) is extremely important.
I always have this story (scientifically totally irrelevant of course) where my neighbours had a young girl of 5 with 3 older brothers who were always playing football and playing catch and such. She'd play with them and she was really good at it! She could throw a really mean ball for such a little girl. Then at 6 she went to primary school and in _months_ she lost all ability to throw or kick a proper ball! When confronted ("what's wrong with you? you used to be good at this!") she answered "but if I throw like this at school the other girls won't play with me!". As a teenager it impacted me at that time, for me it was the first time I saw such an obvious example of how your environment affects you.
So perhaps your daughter would always have preferred the dolls over the train set, who knows, but unless you lock her up and don't let her see the outside world I'm afraid we'll never truly know ;)
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.
He may have made a mistake in attribution, and/or sabotaged himself by using terms like "biology." However, his assertion about the modus operandi of the typical male and the typical female--at least from his perspective coming from a western culture--isn't necessarily wrong, nor did he assert that all fit that mold.
Things get turned around and perverted because of the conclusions or at least the feared conclusions people draw from such ideas. Specifically, things like "superior," and "inferior." It's perversely ironic that in seeking to drive a cultural acceptance and promotion of diversity, we destroy the benefit and beauty of that diversity. It's the ageless fear that different is bad so let's blindly argue that there are not differences, no matter how irrational and inappropriate it is to do so. That's neither promoting nor leveraging diversity, that's filtering perceptions and irrationally expecting sameness from things that are not.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
... 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 wear my "Kill White Men" shirt at work in the Castro District on a daily basis with no problem.
At Starbucks we support Diversity!
It is hardly a "fact" that women are inferior to men in programming or whatever he was on about.
It's hardly a fact that he was on about that, either. It is, however, a fact that fewer women are interested in programming, regardless of how good they are at it.
Even if we assume women are just as good at programming as men, and I haven't seen anyone sincerely argue otherwise, there's nothing wrong with the industry being 90% male if the body of interested and qualified candidates is also 90% male. Just like nursing, a 90% female profession; it's not that way because women make better nurses, it's that way because 90% of the body of interested and qualified candidates is female.
And that's damn well how it should be! I wouldn't want 56% of qualified female nurses turned away to make room for potentially less qualified males just because society thinks they should be hired at a 1:1 ratio! If, after throwing out unqualified applicants, the remaining pool of candidates is 90% female, I expect 90% of people hired to be female. Likewise in the other direction, as well.
That's how you hire the most qualified candidates.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
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.
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
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?
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
"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 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
"White guys like you"?? Excuse me? How is that fucking relevant?
Okay, now everyone can see where you're coming from, and it's probably BLM SJW headquarters.
I guess none of these experts mean anything to you either, because they're white. Even though one is a woman.
http://quillette.com/2017/08/0...
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
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!
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.
They are only reacting pretty fucking poorly, because people like you are deliberately misleading them.
I hope it’s clear that I'm not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn't try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism) -- James Damore
Emphasis mine. What Damore actually did is challenge one of your sacred cows, affirmative action. Your reaction is to smear and distort and distract from the message that contradicts your religious dogma, which is indefensible otherwise.
(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!
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
You know, I'd be interested in different things too if I had the bulk of the people I worked with looking at me like a pack of hungry wolves looking at a sheep. I might have second thoughts about my career choice if my boss said the best place to advance my career was to bend over his desk.
Women aren't fucking stupid. They aren't oblivious either. They can pick up on a vibe just as well as anyone else can. Sexual intimidation isn't always blatant or overt. It's like that feeling you get when you turn down the wrong street in a bad part of town. Nothing bad has happened to you yet, but you just know that it would be a much better choice to get the fuck out of there before something does.
That's why you don't see many women programmers.
~X~
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!
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.
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.
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
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.
The bar seems to be getting lower and lower.
Since when is a recent graduate an expert?
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.
"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.
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.
Saying that women are, on average, interested in different things is the simple truth. The truth isn't sexist.
Those who abide by the philosophy of "we're all equals, but some are more equal than others, and by the way check your privilege" will now perform the most fantastic mental gymnastics to rationalize that away. Or just accuse you of being a sexist bigot. I wonder which is more likely.
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
No.
The ones he cited don't actually support what is really a political rant so they don't come into it. If he had written it differently or chosen different things to cite maybe they would. Also WTF does his citation of something about autism have to do with his manifesto - the citations are just props.
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?
> 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!
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.
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
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
Is you daughter growing up in isolation? If not then your conclusions don't really amount to much.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.627.1904&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
That's just one study, of hundreds. Of course it doesn't refute your refutation of his anecdote, but it addresses the underlying point that there really are difference.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Who said anything about being smarter or dumber? The discussion is about desire.
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
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.
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.]
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.
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?
> Fuck if I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
Feel free to leave, we'll try to get by without you.
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."
The same way a male employee can work with people who claim the male-female disparity is due to the men in tech being "emotionally stunted infants" who drive all the men away.
An original research need not contain disclaimers stating the opposing views. That screed was not an original research.
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 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???
...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.
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".
There are more female programmers on India than on Norway despite the later being a more egalitarian country.
And there's no lack of females workers as receptionists, nurses and doctors on the Health field. A field dominated by males and with higher indices of open/blatant "Sexual Intimidation" than IT.
With the risk of being considered a bigot, I would like to postulate that the average women worker at the real world isn't a porcelain princess and chooses the Health sector over IT because she is perfectly capable of dealing with "Sexual Intimidation" but enjoys Health related jobs more than IT related jobs.
I don't know why IT people think that their field is more hostile to women than any non "woman dominated" field.
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.
...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.
"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.
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.)
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
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lefties don't look at primary sources. Their information is carefully curated by their news sources, the MSM, who will helpfully filter and paraphrase things so that the fit The Narrative ().
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.
How dare you suggest that the average male is stronger than the average female!!
SEXIST! BIGOT!! MISOGYNIST!!! PATRIARCHY!!!
We should never put into company memos anything that would disparage women's ability to carry things - if the requirement of UPS is that package handlers can lift 70 pounds, it is unfair to women to suggest that there will be fewer female package handlers because of average strength differences! We must have a 50/50 ratio, even if it means hiring lots of doped East German women!!
Seriously, you're part of the problem.
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.
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...
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
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!"
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.
Well, do I work in a company where one of the primary functions of the business in question is raping people?
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
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]).
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
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.
Hehe, great post. Sorry but I've got no mod points left.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Cross contamination :)
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Yeah, the thing is... reviled as evolutionary psychology is for its quotation as part of many social-darwinist pieces, it does very cleanly trump things like Freudian, or (much worse!) Lacanian theories of the mind. This does nothing to take it out of the bracket of soft sciences on its own, and its productions are still subject to political oversight -- which is to say, the social darwinist upshot isn't going to get implemented, this isn't the damn 1900s, we've learned our lessons with medical experiments on the infirm.
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.
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
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.
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
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".
A scientist can be wrong. Some "scientists" will tell you that AGW is a hoax or that modern humans suddenly popped into existence one day. Here is my response to that article:
https://slashdot.org/comments....
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
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
Yep, one pro-scientific-racism professor said he should get an A-, so he's right and should be re-hired and get a Nobel prize!
(Or not!)
"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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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/...
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
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
And just what is "non-white science"? Describe it.
It's odd, I always thought that the black, white, yellow, red, and brown races were all just a part of a bigger race, the human race. We all have far more in common than we have in differences. Who cares what color a person's skin is? It's the content of their character that matters. In other words, the surface is of little value. It's what's inside that counts.
"while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
[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.
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.
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."
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 :)
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.
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.
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.
Sorry I never got back to you. I wanted to look over the material you recommended but then I got busy with other stuff. By the time I got back to the old post they had closed the article for comments. Anyway, send me an email, if you want to hear my response. Thanks.
Chris Mesterharm
It's a straightforward comparison
No, it's an excessively simplistic comparison.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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
It was as simplistic as your assessment.
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.
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.
Google basically asked for just this type of feeback. They got it, they fired him.
damaged by dogma
So what, exactly, was so unethical about DaMores memo that it justifies his firing? His point was that pushing women, or restricting men, into STEM fields as a form of affirmative action just because there aren't as many women as men in the fields -which incidentally doesn't automatically mean there's an bias or sexism at work either- is not a good policy.
Most women, as general rule of thumb, don't care for those fields with the same fervor that men in general do. There are differences, overall. How many women as compared to men get all excited about turbocharging their hemi, for example? Of course exceptions exist but that doesn't negate the rule. Science has shown that male and female brains have somewhat different wiring, and that's perfectly logical - else why would two different sexes evolve, unless they had different functions and strengths?
Some women do go into stem fields passionately, and are quite successful. But artificially forcing the issue is unethical, as are attempts to shut down any debate about it.
If all people are completely equal in all talents and regards (and not just as their general value as a human being) then there's really no such thing as diversity, by definition.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
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.
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.
He didn't hint that women are biologically inferior. He did say that women are, on average, interested in different things. Haven't you noticed? Go read the memo.
He said standards had to be lowered for diversity. He didn't straight up write out "women are inferior" but implied it all over the place.
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.
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 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.
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.
Agreed. The merit must win, and if there's anything else that is made a proxy to merit, then the institution is bound towards doom.