Slashdot Mirror
James Damore Explains Why He Was Fired By Google (wsj.com)
In an exclusive Wall Street Journal post, the engineer responsible for the anti-diversity "Google manifesto," James Damore, explains why he was fired by the company: I was fired by Google this past Monday for a document that I wrote and circulated internally raising questions about cultural taboos and how they cloud our thinking about gender diversity at the company and in the wider tech sector. I suggested that at least some of the male-female disparity in tech could be attributed to biological differences (and, yes, I said that bias against women was a factor too). Google Chief Executive Sundar Pichai declared that portions of my statement violated the company's code of conduct and "cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace." My 10-page document set out what I considered a reasoned, well-researched, good-faith argument, but as I wrote, the viewpoint I was putting forward is generally suppressed at Google because of the company's "ideological echo chamber." My firing neatly confirms that point. How did Google, the company that hires the smartest people in the world, become so ideologically driven and intolerant of scientific debate and reasoned argument? [...]
In my document, I committed heresy against the Google creed by stating that not all disparities between men and women that we see in the world are the result of discriminatory treatment. When I first circulated the document about a month ago to our diversity groups and individuals at Google, there was no outcry or charge of misogyny. I engaged in reasoned discussion with some of my peers on these issues, but mostly I was ignored. Everything changed when the document went viral within the company and the wider tech world. Those most zealously committed to the diversity creed -- that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and all people are inherently the same -- could not let this public offense go unpunished. They sent angry emails to Google's human-resources department and everyone up my management chain, demanding censorship, retaliation and atonement. Upper management tried to placate this surge of outrage by shaming me and misrepresenting my document, but they couldn't really do otherwise: The mob would have set upon anyone who openly agreed with me or even tolerated my views. When the whole episode finally became a giant media controversy, thanks to external leaks, Google had to solve the problem caused by my supposedly sexist, anti-diversity manifesto, and the whole company came under heated and sometimes threatening scrutiny.
In my document, I committed heresy against the Google creed by stating that not all disparities between men and women that we see in the world are the result of discriminatory treatment. When I first circulated the document about a month ago to our diversity groups and individuals at Google, there was no outcry or charge of misogyny. I engaged in reasoned discussion with some of my peers on these issues, but mostly I was ignored. Everything changed when the document went viral within the company and the wider tech world. Those most zealously committed to the diversity creed -- that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and all people are inherently the same -- could not let this public offense go unpunished. They sent angry emails to Google's human-resources department and everyone up my management chain, demanding censorship, retaliation and atonement. Upper management tried to placate this surge of outrage by shaming me and misrepresenting my document, but they couldn't really do otherwise: The mob would have set upon anyone who openly agreed with me or even tolerated my views. When the whole episode finally became a giant media controversy, thanks to external leaks, Google had to solve the problem caused by my supposedly sexist, anti-diversity manifesto, and the whole company came under heated and sometimes threatening scrutiny.
He was trying to open a dialogue about problems with the way things were being run at work. What he did and where he did it was entirely appropriate.
You might like working at a stagnant company where everybody is scared to rock the boat, but I would prefer to get things like this out in the open so that the company can improve.
James Damore Explains Why He Thinks He Was Fired By Google
Fact of the matter is, as he was the firee, not the firer, he cannot speak authoritatively as to why he was fired by his employer. His employer is probably not going disclose the exact statements that led to the firing either, because any employer sufficiently large to have an HR department is going play its cards close to its chest to avoid creating grounds for lawsuit or to minimize those grounds.
Everyone on the planet old enough to have life experience develops one's own set of biases. Generally it's wise to take care when expressing one's biases or when acting upon them, because if someone is indiscreet then one's indiscretions may lead to consequences. Mr. Damore did not exercise discretion and it has cost him.
Fundamentally the workers in a business are not the owners of the business, and unless employees have reached sufficiently lofty positions in the company then they're to follow legal policy, not to set or otherwise determine policy. Granted, a tolerant employer can be better to work for, but there again, that kind of tolerance goes both ways, and an employer is only going to tolerate so much intolerance. In the eyes of his employer, Mr. Damore appears to have crossed that line.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
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.
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?
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.
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
.
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.
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/
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
It's a trap! /Admiral Akbar
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.
^^^ someone clearly didn't read what Damore wrote.
Damore is arguing against the position that 100% of gender differences are due to discrimination. All that is required is to show some evidence of gender preferences, and you have an alternative explanation that has to be taken seriously. Ironically, the it is you and the gender warriors who look at different outcomes and claim that they are evidence of bias. And that is mistaking correlation for causation. Jim Edwards should apply his own logic to his own position.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
He 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?
Appeal to authority?? You asked for his credentials!
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.
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..."
FWIW, even if he *had* completed his PhD, how does that make him an expert?
Anecdotally, in my experience PhD's that have no additional experience aren't any more "expert" than PhD drop-outs. It appears that navigating the academic politics and simply the luck of getting your adviser to approve a research project for your doctorate that won't bore you to tears until you drop-out is about the only "skill" PhD's have on PhD drop-outs in most fields. Of course give me a post-Doc with 5 years doing real research, and then you might find a real statistical difference on the "expert" scale.
Does he really have no clue about? I bet he has more clue than you (even if he doesn't have a phd). If that document offends anyone they are very thinned skinned.
And really, even if he's right, what message is he sending to his female colleagues, that somehow his male brain gives him at least a statistical edge over them?
Clearly you failed to read the memo. The message was that female engineers deserve flex time and higher, hourly rate pay for adequate retention, where men deserve salaries and bigwhig sounding fake titles for adequate retention, based on some weird theory of heterosexual attraction I didn't quite understand.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
He wasn't trying to advance the state of neuroscience or sociology, as he is completely unqualified to do either. And he wasn't trying to present a scientific consensus, because there is no consensus on these issues: they are pretty complicated and the jury is still out.
Finally--and this is the surest indication that there was no science happening here--he wasn't talking to people who themselves are experts in neuroscience or sociology.
He was a non-expert talking to other non-experts; cherry-picking data to support his "beliefs". That's not science, that's politics.
And not just any politics, political speech that's claims that women are genetically predisposed towards different technical work than men. That is speech that creates a hostile work environment.
And that's game over.
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.
You've actually got it backwards. The null hypothesis in this case is "there is no gender-based discrimination." Since you cannot prove a negative (e.g. "reindeer can't fly"), it becomes the null hypothesis, and the burden of proof falls upon those trying to disprove it.
That is, the base assumption is that differences in job preference are caused by biology or other non-discriminatory factors, leading to gender disparity in the workplace. The burden of proof is upon those advocating that gender disparity is caused by discrimination to prove a causal link between discrimination and gender disparity. The burden of proof isn't on those advocating the null hypothesis because you can't prove it (short of disproving all possible alternative hypotheses).
Those advocating the null hypothesis can critique studies advocating the discrimination hypothesis, e.g. suggesting that biology could account for the difference we see, without actually having to prove it. The burden of proof then falls again those advocating the discrimination hypothesis to come up with experiments or studies which separate out the effects of biology from the effects of discrimination (this is what they're talking about when you read that a study "controlled for" factors like age or income).
If those advocating the discrimination explanation are unable to come up with a way to separate out biological effects, then that's an obstacle to proving the discrimination hypothesis. Until they are able to overcome that obstacle, the assumption is that the null hypothesis is correct.
Your post actually supports Damore by demonstrating the flawed reasoning of those criticizing him. You have made a non-falsifiable hypothesis the null hypothesis. Even if a company kept video recordings of everything that happened every minute of every workday, demonstrating that no gender-based discrimination happened, you can still argue "but they plotted it after work hours when they met at a bar." It's a non-falsifiable hypothesis. This means it cannot be the null hypothesis. The base assumption has to be that there is no gender-base discrimination, and you have to gather evidence showing this hypothesis is false.
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.
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
The Bell Curve - that racist claptrap of a book, had something like 40 chapters - only 1 of which dealt with race.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
We all know what he wrote
It doesn't take more than a cursory glance at the comments to see that this is not the case. It is incredibly obvious that the vast majority of commenters on here have no clue what he wrote as they have consistently been putting words in his mouth that he not only didn't say, but was careful not to even imply.
Using the scientific fact that men and women on average have different preferences, but that individuals are no way defined by the group is now a "conservative" view? wow... and conservatives are the ones being labelled anti-science????
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...
...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/
There are more men than women in full time work in all industries.
https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat08.htm
44,941 thousand men 25-54
32,559 thousand women 25-54.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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~
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.
As a result of D we will fail to make any significant change to C
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
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.
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
No idiot, he thought that some of the things Google was doing to increase "diversity" might be illegal. Doesn't matter if he was correct about it being illegal, the act of firing him for bringing it up in ITSELF IS ILLEGAL.
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.
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.
No, fMRI has not been "discredited". The fish thing was cute and all, and it did make a valid point—that statistics have noise. That's a far cry from discrediting the technology. You might as well say that digital cameras have been discredited for use in astrophotography because they occasionally have hot pixels.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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
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.
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?
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.
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
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 slammed Debra Soh https://www.researchgate.net/p... because her Thesis was using fMRIs, among other observing tools. Then you claimed that you can prove a salmon has emotion the same way.
However, her thesis actually used a number of different observing tools, of which, fMRIs was only one. One of the others methods she used in her research was diffusion tensor imaging. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... I'm linking it since you seem to be completely unfamiliar with her thesis.
Obviously, using a dead salmon in order to prove that the salmon was emotional, via fMRIs doesn't prove anything.
However, she didn't just use fMRIs, only https://clairelehmann.net/2017...
But, when you are talking about fMRIs, you should at least accurately represent the state of the science.
"Whereas the kind of reverse inference described above is informal, in the sense that it is based on the researcherâ(TM)s knowledge of associations between activation and mental functions, a more recent approach provides the ability to formally test the ability to infer mental states from neuroimaging data. Known variously as multi-voxel pattern analysis (MVPA), multivariate decoding, or pattern-information analysis, this approach uses tools from the field of machine learning to create statistical machines that can accurately decode the mental state that is represented by a particular imaging dataset. In the last ten years, this approach has become very popular in the fMRI literature; for example, in the first 8 months of 2011 there have been more than 50 publications using these methods, versus 41 for the entire period before 2009.
A pioneering example of this approach was the study by Haxby et al. (2001), who showed that it was possible to accurately classify which of several classes of objects a subject was viewing, using a nearest-neighbor approach in which a test dataset was compared to training datasets obtained for each of the classes of interest. Whereas early work using MVPA focused largely on decoding of visual stimulus features, such as object identity (Haxby et al., 2001) or simple visual features (Haynes & Rees, 2005; Kamitani & Tong, 2005), it is now clear that more complex mental states can also be decoded from fMRI data. For example, several studies have shown that future intentions to perform particular tasks can be decoded with reasonable accuracy (Gilbert, 2011; Haynes et al., 2007). These studies show that it is possible to quantitatively estimate the degree to which a pattern of brain activation is predictive of the engagement of a specific mental process, and thus provides a formal means to implement reverse inference. They have also provided evidence that activation in some regions may be less diagnostic than is required (and often assumed) for effective reverse inference. For example, neither the âoefusiform face areaâ nor the âoeparahippocampal place areaâ is particularly diagnostic for the stimulus classes that activate them most strongly (faces or scenes respectively) (Hanson & Halchenko, 2008)."
Despite there, there are some limitations
"Despite the incredible power of these methods to decode mental states from neuroimaging data, some important limits remain. Foremost, decoding methods cannot overcome the fact that neuroimaging data are inherently correlational (cf. Poldrack, 2000), and thus that demonstration of significant decoding does not prove that a region is necessary for the mental function being decoded. Lesion studies and manipulations of brain function using methods such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) will remain essential for identifying which regions are necessary and which are epiphenomenal. Conversely, a region could be important for a function even if it is not diagnostic of that function