That's irrational. People behave badly in message boards without Google encouraging them. You specifically said Google encouraged others to retaliate against him, but apparently you made it up or imagined it. Stop doing that. Do research before asserting things.
Google specifically pointed out what parts they fired him for:
"Our co-workers shouldn’t have to worry that each time they open their mouths to speak in a meeting, they have to prove that they are not like the memo states, being “agreeable” rather than “assertive,” showing a “lower stress tolerance,” or being “neurotic.”
Gee, when a guy writes a anti-woman-programmer rant
Which part of it are you referring to when you call it "anti-women?" If I say, "there are fewer women than men in the programming industry," do you consider that "anti-women?"
When reading the memo, I had the clear [impression] that he claims that conservative men are better programmers
Please quote a sentence or paragraph to support this. It may just be your own personal biases are coloring your understanding of what you read, and we wouldn't want that.
Which sentence (or paragraph) in his essay are you referring to here? I'm not sure what you are referring to with your paraphrase, and it would be helpful if you pointed it out.
I don't have personal experience with this, but I think most companies will give you a warning, and possibly send you to retraining, then wait until a second offense before firing.
If he takes them to court and can prove that his statements are scientifically backed at the statistical scale, they they aren't stereotypes and it would be wrongful termination right?
California is an at-will state, which means he can be fired for almost any reason. Speech being factual will not protect you here (unlike slander cases).
Unfortunately for Google, it seems that criticizing company policy is explicitly protected by the law, so you can't fire someone for criticizing company policy. Google claims they fired him for creating a hostile environment, not for his criticism of company policy.
A lawsuit might revolve around whether his criticism of women is separate from his criticism of company policy. I give that as my non-lawyer opinion, worth: 0 cents.
Actually now that we have a clear definition of "neuroticism" and "warmth," we can actually make progress towards answering the question of differences in gender. Wikipedia has some answer fwiw.
An interesting question for discussion might be whether we agree or disagree with what the fired employee said
Good idea. To address your two questions:
do you think women are "neurotic" and show "a lower stress tolerance"
Neurotic is a lousy word because it's poorly defined, but he clarified it as "higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance." Do women have higher anxiety and lower stress tolerance than men? Scientific American says they have higher anxiety: "experts believe this difference arises from a combination of hormonal fluctuations, brain chemistry and upbringing." I don't know, but that is what Google's search engine dragged up.
their careers suffer because women are "agreeable" rather than "assertive"
To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK.
Did he actually suggest that women are less biologically suited to be programmers? My reading was he was trying to explain why women don't want to become programmers, not that they are less good at it when they choose to do so. I didn't read anywhere in the thing where it said women are worse programmers.
They should have explained where he was wrong instead of firing him.
"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom." --Justice Edward Terry Sanford
I'll bet anything the guy got a solid severance package though.
Look at this post. The author was able to understand what I said originally and make a reasonable comment in response. Learn from that writer's thinking habits.
You're on the right track there, you have engaged in logical discussion. Well done, we need more of you.
I disagree with your points, though (although they may be reasons that you personally focus on tech). People who are nowhere near tech focus on it because it's a bandwagon to jump on. They see a team to join, and want to join the party on the right side. It's less about the problem itself and more about being with like-minded people in a winning endeavor.
It's easy to see this because of the lack of intention to actually understand the problem. A rational approach would be to do research to understand the problem, propose a solution, measure the results from implementing the solution, and then either scale up or try a different approach. Mostly this doesn't happen, people just want to attack the other side.
Speaking of which if you can't see how the fallacy of relative privation applies to a single sentence comparing two levels of privation
If comparing two levels of privation were a fallacy in itself, then it would be impossible to discuss relative levels of privation in any reasonable way. You lose.
Try again? I suggest reading my original post over again. There's a good chance you didn't understand it, and that it's not as irrational as you currently think. You probably agree with it more than you realize.
I was nonplussed when I found out I could not call a master/slave configuration a master/slave configuration anymore, because using the word slave in any context could be seen as offensive.
But the point when I lost my faith in humanity making progress was when a proposal for a corporate wiki had as one of its justifications that man pages were excluding.
I so wish I were kidding.
Yeah, this is the kind of cargo-cult stuff you see when people don't research. Has anyone in the history of computing decided to leave the tech industry because there were no woman pages? Is there any evidence anywhere that this is actually a problem?
If we actually cared about helping people, we would do research, figure out where the problems are, propose solutions, then measure the result of those solutions. If the solutions didn't work, then we would try something different. But instead we just have people "choosing a side" and attacking the other side. There's no place in the world for that.
Slashdot Mirror
That's irrational. People behave badly in message boards without Google encouraging them. You specifically said Google encouraged others to retaliate against him, but apparently you made it up or imagined it. Stop doing that. Do research before asserting things.
"Our co-workers shouldn’t have to worry that each time they open their mouths to speak in a meeting, they have to prove that they are not like the memo states, being “agreeable” rather than “assertive,” showing a “lower stress tolerance,” or being “neurotic.”
Gee, when a guy writes a anti-woman-programmer rant
Which part of it are you referring to when you call it "anti-women?" If I say, "there are fewer women than men in the programming industry," do you consider that "anti-women?"
When reading the memo, I had the clear [impression] that he claims that conservative men are better programmers
Please quote a sentence or paragraph to support this. It may just be your own personal biases are coloring your understanding of what you read, and we wouldn't want that.
Which sentence (or paragraph) in his essay are you referring to here? I'm not sure what you are referring to with your paraphrase, and it would be helpful if you pointed it out.
I don't have personal experience with this, but I think most companies will give you a warning, and possibly send you to retraining, then wait until a second offense before firing.
they also encouraged others to virtue signal their retaliation against him.
I didn't see that anywhere. Are you sure? Do you have a quote?
If he takes them to court and can prove that his statements are scientifically backed at the statistical scale, they they aren't stereotypes and it would be wrongful termination right?
California is an at-will state, which means he can be fired for almost any reason. Speech being factual will not protect you here (unlike slander cases).
Unfortunately for Google, it seems that criticizing company policy is explicitly protected by the law, so you can't fire someone for criticizing company policy. Google claims they fired him for creating a hostile environment, not for his criticism of company policy.
A lawsuit might revolve around whether his criticism of women is separate from his criticism of company policy. I give that as my non-lawyer opinion, worth: 0 cents.
I don't get this, why do you think Google is afraid of discovery here? What sorts of things do you think they are hiding?
Actually now that we have a clear definition of "neuroticism" and "warmth," we can actually make progress towards answering the question of differences in gender. Wikipedia has some answer fwiw.
Oh yeah you're totally right, I missed that. Thanks for the info.
It was definitely a mistake for him to use the word neurotic, whether it was accurate or not, because of the negativity associated with the word.
An interesting question for discussion might be whether we agree or disagree with what the fired employee said
Good idea. To address your two questions:
do you think women are "neurotic" and show "a lower stress tolerance"
Neurotic is a lousy word because it's poorly defined, but he clarified it as "higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance." Do women have higher anxiety and lower stress tolerance than men? Scientific American says they have higher anxiety: "experts believe this difference arises from a combination of hormonal fluctuations, brain chemistry and upbringing." I don't know, but that is what Google's search engine dragged up.
their careers suffer because women are "agreeable" rather than "assertive"
At least one study says that women are "warmer," but no less "assertive" than men. That matches my narrow realm of experience.
I think it's important that we stick to actual research, instead of postulating wildly.
To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK.
Did he actually suggest that women are less biologically suited to be programmers? My reading was he was trying to explain why women don't want to become programmers, not that they are less good at it when they choose to do so. I didn't read anywhere in the thing where it said women are worse programmers.
"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom." --Justice Edward Terry Sanford
I'll bet anything the guy got a solid severance package though.
I think you need room in your theory for periodicals like Cosmo and National Enquirer.
Yeah. When I go to a place and only rely on GPS, I don't end up knowing that place any better than before I arrived.
That's basically how I still do all my road trips. Get out the paper maps!
ok, why have subscription based media been failing recently then?
IT fascinates me how many people take RFC 3514 seriously.
Look at this post. The author was able to understand what I said originally and make a reasonable comment in response. Learn from that writer's thinking habits.
it's worth remembering why many of these subscription based media (especially generic ones covering wide topics) have failed recently,
Mainly because you can get the information for free.
You're on the right track there, you have engaged in logical discussion. Well done, we need more of you.
I disagree with your points, though (although they may be reasons that you personally focus on tech). People who are nowhere near tech focus on it because it's a bandwagon to jump on. They see a team to join, and want to join the party on the right side. It's less about the problem itself and more about being with like-minded people in a winning endeavor.
It's easy to see this because of the lack of intention to actually understand the problem. A rational approach would be to do research to understand the problem, propose a solution, measure the results from implementing the solution, and then either scale up or try a different approach. Mostly this doesn't happen, people just want to attack the other side.
Speaking of which if you can't see how the fallacy of relative privation applies to a single sentence comparing two levels of privation
If comparing two levels of privation were a fallacy in itself, then it would be impossible to discuss relative levels of privation in any reasonable way. You lose.
Try again? I suggest reading my original post over again. There's a good chance you didn't understand it, and that it's not as irrational as you currently think. You probably agree with it more than you realize.
I was nonplussed when I found out I could not call a master/slave configuration a master/slave configuration anymore, because using the word slave in any context could be seen as offensive. But the point when I lost my faith in humanity making progress was when a proposal for a corporate wiki had as one of its justifications that man pages were excluding. I so wish I were kidding.
Yeah, this is the kind of cargo-cult stuff you see when people don't research. Has anyone in the history of computing decided to leave the tech industry because there were no woman pages? Is there any evidence anywhere that this is actually a problem?
If we actually cared about helping people, we would do research, figure out where the problems are, propose solutions, then measure the result of those solutions. If the solutions didn't work, then we would try something different. But instead we just have people "choosing a side" and attacking the other side. There's no place in the world for that.
A long history of subscription based media (newspapers, magazines, etc) says that people would be willing to pay for valuable content.