The 10 page memo that got a Google employee fired.

Discussion in 'The Thinking Cap' started by ABDeL, Aug 8, 2017.

  1. ABDeL

    ABDeL Site Advisor DiploGuard Our Creator

    OFFLINE

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2008
    Messages:
    9,367
    Likes Received:
    1,995
    Reply to public response and misrepresentation

    I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. Despite what the public response seems to have been, I’ve gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change.

    TL:DR
    • Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.
    • This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.
    • The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.
    • Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression
    • Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression
    • Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.
    Background [1]
    People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document.[2] Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no means the complete story, but it’s a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google.

    Google’s biases
    At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices.

    Left Biases
    • Compassion for the weak
    • Disparities are due to injustices
    • Humans are inherently cooperative
    • Change is good (unstable)
    • Open
    • Idealist
    Right Biases
    • Respect for the strong/authority
    • Disparities are natural and just
    • Humans are inherently competitive
    • Change is dangerous (stable)
    • Closed
    • Pragmatic
    Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors.

    Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal representation.

    Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech [3]
    At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story.

    On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:

    • They’re universal across human cultures
    • They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
    • Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males
    • The underlying traits are highly heritable
    • They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective
    Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” 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. 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.

    Personality differences
    Women, on average, have more:

    • Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing).
    • These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.
    • Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
    • 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.
    Note that contrary to what a social constructionist would argue, research suggests that “greater nation-level gender equality leads to psychological dissimilarity in men’s and women’s personality traits.” Because as “society becomes more prosperous and more egalitarian, innate dispositional differences between men and women have more space to develop and the gap that exists between men and women in their personality becomes wider.” We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism.

    Men’s higher drive for status
    We always ask why we don’t see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.

    Status is the primary metric that men are judged on[4], pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths.

    Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap
    Below I’ll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women’s representation in tech and without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in many of these areas, but I think it’s still instructive to list them:

    • Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things
    • We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be and we shouldn’t deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this).
    • Women on average are more cooperative
    • Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there’s more we can do. This doesn’t mean that we should remove all competitiveness from Google. Competitiveness and self reliance can be valuable traits and we shouldn’t necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what’s been done in education. Women on average are more prone to anxiety. Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits.
    • Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average
    • Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work though can keep more women in tech.
    • The male gender role is currently inflexible
    • Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more “feminine,” then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally feminine roles.
    Philosophically, I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principles reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google—with Google’s diversity being a component of that. For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google’s funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged.

    The Harm of Google’s biases
    I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:

    • Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5]
    • A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
    • Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
    • Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
    • Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination [6]
    These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology[7] that can irreparably harm Google.

    Why we’re blind
    We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ[8] and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap[9]. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.

    In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and areeable than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue [sic] affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and whiner[10]. Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women’s oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is spent to water only one side of the lawn.

    The same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness[11], which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftists protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silence, psychologically unsafe environment.

    Suggestions
    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).

    My concrete suggestions are to:

    De-moralize diversity.
    • As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”
    Stop alienating conservatives.
    • Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.
    • In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.
    • Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.
    Confront Google’s biases.
    • I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.
    • I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.
    Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.
    • These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.
    Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs.
    • Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.
    • There’s currently very little transparency into the extend of our diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo chamber.
    • These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives.
    • I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize illegal discrimination.
    Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.
    • We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination.
    • We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity
    • Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX.
    De-emphasize empathy.
    • I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.
    Prioritize intention.
    • Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offense and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging unintentional transgressions.
    • Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with violence and isn’t backed by evidence.
    Be open about the science of human nature.
    • Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems.
    Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.
    • We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made mandatory.
    • Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful, but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and the examples shown.
    • Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes. Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I [sic] just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).
    [1] This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google’s Mountain View campus, I can’t speak about other offices or countries.

    [2] Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I’d be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.

    [3] Throughout the document, by “tech”, I mostly mean software engineering.

    [4] For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty. Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal.


    [5] Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race.

    [6] Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.

    [7] Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”


    [8] Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant helping the victims of the aristocracy.

    [9] Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons. For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men. Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents how much the employees sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around power.

    [10] “The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the idea of men needing support. Men are expected to be strong, to not complain, and to deal with problems on their own. Men’s problems are more often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood,, due to our gendered idea of agency. This discourages men from bringing attention to their issues (whether individual or group-wide issues), for fear of being seen as whiners, complainers, or weak.”


    [11] Political correctness is defined as “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against,” which makes it clear why it’s a phenomenon of the Left and a tool of authoritarians.

    Update 7:25pm ET: Google’s new Vice President of Diversity, Integrity & Governance, Danielle Brown, issued the following statement in response to the internal employee memo:

    Googlers,

    I’m Danielle, Google’s brand new VP of Diversity, Integrity & Governance. I started just a couple of weeks ago, and I had hoped to take another week or so to get the lay of the land before introducing myself to you all. But given the heated debate we’ve seen over the past few days, I feel compelled to say a few words.

    Many of you have read an internal document shared by someone in our engineering organization, expressing views on the natural abilities and characteristics of different genders, as well as whether one can speak freely of these things at Google. And like many of you, I found that it advanced incorrect assumptions about gender. I’m not going to link to it here as it’s not a viewpoint that I or this company endorses, promotes or encourages.

    Diversity and inclusion are a fundamental part of our values and the culture we continue to cultivate. We are unequivocal in our belief that diversity and inclusion are critical to our success as a company, and we’ll continue to stand for that and be committed to it for the long haul. As Ari Balogh said in his internal G+ post, “Building an open, inclusive environment is core to who we are, and the right thing to do. ‘Nuff said. “

    Google has taken a strong stand on this issue, by releasing its demographic data and creating a company wide OKR on diversity and inclusion. Strong stands elicit strong reactions. Changing a culture is hard, and it’s often uncomfortable. But I firmly believe Google is doing the right thing, and that’s why I took this job.

    Part of building an open, inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions. But that discourse needs to work alongside the principles of equal employment found in our Code of Conduct, policies, and anti-discrimination laws.

    I’ve been in the industry for a long time, and I can tell you that I’ve never worked at a company that has so many platforms for employees to express themselves—TGIF, Memegen, internal G+, thousands of discussion groups. I know this conversation doesn’t end with my email today. I look forward to continuing to hear your thoughts as I settle in and meet with Googlers across the company.

    Thanks,
    Danielle

    Personal Comment: What do you guys think of this? These suggestions and comments come across as very reasonable, and the writer proves that Google was a hostile work environment due to the legitimate fear of people to speak out and risk getting fired. Do you think his firing was legitimate? Will this change how you engage with google products?


     
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Thurr

    Thurr DiploMVP

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2010
    Messages:
    5,817
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Google's response is very bad for my blood pressure.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • This This x 2
  3. Talinn

    Talinn Map Maker

    OFFLINE

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2010
    Messages:
    2,284
    Likes Received:
    1,188
    Diversity first and specifically affirmative action is pretty dumb. I'm actually moving to Arizona to go to college after surgery in September, mostly because of the sunshine but also because they ban affirmative action. I haven't done much research on affirmative action but I'm currently in Colorado and the closest university to me is definately swarming with liberals and LGBTs, it seems highly likely that i'll be favored for admissions which is just dumb. That guy shouldn't have been fired and yeah the left is being hypocritical here.
     
  4. Ser_Fergus

    Ser_Fergus Knight of the DiploGuard

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    4,767
    Likes Received:
    1,419
    He wasn't fired for his beliefs, he was fired because he sent it to the entire company. Software development is very much a team based work environment, how can you assign women to the guy who said women are prone to being neurotic and unable to negotiate.
    In general googles stance has can been fairly decent for a major corporation considering he basically took a political stand that as an aside put down other employees.
    If this hadn't been cycling through the media even, or he had just sent this to HR I'm sure he'd have been fine.
     
    • What What x 3
    • This This x 1
  5. Potatoe_Head

    Potatoe_Head Diplomunion.com CEO

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2010
    Messages:
    6,663
    Likes Received:
    1,350
    Supposely original document here https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.html

    Former Google Employee provides a bit more context why someone would get fired for creating a manifesto. Source

    "Essentially, engineering is all about cooperation, collaboration, and empathy for both your colleagues and your customers. If someone told you that engineering was a field where you could get away with not dealing with people or feelings, then I’m very sorry to tell you that you have been lied to. Solitary work is something that only happens at the most junior levels, and even then it’s only possible because someone senior to you — most likely your manager — has been putting in long hours to build up the social structures in your group that let you focus on code.

    And as for its impact on you: Do you understand that at this point, I could not in good conscience assign anyone to work with you? I certainly couldn’t assign any women to deal with this, a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face, and even if there were a group of like-minded individuals I could put you with, nobody would be able to collaborate with them. You have just created a textbook hostile workplace environment."

    As someone who's been doing coding with strangers in group projects I can relate here very well. He's not getting fired for a controversial opinion, but for creating a career suicide where he created a hostile environment by himself. And not because he is angering others, but because he's speaking out against empathy and solitarity within Google. I'm not okay with him being fired due to worker rights but that's a whole different issue.

    Also, the media is mischaracterizing the manifesto heavily. Words like mysogyny, racism and anti-diversity are thrown around, while the author tried to open up a debate on why women do not want to enter the tech industry and questioned diversity programs inside of Google. Also lot's of pseudoscience bullshit that oversimplified things like claiming conservatives are naturally more conscientious or avoidance of forms of expression that insult groups of peoples is a liberal authoritarian tool that leads to authoritarian policies.

    Anyway I for one think diversity programs have a right to exist and so do certain quotas for minorities(explain futher below). I'm pretty positive about the fact that there are currently way more qualified men than women in the field, though I am not saying women can NOT be as qualified. Obviously, you need a shitton of experience and know-how to get such a crazy good job. The cultural push to created a smaller gender gap started rather recently in the 2000's. In other words, people who got these jobs probably went to college in the 90's, 80's or even 70's.

    Small source on figures in USA regarding STEM proportions.
    "According to the National Science Foundation, overall, women have higher college graduation rates compared to men. However, men disproportionately outnumber women in the number of Science and Engineering (STEM) degrees received. Between 1989 and 2008, the approximate percentages of women receiving their Bachelor’s degree in any engineering field were 17% and 19.6%, respectively. The percentage increase in the computer science industry displayed was larger, increasing from approximately 10% in 1989 to 21% in 2008."

    These programs encouraging girls to get into tech early will probabaly pay off in a few decades. Those are overall outreach and very basic recruiting programs. Companies like Google won't sacrifice their hiring standards just for mediocre work. I believe sexism holding back women at a workplace shouldn't be taken lightly, equal pay laws should apply for everybody, yet being outraged about disproportinate numbers of men in the field is anything but logic. Now getting to the minority program. Well, technology is made for everybody, so it's good to have an input of everybody so they reach out to everyone. These technologies are mirrored by their creators.

    I can see why the author would disagree with Googles practice to hold classes for people of certain gender or race. In its basic definition this is textbook discrimination. So why would they even do such thing? While it can feel unfair, it is in fact an intend to elevate disadvantaged people and balance things out. Of course we could argue if we should insist of treating everyone equally, regardless of the chance people have had to develop and prove themselves or do we give people who have had fewer opportunities to suceed a better chance? Google chose to balance things out and I for one agree. That doesn't mean each woman has had worse opportunities than any white male in their life. Being cautious before it backfires is very important.

    Briefly said, people being outraged about him being a sexist mysongynyst are just as wrong as people who are mad at Google for firing him for speaking up against their echo chamber. You are simply a bad investment if you cause hostility in the inside and a bad reputation on the outside.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. Ser_Fergus

    Ser_Fergus Knight of the DiploGuard

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    4,767
    Likes Received:
    1,419
    I did not foresee cniper being further right than me
     
    • Funny Funny x 5
  7. Feanor

    Feanor Member Liaison Officer Global Moderator

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    Messages:
    28,059
    Likes Received:
    2,511
    These guys aren't leftists.

    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. The_Phalanx

    The_Phalanx Man with the Pointy Sticks Admin DiploGuard Map Maker

    OFFLINE

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2010
    Messages:
    6,194
    Likes Received:
    659
    I know this is thinking cap, but man that's an amazing mustache.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. Feanor

    Feanor Member Liaison Officer Global Moderator

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    Messages:
    28,059
    Likes Received:
    2,511
    I apologize, I thought this was the News Stand. Though to be honest, I'm not surprised. Companies like Google behave less like private commercial entities and more like a pseudo-state entity.
     
  10. EagleMan

    EagleMan Administrator Admin Map Maker

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2008
    Messages:
    16,831
    Likes Received:
    2,415
    I think there's a lot to disagree with, a lot of pseudoscience as Potatoe said, but the media has also definitely mischaracterized it as anti-diversity. As a company, Google can only do so much to combat social mores that encourage people to seek particular jobs. Women used to be heavily involved in the field of computing and programming until the PC became cheap enough for home use, after which it became viewed as something of a toy or novelty and parents only bought it for boys and the participation of women in the field plummeted. To get to a 50/50 ratio in current society would either involve Google seriously relaxing hiring standards for women, or outrageously overpaying what women there are in the field to encourage all of them to work at Google to the exclusion of everyone else.

    Probably his strongest point is that we should not moralize diversity, when you do that to an issue it makes it difficult to air criticism. A lot of diversity programs certainly do seem like feel good programs, in that they are more for the PR and making executives feel virtuous than actually accomplishing anything. If this guy has actually had to go through microaggression training then I only have empathy for him.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • This This x 1
  11. Dayne

    Dayne Turncloak Site Staff Map Maker

    Online

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    Messages:
    2,463
    Likes Received:
    825
    Honestly, the guy's an idiot for making this memo when Google is literally being investigated for wage discrimination. If he wanted to get fired, he picked the perfect time to do so.

    Google had no right to fire him, but doing so probably costs them less in the long-run and its probably a more sound business investment to eat the money from the lawsuit than to keep him in the company. Other companies have done just as bad (Quick semi-recent example being when Nintendo literally fired a woman because she was the subject of harassment by GamerGate when gamers learned the US Fire Emblem wouldn't have the Pet-Your-Waifu feature).
     
    • This This x 1
  12. War4life

    War4life Eternal Jimmy

    OFFLINE

    Joined:
    May 10, 2008
    Messages:
    11,498
    Likes Received:
    440
    I understand people calling him idiots for this memo but I think it's hard to understand this without understanding googles "open" culture and blurring of the lines between personal and work life, in addition to encouraging people to speak up etc. When you factor that in with the fact that the vast majority of people in tech are extremely socially awkward and inept, you can understand why he wrote this. Also this was apparently only sent to a few people and was intended to be internal - whoever leaked this should also be fired and probably would be anywhere else.

    That being said this is mild as fuck and in no way does it really suggest that women are inept or incapable of being in tech?? Like really this was a well thought out piece. I think the stupidity of this all is that google promotes diversity and openness then cans this guy for what is on the whole an insightful piece.

    And let me say diversity programs are such a gimmick and so are the related "educationa" programs. I have friends who have to go through "anti-oppression" training (they work at universities - surprise surprise) and it is the most baffling shit to me. At this point the left is probably as unappealing as it has ever been.
     
  13. CNiper

    CNiper Join us on Steam! Admin DiploGuard

    OFFLINE

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,628
    Likes Received:
    2,516
    Some of you guys are referencing pseudo science here. Can you elaborate? These sources seem to check out.

    Ser_Fergus I'm from 'BERTA
     
  14. ABDeL

    ABDeL Site Advisor DiploGuard Our Creator

    OFFLINE

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2008
    Messages:
    9,367
    Likes Received:
    1,995
    Its simple really. Everyone I don't agree with is a pseudointellectual. Science I disagree with is pseudoscience.

    If he were talking about ALL women then EagleMan and Potatoe_Head have a point, but he was speaking as a matter of averages.

    Additionally, its not fair to out and fire a person who released a memo anonymously for the very reason that he knew that his firing was a possible outcome, which is why he released under the name "Danielle". Google has placed importance of people's feelings, specifically women's in this case, over having a consequence and revenge-free environment for their employees to speak and engage freely. The engineer who you referenced is full of shit. Firing an individual who released a memo anonymously highlighting issues in the company don't make those issues disappear. Given 50% of google employees polled internally stated that they agreed with the contents of the memo, Google has essentially sent the message that it cares about feelings and not offending others over actually having an exchange of ideas which would fundamentally improve the company.

    Imagine running a company where 50% of your employees are too afraid to speak up out of fear of losing their jobs because your diversity department has run amok and has prioritized diversity of skin rather than diversity of opinion. Imagine a company legitimizing those fears by firing an individual who's only crime was speaking his mind, who isn't a bigot or a misogynist, but merely claimed scientific truths, truths he learned when he earned a degree in biology from Harvard. Before the firing, the fear was just a feeling, just like the women's feeling of oppression. Now, in stark contrast with women's feelings at the company, the feeling of fear in the hearts of those who disagree with the progressive agenda overtaking the largest tech company in the world, and by extension our societies, is legitimate.

    Scientific facts be damned, logic be damned, women are so weak they need to be coddled and protected. That is the true sexism and misogyny of all this.

    Every argument thats been critical of the memo has been "But women's feelings were hurt and obviously they are the weaker sex so we will coddle them by firing and smearing this individual who obviously said or did nothing wrong" or "I can't really dispute the contents of this memo but they are problematic to my world-view so I'll call it pseudo-science and move on with my day"
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2017
    • This This x 1
    • What What x 1
  15. Hawkr

    Hawkr Bastard of Winterfell

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2015
    Messages:
    559
    Likes Received:
    118
  16. ponasozis

    ponasozis SOVIET HATE MARINE

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2011
    Messages:
    8,263
    Likes Received:
    1,971
    something something something
    google being autistic
    something something something
     
  17. SteakOnSpear

    SteakOnSpear ᛊᛏᛖᚨᚲ ᛟᚾ ᛊᛖᚨᚱ Map Maker

    OFFLINE

    Joined:
    May 26, 2010
    Messages:
    9,792
    Likes Received:
    3,003
    He didn't state an opinion that men and women are different in certain ways. He discussed the findings of science on the subject.

    When he said women had more neuroticism, that wasn't his evil sexist opinion. That is based on numerous scientific studies.

    Would like to see that 50/50 ratio happen in construction and mining first.
     
    • This This x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Creative Creative x 1
  18. ABDeL

    ABDeL Site Advisor DiploGuard Our Creator

    OFFLINE

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2008
    Messages:
    9,367
    Likes Received:
    1,995
    https://www.bustle.com/articles/168...big-five-personality-traits-and-why-thats-not
     
  19. Ser_Fergus

    Ser_Fergus Knight of the DiploGuard

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    4,767
    Likes Received:
    1,419
    It is based one one scientific finding, according to his citation and more importantly, he still sent it to the whole damn company! How is everyone missing this point. Google has a pretty open culture yeah but company wide documents are usually pretty rare. My csc professor who has been my reference can remember less than 20 in 5 years.

    As for construction and mining their really are actual physical differences between women and men, and in a field that equipment is downsizing all the time. The women are more neurotic might well be nurture rather than nature; that's the problem with not having a properly controlled environment. The fact that women develop less muscle and are on average smaller is hard science.


    Everyone saying 'oh you're only calling this pseudo science because you disagree with it' are the same people who would shit on someone in psychology to get a real degree. There are actual flaws with trying to see trends in mental health, especially over as broad a population as race and gender.
     
  20. Dayne

    Dayne Turncloak Site Staff Map Maker

    Online

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    Messages:
    2,463
    Likes Received:
    825
    :thinking:

    >biology

    :thinking:

    Gonna Feanor you here for a second, he studied Systems Biology which is much more mathematical modelling of biological structures, but ok, basically right. I'll humor it. Let's just start off on this: getting something published doesn't mean it's scientifically truth. It just means there's been a study that shows one thing. There's been plenty of times where studies such as the one he referenced aren't able to be replicated or are just straight up found to be false.

    Now with that idea out there, let's go to the main chunk of his argument: the school of thought that hinges around the "empathizing-systemizing" theory. This theory is widely questioned on numerous grounds. Literally some of the sources he links in his paper (i.e. literally wikipedia for half of them idk why you guys keep saying 'well cited') mention the fact that its findings haven't been widely replicated.

    CNiper I wouldn't go so far as to call it pseudoscience, since there is science behind it, but ABDeL's notion that it's SCIENTIFIC TRUTHS that he would've learned studying systems biology (this is psychology/cognitive science and I doubt systems biology would cover this theory in depth) is honestly just as dumb and an exaggeration. It's not a scientific truth, it's a theory proposed by one pair of researchers. It also doesn't account for the historical facts EagleMan brought up: most early computer scientists and programmers were women.

    All that aside, the biggest part is how the fuck does any of that research have anything to do with the workplace? The studies themselves note that it's a small to moderate increase, which barely has any actual variance in the population, and probably less so for the people who would be applying and get accepted into Google. In discussing that, he was openly creating a hostile work environment for the women working there.

    Also, where did you find the 50% internally agreed? I couldn't find anything saying that cause that seems like an awfully large number. Also, everything I've read seems to state that he released under his name not under Danielle. I think you're mistaking that for the response memo from Google's Danielle Brown (VP of Diversity [that's a thing?]).
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
Affiliates
Make Me Host  HiveWorkshop  Brigand's Haven  BlizzMod  Warclave