Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber [UPDATE] Author Fired

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, Kumaresh said:

Well, I've only outlined a general idea. I have indeed had experience with a few workplaces, albeit not working there directly. And I have seen people who are either decent at many things or very good at a few things. People who are great at everything are incredibly hard to come by. Yet I have seen these kinds of ultra specialization tactics work successfully, but they require an incredibly competent management. But my point of contention is that I fail to recognize how you easily correlate diverse skill sets with ethnic and gender diversity. On what empirical basis do you make these assumptions ?

Your point wasn't without merit however: We're talking IT and as such, in the real world, people are going to hire you to implement SAP for a company based on your experience and certification with SAP, not based on how much you've learned about life with your indigenous upbringing which is basically not going to help you in knowing what to do with an MM module implementation that is having issues.

 

Those other positions of interpersonal skills do exist don't get me wrong, but we're talking about very specific positions to fulfill very immediate and very specific needs.

[Memories4K]

2 hours ago, potoooooooo said:

He literally said a group of the best programmers should be 80-90% men.

 

Not would be, SHOULD be.

Well yeah, there should more men than women in your workplace; It's a male-dominated field much like how Nursing is female-dominated.

If you're expecting a 50/50 split of both men and women in a field where there's far less men/women inclined to work in, then you're setting yourself up for disappointment.

I can't find where he said 80-90% of programmers should be men (in the sense that men are superior to women inherently in programming), could you please help me find that? Because i can't find the context and i keep re-reading the OP.

[Memories4K]

1 hour ago, Commodus said:

Two problems:

 

First, you're creating a false dichotomy that assumes the women or minorities being hired are significantly less qualified.  In general, Google and other tech companies aren't hiring people with dramatically inferior skill sets, if they're inferior at all -- it's usually a question of minor differences.  You're betraying your bias by implying that when there is a difference, it's a huge one.  There's also the problem of assuming that diversity is a zero sum game where one culture must lose for another to win, but that's another story.

 

The other issue is that you're asserting that only technical aptitude matters.  Many white guys masturbate to cries of "candidates should be chosen solely on merit," but they completely gloss over the merits of a heterogenous work culture.  Women and minorities may not only approach an issue differently, but will think about social issues that a privileged white man might not consider.  Look at ridesharing for example: women have to deal with sexual harassment that men don't usually face, and there are studies showing that there are racist ridesharing drivers who'll intentionally cancel rides based on passengers' profiles.  If you're a white guy who can always hail a car and never has a driver make gross comments about your body, are you going to design a ridesharing app with these issues in mind?  Probably not.

 

That's the point.  It's not really about hitting arbitrary quotas, it's about giving cultures better representation and taking their perspectives into account.  You're not going to get that if you allow a self-reinforcing cycle where white men hire more white men (or in Google's case, white and Asian men).

There's no such dichotomy, and i would urge you to reconsider why you would assume i would outline minorities as less qualified in a post criticizing the idea somebody's ethnicity or gender would have any relevance to their qualifications in a workplace like this.

I'm also not betraying my point at all, you're misinterpreting what i'm saying, i never said the difference is always huge but the fact you would go with someone that's not the best on your roster over somebody who is based on race/sex is the problem i'm outlining and in fact gave such an example where being a minority would be something that would hold you back if discriminatory hiring practices based on race/sex are accepted, despite the fact you may have been the best for the job. It's a two-way street.

What the fuck makes you think i as an indigenous man would be better qualified than Todd, white dude, in programming, nuclear engineering, or mathematics? Heterogenous work culture? Do you fetishize people like me that much that you actually look at us that differently? That's disgusting. To believe that the value a company sees in me as the hopes that i'm some fucking stereotypical Feather-in-Hair Indian who's going to somehow fix a line of code by thinking back to my upbringing and the thoughts of the old myths i learned as a child from my culture will give me a radical idea where i'll be able to find an answer from "The Eagle spirit". Get the fuck out of here with that racist bullshit that's only meant to make me an "other" instead of an individual.

Workplace harassment isn't solely restricted to men or white people, the fact you just painted a picture of women being uncomfortable around male drivers in regards to ridesharing as something a business should try to pander to while white people being uncomfortable around black drivers isn't something to pander to is a ridiculous double-standard. If you're going to be a racist/sexist who refuses to ride with somebody of one group or holds prejudice to somebody a group then at least be consistent, and don't bullshit by pretending that the piss you served me is any different from the piss you served the guy 3 tables over. If you're about making racists/sexists more comfortable, then don't pretend you're noble by disavowing racist/sexist from the other side.

You're either going to treat me as an equal human being or you're not going treat me as an equal human being.

[Brooksie359]

bottom line I kinda agree with alot of what the guy was saying. The issue is people like to say discrimination both ways don't exist. I do believe that discrimination exist but I also don't think discrimination is the answer to discrimination. People like to attack anyone that doesn't agree with them on the issue of anything related to gender or race and discrimination. I honestly think that is sad that people are like this now because what the guy said is quite true; people fear talking about these issues because if they don't agree they are labeled as sexist or racist. the fact that the guy was just written off and so many people just disregard his view is right inline with what he even talked about in hid memo. If we want to truly get rid of discrimination we must not take into account ones gender or race at all in the hiring process.

[AshleyAshes]

48 minutes ago, Kumaresh said:

I have indeed had experience with a few workplaces, albeit not working there directly.

So, unemployed and never had a job.  Got it.

[Misanthrope]

7 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

So, unemployed and never had a job.  Got it.

How about spending less time on that line of "reasoning" and replying to my comments on the subject then?

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

While this may be true I would have to say as someone who has seen the representation of females in stem programs at a college level there is a clear reason why women are underrepresented in alot of stem fields. The cause of this is unknown to me but it would make sense to have females underrepresented in a field that less females go into compared to men.

My argument has never been about causality, just that there is no discernible difference in intelligence/academic ability to use that as an argument.

[Brooksie359]

Just now, mr moose said:

My argument has never been about causality, just that there is no discernible difference in intelligence/academic ability to use that as an argument.

oh for sure. but there are less women going into stem which i wish wasn't the case but its the reality. 

[mr moose]

Just now, Brooksie359 said:

oh for sure. but there are less women going into stem which i wish wasn't the case but its the reality. 

Absolutely.  

 

1 hour ago, Brooksie359 said:

bottom line I kinda agree with alot of what the guy was saying. The issue is people like to say discrimination both ways don't exist. I do believe that discrimination exist but I also don't think discrimination is the answer to discrimination. People like to attack anyone that doesn't agree with them on the issue of anything related to gender or race and discrimination. I honestly think that is sad that people are like this now because what the guy said is quite true; people fear talking about these issues because if they don't agree they are labeled as sexist or racist. the fact that the guy was just written off and so many people just disregard his view is right inline with what he even talked about in hid memo. If we want to truly get rid of discrimination we must not take into account ones gender or race at all in the hiring process.

 

What causes this problem with people is that, like with most social problems, is they can just keep stripping back the layers of "causality" until they get to one that supports their ideals.  In this case some are stopping at google and claiming google simply need to employ more females.  Others are going one step back and saying girls are not there to be employed, others are going one step further and claiming girls are not there because society discourages them from entering stem, then others go back further again and claim society is not causing that but rather their biological makeup is driving them into other fields. 

 

You can see how easy it is for people to analyze as far as necessary to legitimize there ideal.  It's no wonder we jump all over other opinions when we are so convinced ours is founded on the best reality.

[AnonymousGuy]

The memo is spot on.   But I've been living with this bullshit for years now, and I'm really worn out arguing with the dipshits who create these "diversity" programs.  When you talk to them, it's like you're talking to a robot or a cult-member.  You give them an infallible fact like "if our company has not enough women, doesn't that mean another company has too many, should that company fire them for having too many?"  and watch their heads explode.  Then there's the favorite "the best defense is a good offense" where they just say some straw man shit like "are you saying that all minorities are incompetent" when you say "you're hiring less qualified people just because they're a minority". *bang head on desk*

[Curufinwe_wins]

16 hours ago, mr moose said:

you propose a chicken egg problem then confidently claim it is the chicken.  

 

Not sure where you're getting your birth rate data from as a correlation to education, but I have yet to see any research that can link genetics to education or even birth rate to education in a causal manner. 

 

 

What you've never seen this before?!?

This is the case literally in every country in the world, and has been known for centuries....

 

http://blogs.worldbank.org/health/female-education-and-childbearing-closer-look-data

 

(Looking at African countries)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4649870/

(India)

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/9/education-level-inversely-related-to-childbearing/

(USA)

 

I can post sources of this data for literally every country on earth (probably minus the Vatican heh) but it's always the same pattern. And as it happens... us a significant reason why certain highly educated countries are facing population aging issues (Japan being a great example).

 

 

NOTE: under no circumstances am I saying we should less educate people... I'm just pointing out the consistent and undeniable evidence that education leads to lower childbirth rates.

 

Also from a modern genetics perspective "a chicken and egg debate" is solved. It is always the egg (presuming you make a coherent and consistent definition of a chicken).

Random tidbit.

[Curufinwe_wins]

3 hours ago, Ithanul said:

I am curious about this as well.

 

I was original a jet troop in the military (heavily male dominant).

Now I am in a IT Field in the military (seems closer to 50/50 to me, at least at the unit I am at).  I was actually surprised by this, since I heard IT field was male dominant as well.

 

The military tries to diversify the fields, but guess what, a lot of the fields are still dominated by certain genders.  The med flight at tech school looked the opposite of aircraft maintenance flights.

Without sounding bigoted on my own.... I am willing to bet the reason for the closer to 50/50 a split is that that is much less of a "grunt position" that qualified women in the military would prefer.

[mr moose]

12 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

What you've never seen this before?!?

This is the case literally in every country in the world, and has been known for centuries....

 

http://blogs.worldbank.org/health/female-education-and-childbearing-closer-look-data

 

(Looking at African countries)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4649870/

(India)

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/9/education-level-inversely-related-to-childbearing/

(USA)

 

I can post sources of this data for literally every country on earth (probably minus the Vatican heh) but it's always the same pattern. And as it happens... us a significant reason why certain highly educated countries are facing population aging issues (Japan being a great example).

 

 

NOTE: under no circumstances am I saying we should less educate people... I'm just pointing out the consistent and undeniable evidence that education leads to lower childbirth rates.

 

Also from a modern genetics perspective "a chicken and egg debate" is solved. It is always the egg (presuming you make a coherent and consistent definition of a chicken).

Random tidbit.

you've already said that, but the problem is not the data, there is also data that links intelligence with SES.   As yet there is no evidence for a causal link.  Which is not only what I stated but what you seem to be alluding to as the case.

 

 

Surely you don't assume to understand the causes when so many researchers don't?

 

 

 

 

[Misanthrope]

Interesting image:

 

 

Notice how Computer and information sciences has 18.03% while Google I believe hires 20% for those positions: fairly evenly and without bias for or against women: It's just fairly choosing from available candidates.

[JuNex03]

Hire per skill not per diversity.

 

You don't buy an AMD CPU just because all your past CPU's are Intel based.

[Aaron Wolfy Black Fox]

Personally, I believe once you reach the point of hiring it is already too late to look at diversity. Instead, we need to look at education. As a society (and nearly all societies have this issue) we have to stop telling young girls that they should stop raising their hand because they intimidate the boys. We need to empower them to go into STEM in the first place. We need to make sure there are enough women candidates in the workforce to prevent things like UBER from happening. 

[MadyTehWolfie]

News flash people women and men have different interests. Jobs should go to the best person not the best gender/race to meet your stupid sjw quotas. 

[MadyTehWolfie]

29 minutes ago, Aaron Wolfy Black Fox said:

Personally, I believe once you reach the point of hiring it is already too late to look at diversity. Instead, we need to look at education. As a society (and nearly all societies have this issue) we have to stop telling young girls that they should stop raising their hand because they intimidate the boys. We need to empower them to go into STEM in the first place. We need to make sure there are enough women candidates in the workforce to prevent things like UBER from happening. 

No just no take a seat and shut up.

 

No teacher tells females to not raise their hand in class. Also more then half of students in college are female. With most teachers in being female. Men are not intimidated by girls raising their hand. Women are not intimidating period. 

 

Also it's no one's job to motivate someone else to get into a field of work. That's something people have to do themselves regardless of gender/race.

 

[laminutederire]

Everyone who believes the most qualified for the job gets hired is making a fool of oneself, proof being basically almost all companies.

From basic education, to higher education and onto actual employment afterwards, the construction of the system in place makes any outsider in a place of weakness. When coming from a non privileged background, access to good basic education is harder, which drives steeper competition to get in the proper higher education, which facilitates employment thanks to image and social networking to only those who have the correct education for the job. Each time, where you come from and who you are supposed to be in society has a role in the opportunities you actually get.

Even that aside, companies don't necessarily care to get the best candidate. They want who is making the most sense financially, or economics wise in a broader way. Sometimes, the best is just not worth the extra cost (analogy: nvidia titan we look at you, you're not having any worth in terms of cost/perf, and that extra cost isn't justified by anything objective), or simply you need someone more flexible, someone you'll have to train less, or someone who fancy more the manager, so as to create less conflicts, or take less risks. All of those having no relationship whatsoever with the actual technical skills of the hired one.

 

That leaves the argument of taking the best regardless of his ethnicity/sex/ gender/etc. utterly misplaced, since in theory, yes it should be like that if you assume companies gauge applicants worth solely on the value they'll add to the company or on the value of the applicant's skills, but in practice, there are other forces in place, which put strains that can lead to choosing someone else.

Even if it was the case, as previously mentioned, one's position in society influences what opportunities one gets, therefore leading to gauging an applicant worth really hard to do without an analysis comprising where the applicant comes from. Indeed, when the opportunities and contexts are different, you can't necessarily expect the same results in a résumé for two people of the same skill level, but with two different places, hence the need to account for such things to factor in those pressure.

For instance, if you come from the lowest classes of society in terms of income,  the barrier to get into higher education is steeper, as you rely on scholarships to get in, while someone more privileged can rely on the parents' wealth to pay for the exact same studies. That means that you need in average to be significantly better when coming from a poor background, than you would if you grew up in a penthouse.

That can also mean you have more pressure on you, or that you need to have a job while studying, which can have a negative results on your grades, and then on your résumé for your first job. The quality of such job can have a negative impact on the second one, and so forth.

Anyhow, the theory of "we get the best people, screw diversity programs" has to be studied in light of a bigger picture, rather than a limited scope of the capitalistic theory.

[MadyTehWolfie]

4 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

Everyone who believes the most qualified for the job gets hired is making a fool of oneself, proof being basically almost all companies.

From basic education, to higher education and onto actual employment afterwards, the construction of the system in place makes any outsider in a place of weakness. When coming from a non privileged background, access to good basic education is harder, which drives steeper competition to get in the proper higher education, which facilitates employment thanks to image and social networking to only those who have the correct education for the job. Each time, where you come from and who you are supposed to be in society has a role in the opportunities you actually get.

Even that aside, companies don't necessarily care to get the best candidate. They want who is making the most sense financially, or economics wise in a broader way. Sometimes, the best is just not worth the extra cost (analogy: nvidia titan we look at you, you're not having any worth in terms of cost/perf, and that extra cost isn't justified by anything objective), or simply you need someone more flexible, someone you'll have to train less, or someone who fancy more the manager, so as to create less conflicts, or take less risks. All of those having no relationship whatsoever with the actual technical skills of the hired one.

 

That leaves the argument of taking the best regardless of his ethnicity/sex/ gender/etc. utterly misplaced, since in theory, yes it should be like that if you assume companies gauge applicants worth solely on the value they'll add to the company or on the value of the applicant's skills, but in practice, there are other forces in place, which put strains that can lead to choosing someone else.

Even if it was the case, as previously mentioned, one's position in society influences what opportunities one gets, therefore leading to gauging an applicant worth really hard to do without an analysis comprising where the applicant comes from. Indeed, when the opportunities and contexts are different, you can't necessarily expect the same results in a résumé for two people of the same skill level, but with two different places, hence the need to account for such things to factor in those pressure.

For instance, if you come from the lowest classes of society in terms of income,  the barrier to get into higher education is steeper, as you rely on scholarships to get in, while someone more privileged can rely on the parents' wealth to pay for the exact same studies. That means that you need in average to be significantly better when coming from a poor background, than you would if you grew up in a penthouse.

That can also mean you have more pressure on you, or that you need to have a job while studying, which can have a negative results on your grades, and then on your résumé for your first job. The quality of such job can have a negative impact on the second one, and so forth.

Anyhow, the theory of "we get the best people, screw diversity programs" has to be studied in light of a bigger picture, rather than a limited scope of the capitalistic theory.

Think you miss read and or misunderstood what we are saying. We are saying the best qualified person SHOULD get hired not IS hired. An that hiring based solely on race or gender is bullshit.

 

Edit: also poor people have a easier time getting into college as they get free money from Daddy government and they can just take out a loan and live on campus and get out making good money. Any one who says they are too poor for college or trade school are simply lazy assholes that don't want to work. Countless people work while in school some even at their school. Excuses are for the lazy/too stupid to get educated.

[Memories4K]

1 hour ago, Aaron Wolfy Black Fox said:

Personally, I believe once you reach the point of hiring it is already too late to look at diversity. Instead, we need to look at education. As a society (and nearly all societies have this issue) we have to stop telling young girls that they should stop raising their hand because they intimidate the boys. We need to empower them to go into STEM in the first place. We need to make sure there are enough women candidates in the workforce to prevent things like UBER from happening. 

Who the fuck is telling young girls that they intimidate boys by raising their hands? hahaha
It sure as fuck isn't the boys.
Oh no, Marie in my English class decided to further her knowledge on the subject by asking the teacher a question! *gasp* how intimidating for a young boy to have to be faced with such a "strong" young woman; very brave to have had the courage to do what literally everybody else does and nobody cares about.

Also, what happened with Uber?

[laminutederire]

5 minutes ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

 

Because you really believe Google hire people solely on gender or race? Their bottom line contrive them into taking highly competent persons, regardless of everything else. They just factor in social aspects which have influence on people's ability /opportunities in order to finalize their choice. It's just as good as discriminating people randomly at the end to choose who you hire.

 

Are you even serious? I'm one of the people who don't have the parents with deep pockets, and who manages to get into higher education anyway, and having to worry about money is a burden that can seriously impact your studies. Being poor isn't an excuse not to get into higher education, but it impacts the experience you have of it. People rich enough not to have to work then have a significant edge in studies, since they can fully dedicate themselves to their studies, which create a bias, since they can have better results than people smarter than them, solely because they spent 100% of their time on studies, while some could only give 70% of their time, the 30% remaining going into working to finance their studies.

Tell me how is that easier? That isn't the debate anyway, but you seem to struggle understanding the situations of many people.

[MadyTehWolfie]

14 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

Because you really believe Google hire people solely on gender or race? Their bottom line contrive them into taking highly competent persons, regardless of everything else. They just factor in social aspects which have influence on people's ability /opportunities in order to finalize their choice. It's just as good as discriminating people randomly at the end to choose who you hire.

 

Are you even serious? I'm one of the people who don't have the parents with deep pockets, and who manages to get into higher education anyway, and having to worry about money is a burden that can seriously impact your studies. Being poor isn't an excuse not to get into higher education, but it impacts the experience you have of it. People rich enough not to have to work then have a significant edge in studies, since they can fully dedicate themselves to their studies, which create a bias, since they can have better results than people smarter than them, solely because they spent 100% of their time on studies, while some could only give 70% of their time, the 30% remaining going into working to finance their studies.

Tell me how is that easier? That isn't the debate anyway, but you seem to struggle understanding the situations of many people.

Not at all. My parents worked their way through school and both have 100+k jobs a year as a result. As for me I pay for my own school through federal and private loans because I know at the end I'll have the skills needed to go into the work force and pay back my investment. Stop thinking that just because people's parents have money that they suck their parents teet forever and get free shit. I pay for my own school, car, gas, hobbies. Stop complaining and make it happen no excuses for being a failure when your just a small federal n personal loan away from a AA or BS degree or trade school. 

[Jito463]

1 hour ago, Memories4K said:

Also, what happened with Uber?

Their search for the best female candidate was narrowed down to three men.........

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/08/04/ubers-search-for-a-female-ceo-has-been-narrowed-down-to-3-men/?utm_term=.fe937f6316ac

[Misanthrope]

It seems many got their wish and while it was imo not totally unwarranted it does seems quite premature: The guy has been fired

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/google-fires-employee-behind-controversial-diversity-memo

 

@matrix07012 you might want to update the OP