Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber [UPDATE] Author Fired

[JuNex03]

6 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

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

Damn, getting fired for telling the truth

[ravenshrike]

7 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

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

I see a wealthy payout in his future.

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

I see a wealthy payout in his future.

Since apparently he actually wasn't HR but just an engineer, I think he provoked it for it even. It's a shame really because what was said wasn't entirely without merit but I do have to revise here: I definitively would call premeditation when once you get immediately fired the first outlet out of the gate rushing to publish the news of your demise is fucking Breitbart (didn't post that link because I wanted to independently confirm with at least another source...that's how much I trust them)

[Commodus]

3 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

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

I'd say it was warranted... not sure about timing.

 

It doesn't matter if you agree with most of his views -- saying that women are inherently ill-suited to programming is both false and creates a corrosive work environment.  If you were a woman at Google, would you ever want to work with him again?  Hell no.

 

I'm sure he'll be a "hero" at some alt-right site for a hot minute, but he may have just sabotaged his career in tech... well, unless he wants to write code for InfoWars.

[Misanthrope]

Just now, Commodus said:

I'd say it was warranted... not sure about timing.

 

It doesn't matter if you agree with most of his views -- saying that women are inherently ill-suited to programming is both false and creates a corrosive work environment.  If you were a woman at Google, would you ever want to work with him again?  Hell no.

 

I'm sure he'll be a "hero" at some alt-right site for a hot minute, but he may have just sabotaged his career in tech... well, unless he wants to write code for InfoWars.

Or as I said on the post above, Breitbart.

 

I wish there was a less ideologically poisoned point of reference to continue the discussion but I'd be intellectually dishonest of me not to acknowledge that you're probably right here about being warranted.

[Jito463]

3 minutes ago, Commodus said:

saying that women are inherently ill-suited to programming

I read most of the memo he posted, and I don't recall anywhere that he said women were "ill-suited" to programming, or any other job for that matter.  Care to point it out?

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

I read most of the memo he posted, and I don't recall anywhere that he said women were "ill-suited" to programming, or any other job for that matter.  Care to point it out?

I would but mind you: I do not think it was a direct accusation but heavily implied in the way he puts forward the points

 

Quote

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.

 

So the highlights here

 

1) The "on average" remark feels like it was added as a token deference instead of putting a stronger emphasis that this is statistical analysis with an average not being very representative at all of the wide spectrum of varying degrees of these traits

 

2) The information here might not be completely without merit but as I pointed in point 1) the traits of empathizing and systemizing are not mutually exclusive and individuals can exceed at both and present varying degrees of competence on each meaning that just because the average says women are more empathizing isn't reflective of all women and specially not of women who are already in a STEM field like Information Technology that statistically are much more likely to actually have strong systemizing skills than whatever the female average might be.

 

3) This is a non-sequitor: there's no definitive inherit link between the previously discussed traits and negotiating positions or leadership skills. If anything the average might be leaning more towards the empathizers being better at leadership and negotiation because of the interpersonal skills

 

4) Using a word like neuroticism is basically just stupid fucking ad hominem: "Women are more hysterical!" is a nonsense argument and there's no need to open up a point with that language when talking about anxiety and stress tolerance. 

[themctipers]

[Notional]

34 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

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

How very bigoted of Google. Isn't that ironic? The cult strikes again.

[Commodus]

Just now, Jito463 said:

I read most of the memo he posted, and I don't recall anywhere that he said women were "ill-suited" to programming, or any other job for that matter.  Care to point it out?

It's pretty much the entire "personality differences" section, but mainly this:

 

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.

 

In short: he makes a bunch of unsupported and generally sketchy claims about what men and women prefer, and bases a large part of his theory around that.  Well gee, women aren't really inclined to take up programming jobs, they're neurotic and not usually apt to lead or seek greater status, and that makes them incompatible with Google as it is now.  We could adjust Google to be more accommodating to them, but gosh, there might only be so far we can go to help, so tough luck if it doesn't work out, ladies!

 

Imagine if you're a woman software engineer who worked hard to get to a good position within Google, you're doing well... and here's this man saying that having the 'wrong' genitalia makes you a poor fit for not just the company, but programming as a whole.  What would your reaction be?  "Well, let's hear him out?"  Er, no.  You'd rightly tell him to go screw himself.

[AshleyAshes]

8 minutes ago, Notional said:

How very bigoted of Google. Isn't that ironic? The cult strikes again.

Here's a pro tip on being an adult and being employed: Don't write an email that gets your employer featured in international news media.

[FakeNSA]

12 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Imagine if you're a woman software engineer who worked hard to get to a good position within Google, you're doing well... and here's this man saying that having the 'wrong' genitalia makes you a poor fit for not just the company, but programming as a whole.  What would your reaction be?  "Well, let's hear him out?"  Er, no.  You'd rightly tell him to go screw himself.

Even though parts of this letter were poorly phrased and detracted from the overall message, I still feel there is a point here. Perhaps there are fewer women in the workplace, because there are fewer women in STEM college classes, so they make up a smaller portion of the hiring pool. I have empirical evidence to that point, but not nationwide statistics. I just feel that having to hit a %of hired for either race or gender defeats the purpose of capitalism, and simultaneously, the free market system in general. However, this is Google's choice as a corporation.

[Commodus]

Just now, Aelar_Nailo said:

Even though parts of this letter were poorly phrased and detracted from the overall message, I still feel there is a point here. Perhaps there are fewer women in the workplace, because there are fewer women in STEM college classes, so they make up a smaller portion of the hiring pool. I have empirical evidence to that point, but not nationwide statistics. I just feel that having to hit a %of hired for either race or gender defeats the purpose of capitalism, and simultaneously, the free market system in general. However, this is Google's choice as a corporation.

 

Well yes, there are fewer women in STEM classes, but they're still underrepresented... and Google is trying to increase the number of girls and women in STEM education programs, too, so it's not as if Google isn't aware of this issue.

 

I don't think there has to be an arbitrary percentage, but better representation can help with competition.  It creates a more heterogenous environment that accounts for different ideas (especially for social issues), reduces the chance of women and minorities being ostracized as the "exceptions" in a group, and generally creates a more welcoming environment.

[Misanthrope]

4 minutes ago, Aelar_Nailo said:

Even though parts of this letter were poorly phrased and detracted from the overall message, I still feel there is a point here. Perhaps there are fewer women in the workplace, because there are fewer women in STEM college classes, so they make up a smaller portion of the hiring pool. I have empirical evidence to that point, but not nationwide statistics. I just feel that having to hit a %of hired for either race or gender defeats the purpose of capitalism, and simultaneously, the free market system in general. However, this is Google's choice as a corporation.

I did post nationwide statistics from 2015 and do support this. But as I said you can make the point without sounding like a Kekistani youtube shitlord. 

[FakeNSA]

Just now, Commodus said:

 

Well yes, there are fewer women in STEM classes, but they're still underrepresented... and Google is trying to increase the number of girls and women in STEM education programs, too, so it's not as if Google isn't aware of this issue.

 

I don't think there has to be an arbitrary percentage, but better representation can help with competition.  It creates a more heterogenous environment that accounts for different ideas (especially for social issues), reduces the chance of women and minorities being ostracized as the "exceptions" in a group, and generally creates a more welcoming environment.

The fact that google recognizes the lack of women in the industry in general is heartening. As I said, if that is how they want to run their company, more power to them. But, my only concern is if they champion laws making this sort of thing the law. That really never works.

[FakeNSA]

Just now, Misanthrope said:

I did post nationwide statistics from 2015 and do support this. But as I said you can make the point without sounding like a Kekistani youtube shitlord. 

What is a Kekistani Youtube shitlord, and did I sound like one?

[Misanthrope]

6 minutes ago, Aelar_Nailo said:

What is a Kekistani Youtube shitlord, and did I sound like one?

2) No you didn't 

 

If you insist look up anti sjws or youtube Skeptic Community and have lots of patience for endless "Gotcha liberals!" type videos. Occasional reasonable points can be made but not since Trump started campaigning more heavily last year. 

[mr moose]

25 minutes ago, Aelar_Nailo said:

Even though parts of this letter were poorly phrased and detracted from the overall message, I still feel there is a point here. Perhaps there are fewer women in the workplace, because there are fewer women in STEM college classes, so they make up a smaller portion of the hiring pool. I have empirical evidence to that point, but not nationwide statistics. I just feel that having to hit a %of hired for either race or gender defeats the purpose of capitalism, and simultaneously, the free market system in general. However, this is Google's choice as a corporation.

 

The problem is, if he resort to erroneous and/or generalized accusations that are not supported by any factual evidence, then he is being dishonest and that only detracts from his cause.    Sounding like a bigot will not win him any votes and will only turn away those who he needs to listen the most.

 

 

Basically  if you have to misrepresent anything to make a point, then your point is either not able to stand on its own merits or your motives for making it are disingenuous.

[Memories4K]

1 hour ago, Commodus said:

I'd say it was warranted... not sure about timing.

 

It doesn't matter if you agree with most of his views -- saying that women are inherently ill-suited to programming is both false and creates a corrosive work environment.  If you were a woman at Google, would you ever want to work with him again?  Hell no.

Respond to my previous posts and point to where he said women are inherently inferior to men in programming; i want you to point to the context of the memo and show me where he said just that because i have yet to read that.

[Misanthrope]

Apparently this guy has a major in Biology. Given my experience with Evolutionary psychologists and how often they become Libertarian nutcases devoid of any empathy or compassion it looks increasingly bad for the points he tried to make. 

[Memories4K]

58 minutes ago, Commodus said:

It's pretty much the entire "personality differences" section, but mainly this:

 

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.

 

In short: he makes a bunch of unsupported and generally sketchy claims about what men and women prefer, and bases a large part of his theory around that.  Well gee, women aren't really inclined to take up programming jobs, they're neurotic and not usually apt to lead or seek greater status, and that makes them incompatible with Google as it is now.  We could adjust Google to be more accommodating to them, but gosh, there might only be so far we can go to help, so tough luck if it doesn't work out, ladies!

It's not sketchy and unsupported, neuroticism is a personality trait that women do in fact have a higher value of, men have higher levels of conscientiousness; it's part of the big five and would explain many of the behavioral differences between men and women. If you look more into FFM then you'd find that the guy is not saying anything that's false or fallacious here.

Women are far more often more agreeable than men, so yes, they will not seek greater status via salary negotiation as much as men will. He's not saying it makes them incompatible with Google either, he's simply stating how much more likely you'll find less qualified candidates for a job by restricting the hiring pool based on factors that are unrelated to the work. For instance, if i wanted to only hire those who watched Click (2006) in theaters when it came out for my import/export business. How many good fucking import/exporters am i likely going to find now that i've added some baseless requirement that restricts the number of good import/exporters i could have been interviewing without it?
Also, what's this bullshit about accommodating women? How lowly do you think of women that you feel they're not as capable as men given the exact same resources when it comes to working at Google?
 

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, Memories4K said:

It's not sketchy and unsupported, neuroticism is a personality trait that women do in fact have a higher value of, men have higher levels of conscientiousness; it's part of the big five and would explain many of the behavioral differences between men and women. If you look more into FFM then you'd find that the guy is not saying anything that's false or fallacious here.

Women are far more often more agreeable than men, so yes, they will not seek greater status via salary negotiation as much as men will. He's not saying it makes them incompatible with Google either, he's simply stating how much more likely you'll find less qualified candidates for a job by restricting the hiring pool based on factors that are unrelated to the work. For instance, if i wanted to only hire those who watched Click (2006) in theaters when it came out for my import/export business. How many good fucking import/exporters am i likely going to find now that i've added some baseless requirement that restricts the number of good import/exporters i could have been interviewing without it?
Also, what's this bullshit about accommodating women? How lowly do you think of women that you feel they're not as capable as men given the exact same resources when it comes to working at Google?
 

Umm...well this is uncomfortable: Even the original memo author remembered to mentioned this are averages but you sound even less inclined to make that concession and sound even more like you're using stereotypes to describe what's really a spectrum of behavior.

[Memories4K]

Just now, Misanthrope said:

Umm...well this is uncomfortable: Even the original memo author remembered to mentioned this are averages but you sound even less inclined to make that concession and sound even more like you're using stereotypes to describe what's really a spectrum of behavior.

They are averages, i'm not disagreeing with that so there's no concession that needs to be made; that is what it should be when talking about behavioral patterns.
That's why we use FFM, we also use IQ as indicators for success.
Men and women have disproportionately consistent different behavioral patterns that relate to this.
I'm not exactly breaking ground here, we've known this for quite a while now.
If you want to learn more take some time to delve into it and you might find that you'll learn a lot about yourself.

[Brooksie359]

5 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Umm...well this is uncomfortable: Even the original memo author remembered to mentioned this are averages but you sound even less inclined to make that concession and sound even more like you're using stereotypes to describe what's really a spectrum of behavior.

I think the main point of the memo was trying to say there is a reason why you don't see as many women in the stem feild and he was saying those general differences are why you see this. This would make it hard to try and actively seeking out female candidates rather than just taking the best candidate that applies. Now I'm not sure what hiring practices take place in Google but based on what someone else put up earlier 20% female seems pretty not discriminatory in either direction as that is about the percentage of women in that feild. 

[Misanthrope]

3 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

I think the main point of the memo was trying to say there is a reason why you don't see as many women in the stem feild and he was saying those general differences are why you see this. This would make it hard to try and actively seeking out female candidates rather than just taking the best candidate that applies. Now I'm not sure what hiring practices take place in Google but based on what someone else put up earlier 20% female seems pretty not discriminatory in either direction as that is about the percentage of women in that feild. 

On that front I agree: I understood the overall point of the memo and I'm even inclined to somewhat agree with it. The issue I keep coming up against is mostly on the tone and the way the author conducts himself:

 

1) He probably "leaked" this memo out himself and I say this because outlets (if you dignify them as far) like Breitbard are already having a certifiable fucking field day with multiple articles on this. At a rate that possibly implies they already knew what was coming, how Google would react (again predictable, more on that on the other points) and the fact that they were the very first out of the gate when the news broke that he was fired.

 

2) The tone and lack of clarification on the fact that this are statistics and presenting them as basically stereotypes

 

3) The fact that this positions him for a fairly large payout and possibly even a lawsuit and probably even more opportunities due to the notoriety this incident is gathering among the conservatives

 

If you add all of this together I think it's a safe assumption to say that regardless of the valid points behind it the way this are presented are needlessly confrontational in anticipation to creating a large political upheaval. He was probably never really interested in making a decent argument against affirmative hiring but was more motivated by the fairly apparent right wing political agenda that seems to be motivating all of the actions as more things keep piling up here.