Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber [UPDATE] Author Fired

[PineyCreek]

Well...either way, apparently the engineer was fired, which does scream company CYA.  Also opens up several other potential scenarios if in fact this memo was sent to the appropriate people internally at Google with the promise of it being a safe environment to voice opinions, no matter how far out there.

[FakeNSA]

59 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

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.

Exactly. I disagree with him, while agreeing with one of his points. I feel google was within their rights as an employer in firing him.

[Jito463]

2 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

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

 

 

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.

2 hours 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!

 

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.

Except that he's not wrong.  On average, women in general do exhibit these tendencies.  He wasn't talking specifically about women in the STEM field, he was talking about all women, and the reason why there are fewer women in that field than men.  At no point did he discourage women from working in the STEM field, nor did he express any disdain towards the women who already do.  He was explaining why the attempt to force diversity is bad for Google, and he's right.  The SJW brigade just blew this completely out of proportion.

 

Hiring solely based on gender is as misguided as affirmative action.  It's just discrimination of another sort.  People should be hired based on their merits, not their genitalia or skin color.

 

Oh, I forgot, Commodus thinks I have "white male privilege" and thus I have no room to make that argument (no matter how correct it is).

1 hour ago, Aelar_Nailo said:

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.

36 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. 

Exactly this.

[ravenshrike]

44 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

 

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.

Gizmodo was the first outlet to get the full text of the memo.

[Commodus]

1 hour ago, Memories4K said:

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?

It's the manifesto author who suggested that Google try to accommodate women by changing programming team structures.  Read the "non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap" section.

 

You just owned yourself.

[Misanthrope]

4 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

Gizmodo was the first outlet to get the full text of the memo.

Meant the dismissal news, but fair enough I wasn't very clear on that.

[matrix07012]

3 hours 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

On it.

#Pray4Damore

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Hiring solely based on gender is as misguided as affirmative action.  It's just discrimination of another sort.  People should be hired based on their merits, not their genitalia or skin color.

 

 

I am pretty sure most people agree with that,  I think we all feel that affirmative action hire is flawed.  The problem is his comments and generalizations regarding the effect of personality traits are not supported in any research. Much research that points to a difference between men and woman also state that there are larger variations within each gender than across genders and that gender differences are subject to cultural change.

 

http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2001-01642-012

http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1995-09434-001

http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2007-19165-013

 

Attempting to extrapolate that individuals are somehow effected by traits that can only be observed in large generalizations is disingenuous. 

[Commodus]

13 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Except that he's not wrong.  On average, women in general do exhibit these tendencies.  He wasn't talking specifically about women in the STEM field, he was talking about all women, and the reason why there are fewer women in that field than men.  At no point did he discourage women from working in the STEM field, nor did he express any disdain towards the women who already do.  He was explaining why the attempt to force diversity is bad for Google, and he's right.  The SJW brigade just blew this completely out of proportion.

 

Hiring solely based on gender is as misguided as affirmative action.  It's just discrimination of another sort.  People should be hired based on their merits, not their genitalia or skin color.

 

Oh, I forgot, Commodus thinks I have "white male privilege" and thus I have no room to make that argument (no matter how correct it is).

Documented evidence.  Now.  No excuses, no exceptions.  I refuse to buy into someone brandishing stereotypes of women as neurotic, timid and non-technical just because they say so.  I know plenty of women who don't fit into that mold.

 

And of course, you're operating on the bullshit theory that Google and other companies are hiring "solely based on gender," which they're not.

[Jito463]

4 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Documented evidence.  Now.  No excuses, no exceptions.

Where was your "documented evidence" of "privileged white male"?  You show me yours, I'll show you mine.

[Memories4K]

1 minute ago, Commodus said:

It's the manifesto author who suggested that Google try to accommodate women by changing programming team structures.  Read the "non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap" section.

 

You just owned yourself.

Is that what you meant by this?

Quote

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!

There's two ways i can interpret this, both of which are obviously meant to mock him: Either
A. You're pointing fun at the fact he only believes that women need help in the way he described will be enough to fix the "problem" of a disproportionate amount of men working in IT.
or
B. You're pointing fun of the fact he believes women need help at all.
Given your previous racist/sexist statements, i was more inclined to believe the former.
If i did misinterpret it, i do apologize though.

[Memories4K]

27 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Documented evidence.  Now.  No excuses, no exceptions.  I refuse to buy into someone brandishing stereotypes of women as neurotic, timid and non-technical just because they say so.  I know plenty of women who don't fit into that mold.

 

And of course, you're operating on the bullshit theory that Google and other companies are hiring "solely based on gender," which they're not.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/

Guy, this really isn't anything new; i don't say that to insult you but to comfort you in that this isn't some psycho alt-right nazi speak of whatever. This is actual psychology. Modern trait theory/psychometrics. I'm not sure what you were taught growing up or if you just so happened to never intuitively notice the relationship between behavior and sex but it's not about exceptions like myself and those women you know who don't "fit the mold". This isn't about stereotypes, NOBODY is saying that all men/women act like this and have these traits to the exact same levels.

Also, nobody is saying that they're only EXCLUSIVELY hiring based on gender; there's controversy because it's a FACTOR.

[Memories4K]

23 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

I am pretty sure most people agree with that,  I think we all feel that affirmative action hire is flawed.  The problem is his comments and generalizations regarding the effect of personality traits are not supported in any research. Much research that points to a difference between men and woman also state that there are larger variations within each gender than across genders and that gender differences are subject to cultural change.

 

http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2001-01642-012

http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1995-09434-001

http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2007-19165-013

 

Attempting to extrapolate that individuals are somehow effected by traits that can only be observed in large generalizations is disingenuous. 

Could you give me sources that aren't behind a paywall before you link them to reaffirm your viewpoint?
Unless you bought the PDF, then if you could share that'd be quite dandy. Otherwise, i got a source for you that's not behind a paywall. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/

Now i'm not knocking you; you probably paid for those PDFs and expect the 20+ other something people in this thread to pay for them too just to actually read them but i ain't with it.

[mr moose]

41 minutes ago, Memories4K said:

Could you give me sources that aren't behind a paywall before you link them to reaffirm your viewpoint?
Unless you bought the PDF, then if you could share that'd be quite dandy. Otherwise, i got a source for you that's not behind a paywall. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/

Now i'm not knocking you; you probably paid for those PDFs and expect the 20+ other something people in this thread to pay for them too just to actually read them but i ain't with it.

Do you realise the article you linked supports the ones I linked and my position?  I am not sure if you are  disagreeing or if you just want me to hand out copyright information on the net.  Sometimes if you search the doi you will find an open copy or other articles that cite it.

[Memories4K]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Do you realise the article you linked supports the ones I linked and my position?  I am not sure if you are  disagreeing or if you just want me to hand out copyright information on the net.  Sometimes if you search the doi you will find an open copy or other articles that cite it.

No, i'm not disagreeing i just mean for future reference. Not that you have to care, you're totally free to disregard me but you might find you get a more positive reaction by providing sources that are not behind a paywall for others online when trying to articulate your viewpoint hahaha

[Grinners]

If this was just an internal email, and Google can't prove that he leaked it, i see a big payout coming his way for unfair dismissal. 

[Memories4K]

3 minutes ago, Grinners said:

If this was just an internal email, and Google can't prove that he leaked it, i see a big payout coming his way for unfair dismissal. 

Why would he get a payout?
Is Google not within their rights to fire him anyway for going against company policy?
Or do you see this being handled as a discrimination case?

[Grinners]

8 minutes ago, Memories4K said:

Why would he get a payout?
Is Google not within their rights to fire him anyway for going against company policy?
Or do you see this being handled as a discrimination case?

I'd be interested to see the exact policy he is breaching. 

I'm not familiar with US unfair dismissal laws but here in Australia no chance could you fire someone for this. 

 

http://www.mondaq.com/australia/x/349798/Unfair+Wrongful+Dismissal/Three+surprising+unfair+dismissal+cases

 

The above article sites a case where someone was fired for sending emails offensive to Muslims and getting fired then receiving a payout for unfair dismissal. 

 

Another finding; "that objectively inappropriate and offensive communications by an employee in the workplace may, depending on the circumstances, constitute a valid reason for dismissal.”
Anderson v Thiess Pty Ltd (2015) FWCFB 478 

 

I'm not sure this would clarify as objectively offensive, rather than subjectively. 

 

Only time will tell i guess but I'd be going straight to a lawyer if i were him (that may have even been his plan from the start).

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Memories4K said:

No, i'm not disagreeing i just mean for future reference. Not that you have to care, you're totally free to disregard me but you might find you get a more positive reaction by providing sources that are not behind a paywall for others online when trying to articulate your viewpoint hahaha

The only way to get a positive reaction online is to agree with someone.

[Teddy07]

It is plainly obvious to everyone involved in applied science in a university program (engineer, math, computer science...) that all those programs for women just failed. I'm in my first semester of computer science and we have ~73% men in my semester.

 

We had a few activities for women to check out computer science at the university but you know what? Only a very small number of women came to the point that the effort is not really worth it.

[mr moose]

16 minutes ago, Kumaresh said:

I am wondering why others don't see the link between averages and individual cases.

 

depends on what you mean by this. I don't think anyone in this thread has denied that the entry numbers into occupations in STEM aren't reflective of entry numbers into STEM courses.   But the other discussion going on here is about the relevance of the generalizations this gentleman has made regarding character traits between men and woman.  

[MrDynamicMan]

On 07/08/2017 at 1:39 AM, mr moose said:

 

You are going to have to present me with some pretty serious (and supported) research before you expect me to accept that there is a physiological difference big enough to  warrant a noticeable imbalance between men and woman employed within an academic corporation.

 

Arguable at absolute best there is a 3-4 point difference in IQ specifically relating to math, language and reasoning in favor of men, but that g (general intelligence) is not different and not the cause.  If you make all other aspects equal then you should see less than 3% bias in gender employment.  There are no other gender specific differences.

 

 

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289605000851?via%3Dihub

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289605000887?via%3Dihub

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1348/000712605X53542/abstract;jsessionid=C6D7A4E80B7C2B25F2C734025D4B28E5.f03t01

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188690300480X?via%3Dihub

 

Don't want to read all the studies, here's the conclusion:

 

Yes there's is a difference, but it's nowhere near big enough to make a lick of difference.

 

What about at the ends of the bell curve? You've stated averages but what's the dimorphism, say, at the top 10-15% of mathematical/spatial intelligence, the demographic most likely to be hired by Google. 

[MrDynamicMan]

6 hours 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.

Well, it's not false, it's simply explaining existing phenomenon. You're already moralizing his position, and I don't belirve it creates any more internal tension than diversity quotas. Also, If I was a women I wouldn't really give a damn, he's not saying women can't be engineers, he's explaining the evolutionary psychology why men have a higher predisposition to the field. 

Quote

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.

This is in no way an Alt right viewpoint. From his use of language I'd say he's a center liberal. Having been someone who has had conversations with many members of the Alt right their narrative would something like this: on average (minority) performs worse at (task) therefore (minority) should be completely barred from (task/social group). 

Also, it's rather petty to try and off a viewpoint as alt-right, and if this guy goes public with his identity I suspect he'll do well in the "skeptic" circles.

 

@Kumaresh nice to see you bud. 

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, MrDynamicMan said:

What about at the ends of the bell curve? You've stated averages but what's the dimorphism, say, at the top 10-15% of mathematical/spatial intelligence, the demographic most likely to be hired by Google. 

 

There are more men in the top 2% and the bottom 2% than woman.   However in reality I would hazard a guess that most of googles employment (engineering, management etc) would be in the 1st standard deviation where the intelligence is actually higher for woman. 

[Trik'Stari]

Hiring someone because of the color of their skin or the bits between their legs, is no different than firing someone because of the color of their skin or the bits between their legs.

 

The only fair way to do things is merit. Those who work the hardest and have the best qualifications get hired, nothing more, nothing less. Sadly there are far too many instances of people getting hired because they knew someone, or because "we already have too many of X (white males) so we have to hire Y (woman, brown person, etc)."

 

The simple fact that google and other companies have "diversity officers/offices" seems to me to be very, VERY similar to how USSR military units had "political officers", which were usually there to make sure no one in the military asked the "wrong questions" or expressed doubts about "socialism".