Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber [UPDATE] Author Fired

[Trik'Stari]

1 hour ago, Teddy07 said:

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.

If you believe the leftists, those women are somehow being sexist against themselves. It cannot be that they simply have no desire to work in those fields

 

At this point, racism, misogyny, bigotry, etc, are all the "communism" of the 1950's red scare. It has nothing to do with those things happening, it has everything to do with creating a good reason to persecute people whom have the audacity to have a different opinion or speak out against the leftist agenda.

 

(not that those things don't happen, they do, but the left acts as though Hitler's SS is marching around in the streets)

 

And it's hilarious because this behavior is exactly why Trump is in office (also Hillary being a horrible candidate all around), and why there actually is a resurgence in white identitarian movements. Turns out if you take a person, and spend the early years of their life vilifying them based on the color of their skin, they become that thing because "well, what do I have to lose?". I seem to recall a political movement in the past who realized this and took steps to stop it from happening. Then they became the very thing they supposedly hate.

[MrDynamicMan]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

 

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. 

I doubt it. A very well paying company requirung very high skilled workers can afford the creme of the crop, they would be punching far below their whieght to hire form the first standard. 

Edit: I'm spitballing here but Google probably has close to the top of employee:revenue ratio in the world. 

[Trik'Stari]

Just now, MrDynamicMan said:

I doubt it. A very well paying company requirung very high skilled workers can afford the creme of the crop, they would be punching far below their whieght to hire form the first standard. 

Worth pointing out that if a company could get away with saving money by only hiring women, they would.

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, MrDynamicMan said:

I doubt it. A very well paying company requirung very high skilled workers can afford the creme of the crop, they would be punching far below their whieght to hire form the first standard. 

Edit: I'm spitballing here but Google probably has close to the top of employee:revenue ratio in the world. 

 

Given only 15% of the population has an IQ above 115, they won't have too many choices if they do decide to limit themselves.  On top of that the intersect where men and woman meet is about 115, so even if google had 50%from the 2nd standard and 50 from the 1st, the average IQ between the sexes would be the same.

 

 

Anyway, it's important not to get too hung up on IQ becasue the average IQ of a computer science graduate is something around 110 and the average IQ of the managers pushing for affirmative action hire is somewhere closer to 120.  Long story short is you can pay really smart people lots of money to do dumb things.

[Grinners]

Factual statement: Men have larger brains than Women on average. 

 

With that, surely this 7 page thread has gone beyond Tech News and should be locked

[mr moose]

Just now, Kumaresh said:

Sociology sucks We have some studied which try and quantify things which are incredibly difficult to quantify, and then there are people who try and meaninglessly interpret the data to only fit their viewpoint.

Hi @MrDynamicMan, Nice to see you

The problem with sociology is that it requires someone with both a scientific and a philosophical intelligence.    Just like you get morons that completely balls up hard science (which is hard evidential facts) sometimes you get wishy washy sociologists who misrepresent the research.

 

Of course the other problem with sociology is that when they do discover trends, some people don't like what data seems to suggest as so go out of their way to discredit it.

 

 

[dexT]

Here's for the moaf's that can't post Breitbart due to their beliefs

 

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/07/sjws-furious-as-internal-google-manifesto-slams-company-for-political-intolerance/amp/

 

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/07/sjw-backlash-against-google-staffer-i-would-beat-the-sht-out-of-him/amp/

 

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/07/free-speech-friendly-gab-ai-extends-job-offer-google-manifesto-author/amp/

 

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/07/the-google-rebels-diversity-first-technology-second/amp/

 

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/07/revealed-inside-googles-sjw-cabal-blacklists/amp/

 

https://www.google.com/amp/www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/07/google-fires-viewpoint-diversity-manifesto-author-james-damore/amp/

 

[mr moose]

19 minutes ago, dexT said:

Here's for the moaf's that can't post Breitbart due to their beliefs

 

I have never heard of that site before, so I clicked a link.  I think you really meant to say:  won't post it due to having common sense.

 

I am fairly right wing in my political persuasion but what I have seen of that is it's just as bad as alan jones and his ilk.  Good people don't need trash to tell them what's what.

 

 

[laminutederire]

9 hours ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

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. 

Your parents haven't taught you respect though. You talk to me like I'm a failure but you don't know either me or my situation. I was just pointing out differences in situations between students in the opportunities people get. Stop taking it so personal, which leads you to use your particular case as a rule.

[AnonymousGuy]

1 hour ago, Trik'Stari said:

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.

Diversity Officer: You're just confused, we're only hiring the most qualified candidates.  They just happen to also have the correct skin color and reproductive bits.

 

Random white male engineer: But how are you hiring the most qualified candidate if you're only interviewing minorities and women for this job?

 

Diversity Officer: Are you saying that women and minorities can't be the most qualified candidate?

 

 

This is how actual conversations go.  Everyone has pretty much given up trying to reason with the folks pushing diversity initiatives.  It always reduces to them indirectly calling you a racist/bigot/sexist/whatever and their logic must be infallible because their cause is noble.  It's both amusing and frustrating at the same time: like playing a game on some insane difficulty level.

[laminutederire]

1 hour ago, MrDynamicMan said:

I doubt it. A very well paying company requirung very high skilled workers can afford the creme of the crop, they would be punching far below their whieght to hire form the first standard. 

Edit: I'm spitballing here but Google probably has close to the top of employee:revenue ratio in the world. 

The most skilled are more likely to don't care a bit about money, but more about what they're working on, which is why a lot of them remain in the academic world where they get paid much less.

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, AnonymousGuy said:

Diversity Officer: You're just confused, we're only hiring the most qualified candidates.  They just happen to also have the correct skin color and reproductive bits.

 

Random white male engineer: But how are you hiring the most qualified candidate if you're only interviewing minorities and women for this job?

 

Diversity Officer: Are you saying that women and minorities can't be the most qualified candidate?

 

 

This is how actual conversations go.  Everyone has pretty much given up trying to reason with the folks pushing diversity initiatives.  It always reduces to them indirectly calling you a racist/bigot/sexist/whatever and their logic must be infallible because their cause is noble.  It's both amusing and frustrating at the same time: like playing a game on some insane difficulty level.

 

Oh you don't know how scary and true that can be.    I was once explicitly told not to offer a pregnant employee any help or reduce her load because it was discrimination and could lead to a claim of harassment.    On what fucking planet is offering someone an easier deal harassment?

[JuNex03]

24 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

Oh you don't know how scary and true that can be.    I was once explicitly told not to offer a pregnant employee any help or reduce her load because it was discrimination and could lead to a claim of harassment.    On what fucking planet is offering someone an easier deal harassment?

Lol speaking of pregnant women, do you know that telling them not to get drunk during pregnancy is sexist? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/17/telling-women-not-drink-pregnancy-sexist/

 

On topic - Yes this is why being too PC is seen as cancerous to society. It's like holding the door to a woman is sexist but if you dont you are a fking sexist. You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2988310/How-smile-reveals-man-s-SEXIST-Beliefs-women-betrayed-facial-expressions-claims-study.html

 

There's this shit called "Digital Blackface", like wtf using a meme now means you're racist and appropriating other cultures?

 

http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/03/using-a-black-gif-is-now-digital-blackface-according-to-teen-vogue/

 

SJW: There are not enough POC's portrayed in media

Alright then lets use black people in media

SJW: You are appropriating POC's culture

 

[Notional]

3 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

At this point, racism, misogyny, bigotry, etc, are all the "communism" of the 1950's red scare. It has nothing to do with those things happening, it has everything to do with creating a good reason to persecute people whom have the audacity to have a different opinion or speak out against the leftist agenda.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism is the term you are looking for. Exactly why I call it a cult. You either buy into everything in the ideology or you get ostracized (or fired in this case). Just look at Lacy Green. Very pro feminism (and sex positive), but when she dared to look at anything from a different point of view than the established cult narrative; well she got ostracized from the youtube community instantly.

 

This is a war of ideologies camouflaged as pro human rights, so it sounds right. But that is not the case. The best way to describe these cultists behaviour is projecting. Everything they accuse you of, they are usually guilty of themselves.

[JuNex03]

13 minutes ago, Notional said:

-snip-

They first tried talking, then shaming, then making her boyfriend (still not sure if legit at that time) CRG look bad before blocking.  Kinda reminds me of that time they contacted Sargon's wife and tried to force her to leave him because his opinions hurt people and they were soooo convinced he is a misogynist. So not only that they doxxed him, they also tried to make his wife leave him.

[Misanthrope]

5 hours ago, Kumaresh said:

I am wondering why others don't see the link between averages and individual cases. If there are two groups A and B and the group A in general tends to display a certain characteristic more, then randomly picking an individual from both groups would mean that the person from group A would have a higher probability of displaying that particular characteristic. Certain preferences would also come under the purview of this idea. While we could argue as to why such preferences exist in the first place, that problem seems to be a never ending loop of further simplification until a desirable casual relation is obtained. Seeing the abominable levels of understanding many people have of statistics, probability or even maths in general truly saddens me

I touched on that and is actually explainable:

 

1) If you have an average is just an indicator but the values exist along a spectrum i.e. 5 is the average of the sets (1,9) (5,5) (1,3,10,6) So an average on any kind of significant distribution is not gonna be a binary or 1 and 9 or 5 and 5

 

2) This is important because once you take one individual out of the group in which he was already and outlier to the group by say more than 2 standard deviations from the medium, then you're looking at an exceptional individual not comparable to the average of that group yet once dropped into a new context you might appear to be normal (for example, in my own country I am noticeable tall at 3.1 standard deviations from the average but if I travel to the Netherlands and compare my height I am just 1.2 standard deviations from the norm so almost normalized within the new context) 

 

3) If you consider than given the data I showed between 18 and 20% of females graduating from college select a Computer Engineering degree (for the purposes of this discussion since I know it's not accurate since it excludes IT related field that are more administrative in nature but still very important) that means that almost all of the women already working at Google are a far cry from the averages already and are thus incredibly more likely to be close to the men in numbers related to this conversation.

 

This point wasn't made sufficiently clear (and honestly is poorly understood by people on both sides of this discussion imho) that if you consider that he is talking to an audience of women that are basically already cherry picked from that 18% that have interest and a skill set in software engineering then your "scientific data" and "averages" are mostly not gonna apply to the women that already made it both through the average and the vetting process of the company and actually are likely to be assertive and interested in leadership and growth within the company, systemizing, etc. All of the traits the author mentions women on average do not display, women already in Google by being several standard deviations from the norm are likely to DO display.

 

This is why I criticize the tone because while it might be possible the author realized this to me is not immediately apparent in his writing and does something akin to what you're doing here assuming "well this are averages, women are more likely to behave like this and have this preferences" when actually no, women already working at Google and possibly looking at internal promotions are again, on average, likely a far cry from those characteristics.

[Ithanul]

14 hours ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

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.

Probably a reason for the huge differences.  Though, the mentality in maintenance is extremely different from IT or med units for sure (attitudes are more bullish and assertive in maintenance).  I still shake my head at the complaints I hear in IT compare to what I dealt with in maintenance.

 

13 hours ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

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.

 

I wonder at times where the whole intimidating girls from these fields or education came from.  I been out of a high school for near ten years now, but I never recall teachers putting me down for being female.  Heck, I just finish my first degree in college.  The amount of women was nuts compare to the men.   Though I do note that most of the women where going for finance, medical, teachers, or human relations degrees.  In my CS classes there was like only two females in the whole class compare to men (especially the programming and networking classes).

[MadyTehWolfie]

25 minutes ago, Ithanul said:

Probably a reason for the huge differences.  Though, the mentality in maintenance is extremely different from IT or med units for sure (attitudes are more bullish and assertive in maintenance).  I still shake my head at the complaints I hear in IT compare to what I dealt with in maintenance.

 

I wonder at times where the whole intimidating girls from these fields or education came from.  I been out of a high school for near ten years now, but I never recall teachers putting me down for being female.  Heck, I just finish my first degree in college.  The amount of women was nuts compare to the men.   Though I do note that most of the women where going for finance, medical, teachers, or human relations degrees.  In my CS classes there was like only two females in the whole class compare to men (especially the programming and networking classes).

Cause men and women are different and most are not interested in computers or other male typical activities.

[Qub3d]

Hacker News is going insane right now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14952787

 

 

Clearly this manifesto/paper/rant has touched a nerve in the tech industry. I'm wondering if it is the underlying frustrations people have with diversity programs / affirmative action have surfaced, or if this is just the ugly head of sexism rearing its head in a more overt fashion.

 

To be honest, I'm not sure which is true for myself either. That's worrying.

[dexT]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

I have never heard of that site before, so I clicked a link.  I think you really meant to say:  won't post it due to having common sense.

 

I am fairly right wing in my political persuasion but what I have seen of that is it's just as bad as alan jones and his ilk.  Good people don't need trash to tell them what's what.

 

 

Maybe in Melbourne you're "fairly right wing" but from the exchanges I've had with you it seems to be the polar opposite.

[YedZed]

Good move Google, silencing dissent is one of those company values a major leader of the free internet needs to have.

Gawd, why the f----

[matrix07012]

 

[Notional]

Here's what 4 scientists have to say about it:

https://archive.is/VlNfl#selection-1275.0-1275.11 (main site is down, so I use an archive link, org link: http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/).

 

It's interesting that a woman actually in STEM, is not offended, but agree. Imagine that.

Quote

As a woman who’s worked in academia and within STEM, I didn’t find the memo offensive or sexist in the least. I found it to be a well thought out document, asking for greater tolerance for differences in opinion, and treating people as individuals instead of based on group membership.

 

 

[YedZed]

It's very sad that in this social climate, companies can't say, "We do not endorse nor agree with this employees views, but we will let him have his own opinions." That said I don't know the exact context of the distribution of this memo.

[TacoSenpai]

Bottom Line:  Forced diversity is never a good thing for anyone involved. It creates discrimination even though it claims to be fighting against it and creates environments where being born a certain skin color/gender becomes the determinant factor in status/employment rather than ability (gee I wonder where I've seen that before?). 

 

Also not shocked that Google fired someone who wasn't rank in file with their ideology.  I mean even if you don't agree with the guy I can't find anything outright offending, racist, sexist, *insert ist or phobic thing here*.   Then again its also 2017 going on where doing anything is offensive to the point writing the word the would probably get you a harassment complaint.