5 ms·

I read the memo and didn't find it particularly persuasive; but this dismissal does further its core point. It's a bit tone deaf of Google to fire an employee c

I read the memo and didn't find it particularly persuasive; but this dismissal does further its core point. It's a bit tone deaf of Google to fire an employee concerned about groupthink.

majos 9y ago
On a related note, what does "internal memo" mean here? Did he forward this to a few coworkers who spread it or cc the whole company or what?
- refulgentis 9y ago
  Stories say it was intentionally spread in large public forums.
- iainmerrick 9y ago
  Posted on Google's private Google+ instance (which is very active). Pretty much like sharing it on an internal mailing list, or on Slack. Seems like it must have gotten a few reshares to go viral enough for somebody to feel the need to leak it. I don't think we really know how widely it was read before it leaked though -- it might have been a big raging controversy inside Google, or it might not.
groupthinkqmark 9y ago
This is not a workable argument against firing someone. If it were, all you'd have to do is say, "We have too much group-think here," followed by any egregiously awful statement, and you'd be insulated from consequences. That's just not how these things work. I think any good argument against firing him has to hinge on the truth of what he said besides the group-think claims. Regrettably for him, I don't think there's much to most of it.
- agentdrtran 9y ago
  "the groupthink is terrible here! I can't say I want women to be thrown into a trash compactor without everyone getting mad!"
  - the_cyber_pass 9y ago
    Link me the part where he said anything like that.
  - sctb 9y ago
    This is the kind of comment that doesn't bar the bar for substantiveness here. Please stop.
- throw_away_777 9y ago
  The truth of what he said has nothing to do with why he was fired. He was fired for not being politically correct and offending people, not because his arguments were right or wrong. People are usually most outraged by statements which are true or close to true but which they do not want to believe.
  - santoshalper 9y ago
    No, we're mostly offended by ideas that are false and actively harm people - like the entirely unproven notion that women suffer from biological weaknesses that make them less likely to be qualified as engineers.
    - lardo 9y ago
      differences
      - themacguffinman 9y ago
        Differences that cause someone to be less qualified are called "weaknesses".
    - mirko22 9y ago
      But that is only because you did not study psychology in which case you would know that most things in that manifesto are scientifically proven and what he said does makes sense for women AS A GROUP not individually... :/
    - microcolonel 9y ago
      > No, we're mostly offended by ideas that are false and actively harm people - like the entirely unproven notion that women suffer from biological weaknesses that make them less likely to be qualified as engineers. All good, except he did not make that argument or anything similar to it. He did not state that women inherently suffer from biological weaknesses of any sort. And no, his ideas did not harm anyone (except perhaps indirectly himself). Literally nobody got hurt except him, he is the sole victim of the ordeal. I hope that you have read the document in its original form, which is a PDF with some (admittedly weak) references. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...
- solidsnack9000 9y ago
  > ...any good argument against firing him has to hinge on the truth of what he said besides the group-think claims. It's hard to see a fair and general principle underlying this. People who publish false or mistaken things internally should be fired?
- dijit 9y ago
  Except the fact that people who study the field tend to agree with him on most things: http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/ http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-...
refulgentis 9y ago
You can't express vast generalizations that are stereotypes and expect the rest of us to feel comfortable working with you.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- bloaf 9y ago
  http://www.spsp.org/blog/stereotype-accuracy-response http://www.spsp.org/blog/stereotype-accuracy-response > Stereotype accuracy is one of the largest and most replicable effects in all of social psychology. Richard et al (2003) found that fewer than 5% of all effects in social psychology exceeded r’s of .50. In contrast, nearly all consensual stereotype accuracy correlations and about half of all personal stereotype accuracy correlations exceed .50.
- gdix 9y ago
  You can if the subject of the stereo-type is a "white dude-bro" or whatever.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

I read the memo and didn't find it particularly persuasive; but this dismissal does further its core point. It's a bit tone deaf of Google to fire an employee concerned about groupthink.

majos 9y ago

On a related note, what does "internal memo" mean here? Did he forward this to a few coworkers who spread it or cc the whole company or what?

refulgentis 9y ago
Stories say it was intentionally spread in large public forums.
iainmerrick 9y ago
Posted on Google's private Google+ instance (which is very active). Pretty much like sharing it on an internal mailing list, or on Slack. Seems like it must have gotten a few reshares to go viral enough for somebody to feel the need to leak it. I don't think we really know how widely it was read before it leaked though -- it might have been a big raging controversy inside Google, or it might not.

groupthinkqmark 9y ago

This is not a workable argument against firing someone. If it were, all you'd have to do is say, "We have too much group-think here," followed by any egregiously awful statement, and you'd be insulated from consequences. That's just not how these things work. I think any good argument against firing him has to hinge on the truth of what he said besides the group-think claims. Regrettably for him, I don't think there's much to most of it.

agentdrtran 9y ago
"the groupthink is terrible here! I can't say I want women to be thrown into a trash compactor without everyone getting mad!"
- the_cyber_pass 9y ago
  Link me the part where he said anything like that.
- sctb 9y ago
  This is the kind of comment that doesn't bar the bar for substantiveness here. Please stop.
throw_away_777 9y ago
The truth of what he said has nothing to do with why he was fired. He was fired for not being politically correct and offending people, not because his arguments were right or wrong. People are usually most outraged by statements which are true or close to true but which they do not want to believe.
- santoshalper 9y ago
  No, we're mostly offended by ideas that are false and actively harm people - like the entirely unproven notion that women suffer from biological weaknesses that make them less likely to be qualified as engineers.
  - lardo 9y ago
    differences
    - themacguffinman 9y ago
      Differences that cause someone to be less qualified are called "weaknesses".
  - mirko22 9y ago
    But that is only because you did not study psychology in which case you would know that most things in that manifesto are scientifically proven and what he said does makes sense for women AS A GROUP not individually... :/
  - microcolonel 9y ago
    > No, we're mostly offended by ideas that are false and actively harm people - like the entirely unproven notion that women suffer from biological weaknesses that make them less likely to be qualified as engineers. All good, except he did not make that argument or anything similar to it. He did not state that women inherently suffer from biological weaknesses of any sort. And no, his ideas did not harm anyone (except perhaps indirectly himself). Literally nobody got hurt except him, he is the sole victim of the ordeal. I hope that you have read the document in its original form, which is a PDF with some (admittedly weak) references. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...
solidsnack9000 9y ago
> ...any good argument against firing him has to hinge on the truth of what he said besides the group-think claims. It's hard to see a fair and general principle underlying this. People who publish false or mistaken things internally should be fired?
dijit 9y ago
Except the fact that people who study the field tend to agree with him on most things: http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/ http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-...

refulgentis 9y ago

You can't express vast generalizations that are stereotypes and expect the rest of us to feel comfortable working with you.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
bloaf 9y ago
http://www.spsp.org/blog/stereotype-accuracy-response http://www.spsp.org/blog/stereotype-accuracy-response > Stereotype accuracy is one of the largest and most replicable effects in all of social psychology. Richard et al (2003) found that fewer than 5% of all effects in social psychology exceeded r’s of .50. In contrast, nearly all consensual stereotype accuracy correlations and about half of all personal stereotype accuracy correlations exceed .50.
gdix 9y ago
You can if the subject of the stereo-type is a "white dude-bro" or whatever.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]