34 ms·

The author's arguments have been completely misrepresented. He pointed out widely-believed and sometimes scientifically-established differences in the DISTRIBUT

The author's arguments have been completely misrepresented. He pointed out widely-believed and sometimes scientifically-established differences in the DISTRIBUTION OF traits in men and women. He said that those differences make attempts to achieve numerical parity misguided, discriminatory, and harmful. What is his conclusion about how we should behave? "Treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group." Wow, what a monster. The reaction to the memo is really the most damning thing about the whole affair. Everyone is just rushing to virtue signal, to demonstrate their own purity of thought. They've just proved the author's point. Honestly, Google might have even been rational to fire him, due to the toxic situation created by the mass outrage. How incredibly damning of our society. A particular brand of liberalism has reached the point of being a religion, and the establishment is running an inquisition against any who dare to question its points of dogma. This is the closing of the American mind.

hardwaresofton 9y ago
I don't know where everyone is reading their versions of the letter, but I don't think you could read the Gizmodo reprint and misrepresent the argument: https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320?rev=1501965015200 https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-di... This is where I read up on it, and the letter was written very reasonably, IMO. That article also includes a response from google's brand new VP of Diversity, Integrity & Governance. [EDIT] - original (as pointed out by the commenter below) is here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.html#document https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideo... Read that instead
- Pilfer 9y ago
  Gizmodo removed the citations to scientific studies and also took out the images. The original document is here (credit to lisper) https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...
  - sanxiyn 9y ago
    Thanks a lot. Citations are pretty much what I expected them to be, but it is good to know that good citations were made.
  - hardwaresofton 9y ago
    Thanks so much, couldn't find the original (can't say I tried very hard, all things considered).
  - TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago
    It's unfair to assume Gizmodo intentionally removed those. Much more likely is whoever leaked it to them did so in plaintext.
    - casefields 9y ago
      In their article Gizmodo said they removed links. So no, not just plaintext.
      - Buge 9y ago
        Gizmodo said they were removed. Not that Gizmodo removed them.
groupthinkqmark 9y ago
> "Treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group." Wow, what a monster. The problem is that Google already does do this, for the most part. So what does it mean to say that Google ought to treat people as individuals, if that is already the current state of affairs? The argument, as coded in the document, was that Google ought to cease making any efforts to correct disparities in representation. As a moral or rational argument, this falls flat on its face. Suppose that there was science to show that cognitive differences between men and women or different races is 100% inborn (there isn't, not even close). Even then, there's still the problem of whether the magnitude of those differences justifies the magnitude of differences in representation. There is not nearly enough data to make a case here, and by presenting the case as made, the author of the doc was doing more than just observing the state of the science. He was making an unsubstantiated claim that his coworkers, or at a minimum the sex and/or races they belong to, are inherently deficient at performing the work.
- ViktorV 9y ago
  He did not make that claim that > "He was making an unsubstantiated claim that his coworkers, or at a minimum the sex and/or races they belong to, are inherently deficient at performing the work" He only claimed that the difference between groups could come from something else than society. To deny that is a much harder argument which could only be proved to exceptional evidence. Basically he's saying 'some' and you say 'never'. AFAIK the IQ difference between genders is negligible, but the spread of the IQ is much greater in the male group. This also means that there are more men who are above 130 IQ then women which is kind of necessary to be a programmer. This does not mean that a female can't be a genius! If you want to disprove this you can do two things: 1., Prove that the average female IQ is way higher than mens. 2., Prove that there are as much women who are intellectually retarded ( sorry, English is not my first language, I don't know a better word ) than woman.
  - tree_of_item 9y ago
    > This also means that there are more men who are above 130 IQ then women which is kind of necessary to be a programmer. Wait, what? What exactly do you think the IQ of the average programmer is?
ajross 9y ago
> He said that those differences make attempts to achieve numerical parity misguided, discriminatory, and harmful. No, he said quite clearly that Google was hiring too many women and minorities (and also that said women and minorities suck at tech jobs, though not in so many words). It's the specifics of the argument that got him in trouble. Bland abstract stuff like you paraphrase above wouldn't get anyone fired.
- blusterXY 9y ago
  Perhaps you can post exactly where he said that, because as far as I'm aware he said nothing of the sort.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    He said Google has '[h]iring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate', created in part because "humans are generally biased towards protecting females".
    - notgood 9y ago
      ...which is true and even google admits they do so to increase female count?
      - tptacek 9y ago
        I'm pretty sure Google does not in fact "admit they do [anything] to increase female count".
        notgood 9y ago
        Oh they do, a lot: https://www.blog.google/topics/diversity/focusing-on-diversity30/ https://www.blog.google/topics/diversity/focusing-on-diversi... https://www.wsj.com/articles/tech-firms-borrow-football-play-to-increase-hiring-of-women-1474963562 https://www.wsj.com/articles/tech-firms-borrow-football-play... https://www.google.com/diversity/ https://www.google.com/diversity/ https://qz.com/604723/when-google-increased-paid-maternity-leave-the-rate-at-which-new-mothers-quit-dropped-50/ https://qz.com/604723/when-google-increased-paid-maternity-l... http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/29/technology/google-diversity-report/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/29/technology/google-diversity-...
hkmurakami 9y ago
We've always conflated moral leanings with truth. Previously, "the truth" was right leaning; it is now left leaning. Unfortunately, many people find (and have always found) that all it takes to dismiss an opposing moral position is to point out that their opponent's position is untruthful, and the discussion (or lack thereof) ends there. A sibling poster has linked us to PG's essay on "What you can't say", which states my concerns more eloquently and thoroughly. http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
elefanten 9y ago
Since you more or less pasted your comment from the other thread, I'll TLDR my same reply: The claims in this document are FAR from "widely-believed" or "scientifically established". By count, most of his claims are just asserted. But even most of the claims with a link are highly debatable. This is NOT a particularly good advocacy document on the core scientific questions surrounding inequality. It may have some points in the cultural commentary bits, but stop presenting this as good work (on diversity). It's shoddy and amateur.
- orangecat 9y ago
  By count, most of his claims are just asserted. Most of the links in the original document were removed, either by Gizmodo or the leaker. But even most of the claims with a link are highly debatable. Although apparently you are in fact not allowed to debate them...
  - elefanten 9y ago
    Motherboard has a link to a version with all sources, that's the one I evaluated. I can't comment on how Google arrived at the decision or what their line is. Personally, I think these things should be debatable. But the author didn't do a lot to help himself dull the predictable outcry. He hedged with some comments about his intentions, but a lot of the claims are pretty anachronistic. Given how controversial some of the claims (especially the biologically essentialist ones) were bound to be, I think he could've used a different tone and some better faith representation of the other side.
    - orangecat 9y ago
      Motherboard has a link to a version with all sources, that's the one I evaluated. So it does, thank you. Yes, I agree that several of his claims could have used links to supporting evidence, in particular the bullet points under "These differences aren't just socially constructed". Not that the outcome would be any different.
      - 9y ago
danso 9y ago
The author accused Google of discriminatory hiring practices and "hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for 'diversity' candidates" (under the subhead, "The harm of Google biases"). Just because he couched his claims in a boring, vague manifesto doesn't mean he didn't imply something that impugns the qualifications of his coworkers. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.html#document/p6 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideo...
- ThrustVectoring 9y ago
  Does Google's hiring practices "effectively lower the bar for 'diversity' candidates"? That's a key issue. If so, the details of Google's hiring practices themselves impugn the qualifications of preferred candidate groups.
  - danso 9y ago
    Apparently Google doesn't think that it has lowered the bar for women and minority candidates. So the memo's author has effectively raised a "Have you stopped beating your mother?" begging-type question. Should people get fired for poor rhetorical reasoning? Probably not, but this one happened to imply the inferiority of certain groups of employees.
    - xname2 9y ago
      You only said "probably not", so you are also implying it is probably true. Why didn't you just say "absolutely not"?
      - qu4z-2 9y ago
        That's not how probably works. GP is only implying it's potentially true, presumably because they aren't sure they've fully considered every angle of the question and there may be weird edge cases. Let's not Purity Test people for showing some humbleness in their beliefs. We could probably use more of that these days.
    - 9y ago
tptacek 9y ago
What else is the American mind unfairly closed to? Why is "women are, in the the large, excepting some outliers, biologically disfavored to become programmers" the threshold issue? What else should we be more open-minded about? We're also very closed-minded about: * Child labor * The facially legitimate grievances of Al Qaeda * Universal suffrage * The illegality of marital rape Does it just happen that this particular issue, the one pertaining to nerds working for six-figure salaries at software firms, is the last straw?
- mzw_mzw 9y ago
  Do you think that saying "more men than women are interested in software development" is as evil as child labor, al Qaeda terrorism, restricting the vote, or legalizing rape?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- brandonhsiao 9y ago
  His claim: across various traits, men and women have distributions that differ in mean but still largely overlap. This is a possible non-bias cause of the gender gap in tech. Specifically to ward off the concern you're about to raise, he adds a tedious note and graphic: http://diversitymemo.com/#possible-causes-gender-gap http://diversitymemo.com/#possible-causes-gender-gap You read all of this, and promptly summarize: "women are, in the the large, excepting some outliers, biologically disfavored to become programmers." What's happening here?
  - tptacek 9y ago
    This isn't responsive to what I wrote.
    - brandonhsiao 9y ago
      What? Sure it is. You say he said "Women are, in the the large, excepting some outliers, biologically disfavored to become programmers" when he didn't.
mikeash 9y ago
That's one way to read it. Another way would be, "Stop trying to promote diversity, it alienates the racists and sexists who work here." I don't think this is an unfair reading. One of the bullet points in the conclusion is literally that the company's diversity programs are problematic because they alienate non-progressives.
- andrenth 9y ago
  Did you just equate "non-progressives" with "racists and sexists"?
  - loeg 9y ago
    If a non-progressive is alienated by a diversity program, are they not a racist or sexist?
    - Spivak 9y ago
      Not all diversity program are created equal, heh. Diversity through quotas or hiring preferences to X, Y, Z classes of people are bound to make people angry. Diversity though increased access to education, recruitment efforts, and accommodation of different strengths and weaknesses, personalities, work styles, management styles, etc. would make people much happier.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - axaxs 9y ago
      No. Maybe we just believe in equality for all regardless of race or sex. If a cool course opens but only for women, or people of color, of course that makes us feel alienated.
    - johngalt 9y ago
      We have a mandated bible study program covering the ten commandments. Oh that alienates you? So you want to murder people and steal stuff? We are going to fire/blacklist you now as a thief.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ChristianGeek 9y ago
Men are object-oriented, women are functional.
chrissnell 9y ago
It's quite ironic: in their push for equality and inclusion, these liberals have created an environment where one faces exclusion and persecution for simply having political beliefs that align with a large portion of their fellow U.S. citizens. This is a very real thing. I never felt uncomfortable with my own political alignment before 2015 but I wouldn't dare put a GOP candidate sticker on my laptop now. It's not that I have an aversion to my own party; I simply feel targeted and fear being (incorrectly) labeled a bigot or mysognist simply because of the candidates I've voted for. That's how far this has gone. I am saddened that more moderate voices have not spoken up like this brave ex-Googler but given the climate and the consequences, I understand it.
- PKop 9y ago
  Center-right / right individuals need to start organizing their own groups, companies, meet ups, jobs etc. Vote with our feet, and our skills, and go elsewhere. They want to enforce their religion then they can do it without us. There have to be plenty of people sick of watching what they say, walking on eggshells, and pretending to hold political views opposite of their true beliefs just to avoid the wrath of the regressive left. This is only going to get worse, and I don't see why we all have to sit back and take it any more.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    I'd suggest you consider not closing off far left participants from said endeavors. I'm as left as you come, and I'm still appalled by this behavior. Censorship by any other name is still censorship, and they're not rights if you selectively protect them for "your" causes.
    - PKop 9y ago
      It would be simply out of survival instinct. Sufficiently strong leftist political views seem to correlate very strongly with the desire for people to mandate others fall in line with their views. Or else.... how many examples do moderate/conservative people need to see before they should worry? Or simply.. go elsewhere. Openness, or simply indifference to personal or political beliefs I thought was the DEFAULT position of most people. It is sadly not that way anymore... this and many many other examples have shown us all. Just search twitter for hundreds of tech-industry employees railing against this guy for trying to present a statistical argument against conventional wisdom. They are no doubt celebrating at this moment that he was fired. Anyone on the fence just needs to ask themselves... what would happen if these same people knew what was in your head? If they heard you speak about your own views? Would they have mercy? Of course not. Who's next?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
afpx 9y ago
I know this is a sensitive topic, but Google's reaction is really just business. Women represent a huge and quickly growing sector of the economy. Public corporations would never take a big risk of their bottom line to support an individual's rights (ignoring whether those claims of rights are even valid or not). And, it's kind of silly to blame 'liberals' - because it transcends politics. Businesses are about making money. (By the way, I think it is reasonable for some individual rights to be protected within the walls of a corporation, but as far as I understand it, many US citizen's rights, like free speech, do not cross over into private domains. I wish it was different.)
- maxlybbert 9y ago
  There's some assymetry at work here: everybody will remember that Google fired "that engineer" who wrote the memo, but a month or two from now, nobody will remember his name. He still has a possible future career.
  - xienze 9y ago
    > but a month or two from now, nobody will remember his name. He still has a possible future career. Oh you must be joking. He'll never, ever work in the valley again. If he spends the next couple months on a non-stop apology tour and participate in however many struggle sessions the various women's groups deem necessary, perhaps one day he'll be left alone and Twitter campaigns won't be started up every time he finds stable employment. Maybe.
    - maxlybbert 9y ago
      I guess I'm thinking "regular people won't remember his name," but "regular people" and "hiring managers at large tech companies" are different groups. I don't remember why, but I recently read some old blog posts about Joe the plumber (2008 election), so I've been thinking about how the public has a very short memory.
    - stale2002 9y ago
      You are completely wrong on this. The market for developers is very very good, right now. Especially ex-googlers. Maybe the big 5 tech companies won't hire him, because of the PR disaster that it would be, but any number of startups and small companies would be willing to do so. Many companies wouldn't even bother to Google his name (personally, I've never seen anyone do that. I just get handed a resume). And even if they did, others would just keep it on the hush hush. Many small startups would be ecstatic to get a Google engineer for cheap. Other engineers that have been on the receiving end of major scandals, have had no real long term consequences. EX: the donglegate guy was quickly employed elsewhere after he got fired. Judging by many of the comments in this thread, there seems to be a lot of tech people HERE who are defending him, and would be willing to hire him if they were a hiring manager.
dbjacobs 9y ago
"Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business." -- is asserted as an absolute but never substantiated and was his downfall I believe. If he had instead said that Google should focus on addressing these biases that hurt minorities and women and as they take affect and demonstrate their effectiveness allow the affirmative action style discrimination to be reduced. He would have gotten a much better reception.
jaredklewis 9y ago
You reposted your comment, so I'll repost my reply: What are these well known and scientifically established differences in the distribution of traits between men and women? The research linked in the the document are based on The Big Five Personality Traits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits These traits are measured with self-report surveys. I.e. personality quizzes. Not to malign the field of psychology, but this isn't the gold standard of science, IMHO. Having read Mr. Damore's document, I can find very little in it of substance. It deals with politics and gender in only the very broadest of terms. It does not delve deeply into the scientific issues at hand, instead sprinkling his platitudes with wikipedia links to give them weight. That being said, I completely agree that the US's nasty brand of liberalism is in a sad state. Our response to this manifesto should have been a cold critique of its many flaws, not the blind hysteria we've apparently opted for instead.
- sanxiyn 9y ago
  Big Five is standard in psychology. It should not be confused with personality quizzes on the internet. Big Five scores are reproducible (two tests at different time give similar score) and predictive (correlate with outcomes of interest). Its place in psychological metrics is second only to IQ.
  - jaredklewis 9y ago
    I don't dispute that it is measurable or reproducible, just that it is meaningful. The problem with self-report is that you can only ever measure perception. Let's say I want to measure ability in chess. I give everyone a self report survey: how good are you at chess, 1 to 10? Group A averages a 6, Group B averages a 5. Reproduced across time and regions. Is group a better at chess? We have no idea. All we know is that they report a high average than group b. Switch to big five: "I feel comfortable around people." Rate the accuracy. Even if group a rates more accurate than group b, what do we really known from this? Comfortable is a relative term. Do group a and b have different perceptions or different experiences?
    - 9y ago
sethev 9y ago
His argument seems to boil down to "men and women are different, maybe that's why there are fewer women in tech". That's not an argument, it's speculation that there's an argument. The bulk of the manifesto is a repetition of tropes about men vs women.
- nxmehta 9y ago
  Exactly. It's indisputable that there are biological differences between men and women. How those differences are relevant to the disparities in the gender ratio in tech is pure speculation on the author's part. To quote the doc: "Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing)" That is accompanied with citations. OK, sure, let's take that at face value. Next, he says: "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" No citations, no nothing, just: X may lead to Y because it feels like it's true to me! And there are people actually taking the arguments presenting in this document seriously? Can we please take a step back and try to read critically what is presented in this doc? Because these arguments are just embarrassingly weak.
  - freetime2 9y ago
    The quote you take issue with is kinda, sorta justified by the wikipedia article he cites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology#Personality_traits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology#... A meta-analysis of scientific studies concluded that men prefer working with things and women prefer working with people. When interests were classified by RIASEC type Holland Codes (Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, Conventional), Men showed stronger Realistic and Investigative interests, and women showed stronger Artistic, Social, and Conventional interests. Sex differences favoring men were also found for more specific measures of engineering, science, and mathematics interests.[77] The wikipedia article in turn cites: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19883140 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19883140 Results showed that men prefer working with things and women prefer working with people, producing a large effect size (d = 0.93) on the Things-People dimension. Men showed stronger Realistic (d = 0.84) and Investigative (d = 0.26) interests, and women showed stronger Artistic (d = -0.35), Social (d = -0.68), and Conventional (d = -0.33) interests. Sex differences favoring men were also found for more specific measures of engineering (d = 1.11), science (d = 0.36), and mathematics (d = 0.34) interests. Not exactly the same point he made above but you can at least see how he is coming up with "women prefer jobs in social or artistic areas", "men prefer [coding]". I wish for his sake that he hadn't gotten into the differences between front end / back end code because it does sound particularly speculative and presumptuous - but if you can take a step back and take a broader look at his arguments there does seem to be some scientific evidence in support of his main thesis that "that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership". Note: I just wanted to point out that I am appreciative that you are attacking his memo on the merits of his arguments. I apologize if that comes across as a patronizing thing to say, but for me the big scandal here has really been the way that dissenters have warped, twisted, and outright dismissed his memo as wrong without even attempting to counter any of his points. To me it feels like the liberal left (of which I self identify, btw) are dismissing his argument not because it is wrong, but because it contradicts their beliefs or because they are afraid of where a serious exploration of the subject might lead us. I don't personally have any issues with affirmative action (although I can understand how it might upset some people) - but I do care greatly about protecting the free and open exchange of ideas. And the calls for the this guy to be fired feel like a disturbing form of censorship to me.
jjirsa 9y ago
It's not about virtue signaling, he was almost certain to be terminated just because it was a ridiculously stupid thing to say - you can't tell your teammates that they were hired because their employer lowered the bar and expect people not to be upset about it (and that's 100% what he did, he also made up pseudo-scientific bullshit to try to justify it, but he flat out insulted countless people within his company). Given that the document has (rightfully) alienated women inside and outside his organization, it becomes impossible for this person to be an effective member of the team: - The next time a woman interviews for his team, and he votes against hiring, how does the hiring committee interpret that vote? - The next time he's peer reviewed by a woman, how does that review get interpreted? - The next time he peer reviews a woman, how does that review get interpreted? - The next time a female candidate interviews with the author and is denied, how likely is it that the candidate will believe they had a fair interview, or is the organization perpetually exposed to increased legal risk forever? Such a manifesto is not just fundamentally wrong, it's toxic and shows a profound lack of awareness for any professional.
- remarkEon 9y ago
  I'm sorry, he did not tell his teammates they were hired because Google lowered the bar. Again, he's talking about on average differences and noting that the goal (50/50 representation) might not only be misguided but actively harmful. Why is this so controversial? He's talking about a process not individuals on his team or anywhere else at Google.
  - danso 9y ago
    At the risk of repeating myself, the memo's author did in fact say that "Google has created several discriminatory practices", which include "hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for 'diversity' candidates". What else are we supposed to infer from the author's assertions if not that at least some of Google's diversity candidates have been let in because of weakened standards? Is he talking about a hypothetical, alternate-universe Google? It doesn't seem so, despite the passive tone of the memo. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.html#document/p6 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideo...
chiaro 9y ago
If you know that some idiot wrote this manifesto as a manager, could you assign a woman to work with him? Not in good conscience. An open culture is desirable because it lets the company get going with what its shareholders want it doing.
AnOscelot 9y ago
If he intended to treat people as individuals, then he wouldn't have resorted to gender stereotypes in the first place. The essay was clearly designed to tell women they don't belong at Google. Would you feel comfortable working with someone who wrote an essay at your workplace which detailed incorrect gender stereotypes about men ("Violent", "Incommunicative", "Ego/Status driven") as a way of gently saying maybe we shouldn't hire so many men anymore? I can already visualize the intense white hot responses over at /r/mensrights and other such places. Where they already freak out, and "virtue signal" as you put it, over much much much milder stuff from feminists. Many people would call for the author's head, and I suspect we wouldn't hear so much about "free speech" from the MRA and other conservative outlets. Edit: If any of the downvoters doubt my hypothetical, just think about what happened to Anita Sarkeesian. There were no statements about her bravery or defenses of her free speech rights from the conservatives. Just a wall of criticism and boycotts (and worse) in an attempt to get her to shut up. Whole lot of virtue signalling from men on the right, many of whom self-admitted to never watching her videos.
guelo 9y ago
Where does this phrase "virtue signaling" come from, all of a sudden I see it everywhere. Is there some popular media figure that has introduced it?
- ViktorV 9y ago
  It came from the alternative libertarian media 1-2 years ago.
- jcrben 9y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory I think I first heard it while studying sociology in 2006; signals were also a common topic in my econ degree.
- dguaraglia 9y ago
  I've seen it a lot coming from the right-wing fringe. I'd imagine it's a Breitbart/Limbaugh/Hannity thing.
  - puranjay 9y ago
    If you thin Breitbart and Hannity are fringe, I've got news for you...
ryan-allen 9y ago
My Dad always told me there are three things you should not discuss at the dinner table: Politics, Religion and Gender Identity.
postnihilism 9y ago
Putting a disclaimer at the beginning of a long misogynistic rant that we should "Treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group," doesn't nullify the rest of the document. If you say "People aren't going to like what I say" and then say something offensive about 50% of the population, well then sure, consider the author's point proven... This person created a toxic work environment in which women and people of color will not feel comfortable working with him, being interviewed by him, have him as their tech lead or have him on their promotion committee. Why the hysterical cries of virtue signaling and suppression? What is authoritarian dogma that this author dared to question?
foobarbazetc 9y ago
Eh. Edge lording and trying to gaslight people with BS like this "screed" only works if you're on reddit anonymously. Companies have a right to get rid of toxic employees like this guy. He can enjoy his new position in the Trump administration as head of diversity in STEM. ;)
cabalamat 9y ago
> A particular brand of liberalism has reached the point of being a religion I think you mean "illiberalism". > This is the closing of the American mind. I've just switched to Duck Duck Go. Others, I have no doubt, will also be making decisions on which technology companies they wish to support.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Tloewald 9y ago
I agree that the author's arguments have been misrepresented, but as much by the author as anyone else. What we have is someone who is trying to couch borderline crazy views as reasonable and thoughtful and is smart enough to keep the lid on his underlying opinions with some success. But, read the author's footnotes for a real tl;dr -- he baldly states without evidence (indeed contrary to all the literature) that women are paid equally for equal work, that political correctness is a tool of leftists and authoritarians, and on and on. His constant protestations that he's really interested in promoting diversity BUT is just the new "some of my best friends are X, but".
- agarden 9y ago
  According to professor of economics at Harvard, Claudia Goldin, the gender pay-gap is mostly explained by women self-selecting into lower-paying professions and by choosing to work jobs with more flexibility in hours and time off. If I am understanding her correctly, equal pay for equal work is reality or close to reality. http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-gender-pay-gap-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-gender...
kamaal 9y ago
>>This is the closing of the American mind. This isn't just in America. This is happening all over the world. Right wing politics is now the only refuge for people who want to speak their mind. As much as scary this is, this is the truth.
- tenaciousDaniel 9y ago
  It's insane how fast it has happened. Just 4 years ago I would have thought it impossible that I would ever align myself with anything right-of-center. I honestly have no idea what to expect in the coming years, and I wouldn't trust anyone who thinks they know.
  - kamaal 9y ago
    This phenomenon is nothing new. Look at the right wing movements in history. Fascism, Nazism or any other right wing movements. These largely arise because there is too much politically correct talk going on, and at some point a guy comes along and musters the courage to say all the things openly what others had been wanting to say for years. What he says could be totally wrong and may be even absurd. But the fact that people just need a vent to release years worth of accumulated pressure will buy a lot of public validity. Once this happens the public support, mood and direction swings too much to the other end. At this point PC won't even matter.
    - canoebuilder 9y ago
      I think you missed his point, he's not saying anything right of center is one short hop away from evil nazis! He's saying "Isn't it kind of strange that everyone else seems to have completely lost their minds?"
    - vacri 9y ago
      What was the politically-correct talk that gave rise to Nazism?
      - kamaal 9y ago
abalone 9y ago
> Everyone is just rushing to virtue signal You have unwittingly provided an example of the "unconscious bias" against women that Google's programs seek to unpack and correct. The term "virtue signal" implies that one's reaction is motivated by a desire to make an impression on others, a superficial and calculated response. But to a woman, reading an essay full of gender stereotypes can create a real sense of pain and outrage. So when you're saying "virtue signal", you're really mostly talking about men.
m-j-fox 9y ago
That didn't even seem like the main point. The main point was that people are psychologically oppressed: you can't even talk about the possibility of different gender behavior being rooted in biology without fear of retribution. He was right about one thing.
josteink 9y ago
> A particular brand of liberalism has reached the point of being a religion, and the establishment is running an inquisition against any who dare to question its points of dogma. From the article: > Google’s new vice president for diversity, integrity and governance A brand of religion with its own sheriff no less. Who seriously believe you have freedom of speech and thought in such a monocultural place?
- dbnoch 9y ago
  Can we please stop using 'freedom of speech' in this context. Freedom of Speech in itself is from persecution from the Government. It does not apply here.
  - marcoperaza 9y ago
    I disagree. Freedom of speech, as in the legal right protected by the First Amendment in the United States, is indeed only against the government. But free discourse, as an ideal and virtue for the citizens of a republic, is a much broader concept. The citizens of a democratic republic should be open to hearing new ideas and engaging in reasoned debate with each other.
    - postnihilism 9y ago
      Yes, but the beginning of those conversations can't be, "you're biologically inferior at doing the same job as me." That's not "engaging in reasoned debate", it's being an asshole. We can have a discussion about the merits of public companies engaging in diversity programs without starting from that premise though.
      - jquery 9y ago
        > "you're biologically inferior at doing the same job as me." If you think he said that, you didn't read the article.
      - dyarosla 9y ago
tomc1985 9y ago
It seems he made that point and then continued to make a bunch of other points, and its those other points that many have a problem with. I read a good chunk in agreement, but then it just took a left turn. Between its thinly-vieled promotion for 'conservative values' and some very thin 'therefore' conclusions midway through, it would never be able to stand up to the heights of intellect that its author probably intended it for.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
kylestlb 9y ago
Can you really say 'the establishment' is somehow masterminding anything, when the President of the USA will likely go on twitter to shame Google for what they've done?
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  There probably has never been a President as much at odds with the establishment as Trump.
  - kylestlb 9y ago
    If you think 'establishment' means having vanilla PR, sure. But he is as establishment-minded as the rest of them. Appointing big oil CEO to sec of state, ultra neocon pro-corporation judge to the supreme court, extremely pro charter-school administrator to sec of education. All are very wealthy people who belong to a higher income bracket than the vast majority of America. Establishment has a price tag and he has been able to afford it most of his life. That isn't changing anytime soon.
    - Corristowolf 9y ago
      So if people that were appointed to these positions had a blue tie, that would somehow make them "not wealthy people who don't belong to a higher income bracket than the vast majority of America" ?
wutbrodo 9y ago
> Honestly, Google might have even been rational to fire him, due to the toxic situation created by the mass outrage. How incredibly damning of our society. This is always the case. Even companies who are sane need to respond to the foaming-at-the-mouth lunacy of Twitter and related cesspools. As disgusting as the Brendan Eich thing was, I never really blamed Mozilla. I'm just not sure how tech in particular ended up so strongly under the influence of a relatively small amount of loud, shitty people.
deevolution 9y ago
I think you might just be afraid of women.
Iv 9y ago
Honestly I knew where this was going when I saw him mention biological differences. Which is a shame because many of his arguments are actually interesting. The tl;dr is actually chilling in the light of this firing. His points were that some diversity policies were misguided and may even cause harm but are impossible to correct because they are taboo. His memo was well-argumented and he was open to contradiction, which on several points could have been brought. It was not aggressive, not dismissive, not sexist. I personally view his firing as totally excessive and downright anti-intellectual. Critics, we are not yet in a post-sexist society. We have to improve many things for women and minorities, we have many efforts to make to reach true equality. Shutting down debate on your tactics will not help.
sulam 9y ago
For a significant portion of American history there was an established difference in the distribution of the ability of people to own property. More recently there's an established difference in the distribution of the ability of minorities, students, and liberals to vote in certain states (NC, WI, TX, among others). There was an established difference in the incidence of AIDS during the 80's. There are established differences in the distribution of outcomes related to conviction of minor drug possession, soliciting prostitution, and a host of other non-violent crimes. Heck, there's an established difference in the distribution of police pulling people over or otherwise detaining people without cause in many municipalities. Trying to justify discrimination by referring to the direct result of discriminatory behavior is obscene.
dguaraglia 9y ago
> "Treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group." "But beware of this particular subgroup, because they are biologically inclined to not be as interested or good in the subject." > Everyone is just rushing to virtue signal, to demonstrate their own purity of thought No, people are pissed that it's 2017 and people are still trying to make an argument for the superiority of testosterone as a predictor for success in a particular field. Can't we just give everyone a chance, instead of trying to pigeonhole them right away? > A particular brand of liberalism has reached the point of being a religion, and the establishment is running an inquisition against any who dare to question its points of dogma. Please don't pay attention to the actual religious agenda being pushed by the party currently in power. You know, the one that is actually running an inquisition against LGBTQ people? The one that wants to tell women what to do with their bodies? No dogma there, surely. > This is the closing of the American mind. The closing of the American mind started happening when a political party decided to take over religion and anti-intellectualism as their platform. That's why we've gotten to the point where being called an "expert" is paramount to an insult in certain contexts.
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  > Can't we just give everyone a chance, instead of trying to pigeonhole them right away? The enginner did not say women can't be engineers, merely implied that the gender imbalance in the field may not be entirely the result of society. There are very real, very definite emotional and psychological differences between men and women overall[1]. Why is it so weird to think that those differences might lead to different career paths? >Please don't pay attention to the actual religious agenda being pushed by the party currently in power. You know, the one that is actually running an inquisition against LGBTQ people? The one that wants to tell women what to do with their bodies? No dogma there, surely. Just that the other side is crazy too doesn't mean we shouldn't point out the possible weaknesses of the left. Extreme political polarization on both sides combined with a decline in peoples' willingness to consider the opinions of those who oppose them is part of what is causing all this. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology
  - 9y ago
jroseattle 9y ago
This response has the tone of justification by exactly the very minds condemned as being closed. I read the article which attempts to establish as fact very clearly unsubstantiated subjective claims. Never mind the toxicity -- the dude is just flat wrong. "Treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group." I totally agree, and this individual got his due.
ramach 9y ago
This blew up because 1) English is an imprecise language subject to multiple interpretations; 2) Viral effects develop when there are feedback loops/network effects (virtue signaling is one; conservative vs liberal politics is another) I would hope that a more narrowly focused document written in more formal language (math) with clearly-stated assumptions and a faq that addresses common misinterpretations will have fared better but these days even expecting this might be too much (which is sad!). The one thing I feel that lost out on all this brouhaha was the author's point that companies should value "diversity of thoughts" rather than diversity of <the current hot topic class>!
hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
While I have a lot of problems with the memo, I was pissed to see CNN's subtitle on this topic: "Boss condemns manifesto sent by a male engineer that claims women aren't suited for work in tech." To say that the manifesto claimed "women aren't suited for work in tech" is more than a gross mischaracterization, it's outright false.
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  It was even worse. I'm pretty sure the headline yesterday was that he called women "biologically unfit for tech".
imartin2k 9y ago
"A particular brand of liberalism has reached the point of being a religion, and the establishment is running an inquisition against any who dare to question its points of dogma." Indeed. I also felt reminded of dynamics in the realm of religion.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

hardwaresofton 9y ago

I don't know where everyone is reading their versions of the letter, but I don't think you could read the Gizmodo reprint and misrepresent the argument: https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320?rev=1501965015200 https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-di... This is where I read up on it, and the letter was written very reasonably, IMO. That article also includes a response from google's brand new VP of Diversity, Integrity & Governance. [EDIT] - original (as pointed out by the commenter below) is here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.html#document https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideo... Read that instead

Pilfer 9y ago
Gizmodo removed the citations to scientific studies and also took out the images. The original document is here (credit to lisper) https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...
- sanxiyn 9y ago
  Thanks a lot. Citations are pretty much what I expected them to be, but it is good to know that good citations were made.
- hardwaresofton 9y ago
  Thanks so much, couldn't find the original (can't say I tried very hard, all things considered).
- TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago
  It's unfair to assume Gizmodo intentionally removed those. Much more likely is whoever leaked it to them did so in plaintext.
  - casefields 9y ago
    In their article Gizmodo said they removed links. So no, not just plaintext.
    - Buge 9y ago
      Gizmodo said they were removed. Not that Gizmodo removed them.

groupthinkqmark 9y ago

> "Treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group." Wow, what a monster. The problem is that Google already does do this, for the most part. So what does it mean to say that Google ought to treat people as individuals, if that is already the current state of affairs? The argument, as coded in the document, was that Google ought to cease making any efforts to correct disparities in representation. As a moral or rational argument, this falls flat on its face. Suppose that there was science to show that cognitive differences between men and women or different races is 100% inborn (there isn't, not even close). Even then, there's still the problem of whether the magnitude of those differences justifies the magnitude of differences in representation. There is not nearly enough data to make a case here, and by presenting the case as made, the author of the doc was doing more than just observing the state of the science. He was making an unsubstantiated claim that his coworkers, or at a minimum the sex and/or races they belong to, are inherently deficient at performing the work.

ViktorV 9y ago
He did not make that claim that > "He was making an unsubstantiated claim that his coworkers, or at a minimum the sex and/or races they belong to, are inherently deficient at performing the work" He only claimed that the difference between groups could come from something else than society. To deny that is a much harder argument which could only be proved to exceptional evidence. Basically he's saying 'some' and you say 'never'. AFAIK the IQ difference between genders is negligible, but the spread of the IQ is much greater in the male group. This also means that there are more men who are above 130 IQ then women which is kind of necessary to be a programmer. This does not mean that a female can't be a genius! If you want to disprove this you can do two things: 1., Prove that the average female IQ is way higher than mens. 2., Prove that there are as much women who are intellectually retarded ( sorry, English is not my first language, I don't know a better word ) than woman.
- tree_of_item 9y ago
  > This also means that there are more men who are above 130 IQ then women which is kind of necessary to be a programmer. Wait, what? What exactly do you think the IQ of the average programmer is?

ajross 9y ago

> He said that those differences make attempts to achieve numerical parity misguided, discriminatory, and harmful. No, he said quite clearly that Google was hiring too many women and minorities (and also that said women and minorities suck at tech jobs, though not in so many words). It's the specifics of the argument that got him in trouble. Bland abstract stuff like you paraphrase above wouldn't get anyone fired.

blusterXY 9y ago
Perhaps you can post exactly where he said that, because as far as I'm aware he said nothing of the sort.
- tptacek 9y ago
  He said Google has '[h]iring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate', created in part because "humans are generally biased towards protecting females".
  - notgood 9y ago
    ...which is true and even google admits they do so to increase female count?
    - tptacek 9y ago
      I'm pretty sure Google does not in fact "admit they do [anything] to increase female count".
      - notgood 9y ago
        Oh they do, a lot: https://www.blog.google/topics/diversity/focusing-on-diversity30/ https://www.blog.google/topics/diversity/focusing-on-diversi... https://www.wsj.com/articles/tech-firms-borrow-football-play-to-increase-hiring-of-women-1474963562 https://www.wsj.com/articles/tech-firms-borrow-football-play... https://www.google.com/diversity/ https://www.google.com/diversity/ https://qz.com/604723/when-google-increased-paid-maternity-leave-the-rate-at-which-new-mothers-quit-dropped-50/ https://qz.com/604723/when-google-increased-paid-maternity-l... http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/29/technology/google-diversity-report/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/29/technology/google-diversity-...

hkmurakami 9y ago

We've always conflated moral leanings with truth. Previously, "the truth" was right leaning; it is now left leaning. Unfortunately, many people find (and have always found) that all it takes to dismiss an opposing moral position is to point out that their opponent's position is untruthful, and the discussion (or lack thereof) ends there. A sibling poster has linked us to PG's essay on "What you can't say", which states my concerns more eloquently and thoroughly. http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

elefanten 9y ago

Since you more or less pasted your comment from the other thread, I'll TLDR my same reply: The claims in this document are FAR from "widely-believed" or "scientifically established". By count, most of his claims are just asserted. But even most of the claims with a link are highly debatable. This is NOT a particularly good advocacy document on the core scientific questions surrounding inequality. It may have some points in the cultural commentary bits, but stop presenting this as good work (on diversity). It's shoddy and amateur.

orangecat 9y ago
By count, most of his claims are just asserted. Most of the links in the original document were removed, either by Gizmodo or the leaker. But even most of the claims with a link are highly debatable. Although apparently you are in fact not allowed to debate them...
- elefanten 9y ago
  Motherboard has a link to a version with all sources, that's the one I evaluated. I can't comment on how Google arrived at the decision or what their line is. Personally, I think these things should be debatable. But the author didn't do a lot to help himself dull the predictable outcry. He hedged with some comments about his intentions, but a lot of the claims are pretty anachronistic. Given how controversial some of the claims (especially the biologically essentialist ones) were bound to be, I think he could've used a different tone and some better faith representation of the other side.
  - orangecat 9y ago
    Motherboard has a link to a version with all sources, that's the one I evaluated. So it does, thank you. Yes, I agree that several of his claims could have used links to supporting evidence, in particular the bullet points under "These differences aren't just socially constructed". Not that the outcome would be any different.
    - 9y ago

danso 9y ago

The author accused Google of discriminatory hiring practices and "hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for 'diversity' candidates" (under the subhead, "The harm of Google biases"). Just because he couched his claims in a boring, vague manifesto doesn't mean he didn't imply something that impugns the qualifications of his coworkers. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.html#document/p6 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideo...

ThrustVectoring 9y ago
Does Google's hiring practices "effectively lower the bar for 'diversity' candidates"? That's a key issue. If so, the details of Google's hiring practices themselves impugn the qualifications of preferred candidate groups.
- danso 9y ago
  Apparently Google doesn't think that it has lowered the bar for women and minority candidates. So the memo's author has effectively raised a "Have you stopped beating your mother?" begging-type question. Should people get fired for poor rhetorical reasoning? Probably not, but this one happened to imply the inferiority of certain groups of employees.
  - xname2 9y ago
    You only said "probably not", so you are also implying it is probably true. Why didn't you just say "absolutely not"?
    - qu4z-2 9y ago
      That's not how probably works. GP is only implying it's potentially true, presumably because they aren't sure they've fully considered every angle of the question and there may be weird edge cases. Let's not Purity Test people for showing some humbleness in their beliefs. We could probably use more of that these days.
  - 9y ago

tptacek 9y ago

What else is the American mind unfairly closed to? Why is "women are, in the the large, excepting some outliers, biologically disfavored to become programmers" the threshold issue? What else should we be more open-minded about? We're also very closed-minded about: * Child labor * The facially legitimate grievances of Al Qaeda * Universal suffrage * The illegality of marital rape Does it just happen that this particular issue, the one pertaining to nerds working for six-figure salaries at software firms, is the last straw?

mzw_mzw 9y ago
Do you think that saying "more men than women are interested in software development" is as evil as child labor, al Qaeda terrorism, restricting the vote, or legalizing rape?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
brandonhsiao 9y ago
His claim: across various traits, men and women have distributions that differ in mean but still largely overlap. This is a possible non-bias cause of the gender gap in tech. Specifically to ward off the concern you're about to raise, he adds a tedious note and graphic: http://diversitymemo.com/#possible-causes-gender-gap http://diversitymemo.com/#possible-causes-gender-gap You read all of this, and promptly summarize: "women are, in the the large, excepting some outliers, biologically disfavored to become programmers." What's happening here?
- tptacek 9y ago
  This isn't responsive to what I wrote.
  - brandonhsiao 9y ago
    What? Sure it is. You say he said "Women are, in the the large, excepting some outliers, biologically disfavored to become programmers" when he didn't.

mikeash 9y ago

That's one way to read it. Another way would be, "Stop trying to promote diversity, it alienates the racists and sexists who work here." I don't think this is an unfair reading. One of the bullet points in the conclusion is literally that the company's diversity programs are problematic because they alienate non-progressives.

andrenth 9y ago
Did you just equate "non-progressives" with "racists and sexists"?
- loeg 9y ago
  If a non-progressive is alienated by a diversity program, are they not a racist or sexist?
  - Spivak 9y ago
    Not all diversity program are created equal, heh. Diversity through quotas or hiring preferences to X, Y, Z classes of people are bound to make people angry. Diversity though increased access to education, recruitment efforts, and accommodation of different strengths and weaknesses, personalities, work styles, management styles, etc. would make people much happier.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - axaxs 9y ago
    No. Maybe we just believe in equality for all regardless of race or sex. If a cool course opens but only for women, or people of color, of course that makes us feel alienated.
  - johngalt 9y ago
    We have a mandated bible study program covering the ten commandments. Oh that alienates you? So you want to murder people and steal stuff? We are going to fire/blacklist you now as a thief.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

ChristianGeek 9y ago

Men are object-oriented, women are functional.

chrissnell 9y ago

It's quite ironic: in their push for equality and inclusion, these liberals have created an environment where one faces exclusion and persecution for simply having political beliefs that align with a large portion of their fellow U.S. citizens. This is a very real thing. I never felt uncomfortable with my own political alignment before 2015 but I wouldn't dare put a GOP candidate sticker on my laptop now. It's not that I have an aversion to my own party; I simply feel targeted and fear being (incorrectly) labeled a bigot or mysognist simply because of the candidates I've voted for. That's how far this has gone. I am saddened that more moderate voices have not spoken up like this brave ex-Googler but given the climate and the consequences, I understand it.

PKop 9y ago
Center-right / right individuals need to start organizing their own groups, companies, meet ups, jobs etc. Vote with our feet, and our skills, and go elsewhere. They want to enforce their religion then they can do it without us. There have to be plenty of people sick of watching what they say, walking on eggshells, and pretending to hold political views opposite of their true beliefs just to avoid the wrath of the regressive left. This is only going to get worse, and I don't see why we all have to sit back and take it any more.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  I'd suggest you consider not closing off far left participants from said endeavors. I'm as left as you come, and I'm still appalled by this behavior. Censorship by any other name is still censorship, and they're not rights if you selectively protect them for "your" causes.
  - PKop 9y ago
    It would be simply out of survival instinct. Sufficiently strong leftist political views seem to correlate very strongly with the desire for people to mandate others fall in line with their views. Or else.... how many examples do moderate/conservative people need to see before they should worry? Or simply.. go elsewhere. Openness, or simply indifference to personal or political beliefs I thought was the DEFAULT position of most people. It is sadly not that way anymore... this and many many other examples have shown us all. Just search twitter for hundreds of tech-industry employees railing against this guy for trying to present a statistical argument against conventional wisdom. They are no doubt celebrating at this moment that he was fired. Anyone on the fence just needs to ask themselves... what would happen if these same people knew what was in your head? If they heard you speak about your own views? Would they have mercy? Of course not. Who's next?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

afpx 9y ago

I know this is a sensitive topic, but Google's reaction is really just business. Women represent a huge and quickly growing sector of the economy. Public corporations would never take a big risk of their bottom line to support an individual's rights (ignoring whether those claims of rights are even valid or not). And, it's kind of silly to blame 'liberals' - because it transcends politics. Businesses are about making money. (By the way, I think it is reasonable for some individual rights to be protected within the walls of a corporation, but as far as I understand it, many US citizen's rights, like free speech, do not cross over into private domains. I wish it was different.)

maxlybbert 9y ago
There's some assymetry at work here: everybody will remember that Google fired "that engineer" who wrote the memo, but a month or two from now, nobody will remember his name. He still has a possible future career.
- xienze 9y ago
  > but a month or two from now, nobody will remember his name. He still has a possible future career. Oh you must be joking. He'll never, ever work in the valley again. If he spends the next couple months on a non-stop apology tour and participate in however many struggle sessions the various women's groups deem necessary, perhaps one day he'll be left alone and Twitter campaigns won't be started up every time he finds stable employment. Maybe.
  - maxlybbert 9y ago
    I guess I'm thinking "regular people won't remember his name," but "regular people" and "hiring managers at large tech companies" are different groups. I don't remember why, but I recently read some old blog posts about Joe the plumber (2008 election), so I've been thinking about how the public has a very short memory.
  - stale2002 9y ago
    You are completely wrong on this. The market for developers is very very good, right now. Especially ex-googlers. Maybe the big 5 tech companies won't hire him, because of the PR disaster that it would be, but any number of startups and small companies would be willing to do so. Many companies wouldn't even bother to Google his name (personally, I've never seen anyone do that. I just get handed a resume). And even if they did, others would just keep it on the hush hush. Many small startups would be ecstatic to get a Google engineer for cheap. Other engineers that have been on the receiving end of major scandals, have had no real long term consequences. EX: the donglegate guy was quickly employed elsewhere after he got fired. Judging by many of the comments in this thread, there seems to be a lot of tech people HERE who are defending him, and would be willing to hire him if they were a hiring manager.

dbjacobs 9y ago

"Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business." -- is asserted as an absolute but never substantiated and was his downfall I believe. If he had instead said that Google should focus on addressing these biases that hurt minorities and women and as they take affect and demonstrate their effectiveness allow the affirmative action style discrimination to be reduced. He would have gotten a much better reception.

jaredklewis 9y ago

You reposted your comment, so I'll repost my reply: What are these well known and scientifically established differences in the distribution of traits between men and women? The research linked in the the document are based on The Big Five Personality Traits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits These traits are measured with self-report surveys. I.e. personality quizzes. Not to malign the field of psychology, but this isn't the gold standard of science, IMHO. Having read Mr. Damore's document, I can find very little in it of substance. It deals with politics and gender in only the very broadest of terms. It does not delve deeply into the scientific issues at hand, instead sprinkling his platitudes with wikipedia links to give them weight. That being said, I completely agree that the US's nasty brand of liberalism is in a sad state. Our response to this manifesto should have been a cold critique of its many flaws, not the blind hysteria we've apparently opted for instead.

sanxiyn 9y ago
Big Five is standard in psychology. It should not be confused with personality quizzes on the internet. Big Five scores are reproducible (two tests at different time give similar score) and predictive (correlate with outcomes of interest). Its place in psychological metrics is second only to IQ.
- jaredklewis 9y ago
  I don't dispute that it is measurable or reproducible, just that it is meaningful. The problem with self-report is that you can only ever measure perception. Let's say I want to measure ability in chess. I give everyone a self report survey: how good are you at chess, 1 to 10? Group A averages a 6, Group B averages a 5. Reproduced across time and regions. Is group a better at chess? We have no idea. All we know is that they report a high average than group b. Switch to big five: "I feel comfortable around people." Rate the accuracy. Even if group a rates more accurate than group b, what do we really known from this? Comfortable is a relative term. Do group a and b have different perceptions or different experiences?
  - 9y ago

sethev 9y ago

His argument seems to boil down to "men and women are different, maybe that's why there are fewer women in tech". That's not an argument, it's speculation that there's an argument. The bulk of the manifesto is a repetition of tropes about men vs women.

nxmehta 9y ago
Exactly. It's indisputable that there are biological differences between men and women. How those differences are relevant to the disparities in the gender ratio in tech is pure speculation on the author's part. To quote the doc: "Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing)" That is accompanied with citations. OK, sure, let's take that at face value. Next, he says: "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" No citations, no nothing, just: X may lead to Y because it feels like it's true to me! And there are people actually taking the arguments presenting in this document seriously? Can we please take a step back and try to read critically what is presented in this doc? Because these arguments are just embarrassingly weak.
- freetime2 9y ago
  The quote you take issue with is kinda, sorta justified by the wikipedia article he cites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology#Personality_traits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology#... A meta-analysis of scientific studies concluded that men prefer working with things and women prefer working with people. When interests were classified by RIASEC type Holland Codes (Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, Conventional), Men showed stronger Realistic and Investigative interests, and women showed stronger Artistic, Social, and Conventional interests. Sex differences favoring men were also found for more specific measures of engineering, science, and mathematics interests.[77] The wikipedia article in turn cites: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19883140 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19883140 Results showed that men prefer working with things and women prefer working with people, producing a large effect size (d = 0.93) on the Things-People dimension. Men showed stronger Realistic (d = 0.84) and Investigative (d = 0.26) interests, and women showed stronger Artistic (d = -0.35), Social (d = -0.68), and Conventional (d = -0.33) interests. Sex differences favoring men were also found for more specific measures of engineering (d = 1.11), science (d = 0.36), and mathematics (d = 0.34) interests. Not exactly the same point he made above but you can at least see how he is coming up with "women prefer jobs in social or artistic areas", "men prefer [coding]". I wish for his sake that he hadn't gotten into the differences between front end / back end code because it does sound particularly speculative and presumptuous - but if you can take a step back and take a broader look at his arguments there does seem to be some scientific evidence in support of his main thesis that "that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership". Note: I just wanted to point out that I am appreciative that you are attacking his memo on the merits of his arguments. I apologize if that comes across as a patronizing thing to say, but for me the big scandal here has really been the way that dissenters have warped, twisted, and outright dismissed his memo as wrong without even attempting to counter any of his points. To me it feels like the liberal left (of which I self identify, btw) are dismissing his argument not because it is wrong, but because it contradicts their beliefs or because they are afraid of where a serious exploration of the subject might lead us. I don't personally have any issues with affirmative action (although I can understand how it might upset some people) - but I do care greatly about protecting the free and open exchange of ideas. And the calls for the this guy to be fired feel like a disturbing form of censorship to me.

jjirsa 9y ago

It's not about virtue signaling, he was almost certain to be terminated just because it was a ridiculously stupid thing to say - you can't tell your teammates that they were hired because their employer lowered the bar and expect people not to be upset about it (and that's 100% what he did, he also made up pseudo-scientific bullshit to try to justify it, but he flat out insulted countless people within his company). Given that the document has (rightfully) alienated women inside and outside his organization, it becomes impossible for this person to be an effective member of the team: - The next time a woman interviews for his team, and he votes against hiring, how does the hiring committee interpret that vote? - The next time he's peer reviewed by a woman, how does that review get interpreted? - The next time he peer reviews a woman, how does that review get interpreted? - The next time a female candidate interviews with the author and is denied, how likely is it that the candidate will believe they had a fair interview, or is the organization perpetually exposed to increased legal risk forever? Such a manifesto is not just fundamentally wrong, it's toxic and shows a profound lack of awareness for any professional.

remarkEon 9y ago
I'm sorry, he did not tell his teammates they were hired because Google lowered the bar. Again, he's talking about on average differences and noting that the goal (50/50 representation) might not only be misguided but actively harmful. Why is this so controversial? He's talking about a process not individuals on his team or anywhere else at Google.
- danso 9y ago
  At the risk of repeating myself, the memo's author did in fact say that "Google has created several discriminatory practices", which include "hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for 'diversity' candidates". What else are we supposed to infer from the author's assertions if not that at least some of Google's diversity candidates have been let in because of weakened standards? Is he talking about a hypothetical, alternate-universe Google? It doesn't seem so, despite the passive tone of the memo. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.html#document/p6 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideo...

chiaro 9y ago

If you know that some idiot wrote this manifesto as a manager, could you assign a woman to work with him? Not in good conscience. An open culture is desirable because it lets the company get going with what its shareholders want it doing.

AnOscelot 9y ago

If he intended to treat people as individuals, then he wouldn't have resorted to gender stereotypes in the first place. The essay was clearly designed to tell women they don't belong at Google. Would you feel comfortable working with someone who wrote an essay at your workplace which detailed incorrect gender stereotypes about men ("Violent", "Incommunicative", "Ego/Status driven") as a way of gently saying maybe we shouldn't hire so many men anymore? I can already visualize the intense white hot responses over at /r/mensrights and other such places. Where they already freak out, and "virtue signal" as you put it, over much much much milder stuff from feminists. Many people would call for the author's head, and I suspect we wouldn't hear so much about "free speech" from the MRA and other conservative outlets. Edit: If any of the downvoters doubt my hypothetical, just think about what happened to Anita Sarkeesian. There were no statements about her bravery or defenses of her free speech rights from the conservatives. Just a wall of criticism and boycotts (and worse) in an attempt to get her to shut up. Whole lot of virtue signalling from men on the right, many of whom self-admitted to never watching her videos.

guelo 9y ago

Where does this phrase "virtue signaling" come from, all of a sudden I see it everywhere. Is there some popular media figure that has introduced it?

ViktorV 9y ago
It came from the alternative libertarian media 1-2 years ago.
jcrben 9y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory I think I first heard it while studying sociology in 2006; signals were also a common topic in my econ degree.
dguaraglia 9y ago
I've seen it a lot coming from the right-wing fringe. I'd imagine it's a Breitbart/Limbaugh/Hannity thing.
- puranjay 9y ago
  If you thin Breitbart and Hannity are fringe, I've got news for you...

ryan-allen 9y ago

My Dad always told me there are three things you should not discuss at the dinner table: Politics, Religion and Gender Identity.

postnihilism 9y ago

Putting a disclaimer at the beginning of a long misogynistic rant that we should "Treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group," doesn't nullify the rest of the document. If you say "People aren't going to like what I say" and then say something offensive about 50% of the population, well then sure, consider the author's point proven... This person created a toxic work environment in which women and people of color will not feel comfortable working with him, being interviewed by him, have him as their tech lead or have him on their promotion committee. Why the hysterical cries of virtue signaling and suppression? What is authoritarian dogma that this author dared to question?

foobarbazetc 9y ago

Eh. Edge lording and trying to gaslight people with BS like this "screed" only works if you're on reddit anonymously. Companies have a right to get rid of toxic employees like this guy. He can enjoy his new position in the Trump administration as head of diversity in STEM. ;)

cabalamat 9y ago

> A particular brand of liberalism has reached the point of being a religion I think you mean "illiberalism". > This is the closing of the American mind. I've just switched to Duck Duck Go. Others, I have no doubt, will also be making decisions on which technology companies they wish to support.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Tloewald 9y ago

I agree that the author's arguments have been misrepresented, but as much by the author as anyone else. What we have is someone who is trying to couch borderline crazy views as reasonable and thoughtful and is smart enough to keep the lid on his underlying opinions with some success. But, read the author's footnotes for a real tl;dr -- he baldly states without evidence (indeed contrary to all the literature) that women are paid equally for equal work, that political correctness is a tool of leftists and authoritarians, and on and on. His constant protestations that he's really interested in promoting diversity BUT is just the new "some of my best friends are X, but".

agarden 9y ago
According to professor of economics at Harvard, Claudia Goldin, the gender pay-gap is mostly explained by women self-selecting into lower-paying professions and by choosing to work jobs with more flexibility in hours and time off. If I am understanding her correctly, equal pay for equal work is reality or close to reality. http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-gender-pay-gap-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-gender...

kamaal 9y ago

>>This is the closing of the American mind. This isn't just in America. This is happening all over the world. Right wing politics is now the only refuge for people who want to speak their mind. As much as scary this is, this is the truth.

tenaciousDaniel 9y ago
It's insane how fast it has happened. Just 4 years ago I would have thought it impossible that I would ever align myself with anything right-of-center. I honestly have no idea what to expect in the coming years, and I wouldn't trust anyone who thinks they know.
- kamaal 9y ago
  This phenomenon is nothing new. Look at the right wing movements in history. Fascism, Nazism or any other right wing movements. These largely arise because there is too much politically correct talk going on, and at some point a guy comes along and musters the courage to say all the things openly what others had been wanting to say for years. What he says could be totally wrong and may be even absurd. But the fact that people just need a vent to release years worth of accumulated pressure will buy a lot of public validity. Once this happens the public support, mood and direction swings too much to the other end. At this point PC won't even matter.
  - canoebuilder 9y ago
    I think you missed his point, he's not saying anything right of center is one short hop away from evil nazis! He's saying "Isn't it kind of strange that everyone else seems to have completely lost their minds?"
  - vacri 9y ago
    What was the politically-correct talk that gave rise to Nazism?
    - kamaal 9y ago

abalone 9y ago

> Everyone is just rushing to virtue signal You have unwittingly provided an example of the "unconscious bias" against women that Google's programs seek to unpack and correct. The term "virtue signal" implies that one's reaction is motivated by a desire to make an impression on others, a superficial and calculated response. But to a woman, reading an essay full of gender stereotypes can create a real sense of pain and outrage. So when you're saying "virtue signal", you're really mostly talking about men.

m-j-fox 9y ago

That didn't even seem like the main point. The main point was that people are psychologically oppressed: you can't even talk about the possibility of different gender behavior being rooted in biology without fear of retribution. He was right about one thing.

josteink 9y ago

> A particular brand of liberalism has reached the point of being a religion, and the establishment is running an inquisition against any who dare to question its points of dogma. From the article: > Google’s new vice president for diversity, integrity and governance A brand of religion with its own sheriff no less. Who seriously believe you have freedom of speech and thought in such a monocultural place?

dbnoch 9y ago
Can we please stop using 'freedom of speech' in this context. Freedom of Speech in itself is from persecution from the Government. It does not apply here.
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  I disagree. Freedom of speech, as in the legal right protected by the First Amendment in the United States, is indeed only against the government. But free discourse, as an ideal and virtue for the citizens of a republic, is a much broader concept. The citizens of a democratic republic should be open to hearing new ideas and engaging in reasoned debate with each other.
  - postnihilism 9y ago
    Yes, but the beginning of those conversations can't be, "you're biologically inferior at doing the same job as me." That's not "engaging in reasoned debate", it's being an asshole. We can have a discussion about the merits of public companies engaging in diversity programs without starting from that premise though.
    - jquery 9y ago
      > "you're biologically inferior at doing the same job as me." If you think he said that, you didn't read the article.
    - dyarosla 9y ago

tomc1985 9y ago

It seems he made that point and then continued to make a bunch of other points, and its those other points that many have a problem with. I read a good chunk in agreement, but then it just took a left turn. Between its thinly-vieled promotion for 'conservative values' and some very thin 'therefore' conclusions midway through, it would never be able to stand up to the heights of intellect that its author probably intended it for.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

kylestlb 9y ago

Can you really say 'the establishment' is somehow masterminding anything, when the President of the USA will likely go on twitter to shame Google for what they've done?

marcoperaza 9y ago
There probably has never been a President as much at odds with the establishment as Trump.
- kylestlb 9y ago
  If you think 'establishment' means having vanilla PR, sure. But he is as establishment-minded as the rest of them. Appointing big oil CEO to sec of state, ultra neocon pro-corporation judge to the supreme court, extremely pro charter-school administrator to sec of education. All are very wealthy people who belong to a higher income bracket than the vast majority of America. Establishment has a price tag and he has been able to afford it most of his life. That isn't changing anytime soon.
  - Corristowolf 9y ago
    So if people that were appointed to these positions had a blue tie, that would somehow make them "not wealthy people who don't belong to a higher income bracket than the vast majority of America" ?

wutbrodo 9y ago

> Honestly, Google might have even been rational to fire him, due to the toxic situation created by the mass outrage. How incredibly damning of our society. This is always the case. Even companies who are sane need to respond to the foaming-at-the-mouth lunacy of Twitter and related cesspools. As disgusting as the Brendan Eich thing was, I never really blamed Mozilla. I'm just not sure how tech in particular ended up so strongly under the influence of a relatively small amount of loud, shitty people.

deevolution 9y ago

I think you might just be afraid of women.

Iv 9y ago

Honestly I knew where this was going when I saw him mention biological differences. Which is a shame because many of his arguments are actually interesting. The tl;dr is actually chilling in the light of this firing. His points were that some diversity policies were misguided and may even cause harm but are impossible to correct because they are taboo. His memo was well-argumented and he was open to contradiction, which on several points could have been brought. It was not aggressive, not dismissive, not sexist. I personally view his firing as totally excessive and downright anti-intellectual. Critics, we are not yet in a post-sexist society. We have to improve many things for women and minorities, we have many efforts to make to reach true equality. Shutting down debate on your tactics will not help.

sulam 9y ago

For a significant portion of American history there was an established difference in the distribution of the ability of people to own property. More recently there's an established difference in the distribution of the ability of minorities, students, and liberals to vote in certain states (NC, WI, TX, among others). There was an established difference in the incidence of AIDS during the 80's. There are established differences in the distribution of outcomes related to conviction of minor drug possession, soliciting prostitution, and a host of other non-violent crimes. Heck, there's an established difference in the distribution of police pulling people over or otherwise detaining people without cause in many municipalities. Trying to justify discrimination by referring to the direct result of discriminatory behavior is obscene.

dguaraglia 9y ago

> "Treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group." "But beware of this particular subgroup, because they are biologically inclined to not be as interested or good in the subject." > Everyone is just rushing to virtue signal, to demonstrate their own purity of thought No, people are pissed that it's 2017 and people are still trying to make an argument for the superiority of testosterone as a predictor for success in a particular field. Can't we just give everyone a chance, instead of trying to pigeonhole them right away? > A particular brand of liberalism has reached the point of being a religion, and the establishment is running an inquisition against any who dare to question its points of dogma. Please don't pay attention to the actual religious agenda being pushed by the party currently in power. You know, the one that is actually running an inquisition against LGBTQ people? The one that wants to tell women what to do with their bodies? No dogma there, surely. > This is the closing of the American mind. The closing of the American mind started happening when a political party decided to take over religion and anti-intellectualism as their platform. That's why we've gotten to the point where being called an "expert" is paramount to an insult in certain contexts.

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
> Can't we just give everyone a chance, instead of trying to pigeonhole them right away? The enginner did not say women can't be engineers, merely implied that the gender imbalance in the field may not be entirely the result of society. There are very real, very definite emotional and psychological differences between men and women overall[1]. Why is it so weird to think that those differences might lead to different career paths? >Please don't pay attention to the actual religious agenda being pushed by the party currently in power. You know, the one that is actually running an inquisition against LGBTQ people? The one that wants to tell women what to do with their bodies? No dogma there, surely. Just that the other side is crazy too doesn't mean we shouldn't point out the possible weaknesses of the left. Extreme political polarization on both sides combined with a decline in peoples' willingness to consider the opinions of those who oppose them is part of what is causing all this. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology
- 9y ago

jroseattle 9y ago

This response has the tone of justification by exactly the very minds condemned as being closed. I read the article which attempts to establish as fact very clearly unsubstantiated subjective claims. Never mind the toxicity -- the dude is just flat wrong. "Treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group." I totally agree, and this individual got his due.

ramach 9y ago

This blew up because 1) English is an imprecise language subject to multiple interpretations; 2) Viral effects develop when there are feedback loops/network effects (virtue signaling is one; conservative vs liberal politics is another) I would hope that a more narrowly focused document written in more formal language (math) with clearly-stated assumptions and a faq that addresses common misinterpretations will have fared better but these days even expecting this might be too much (which is sad!). The one thing I feel that lost out on all this brouhaha was the author's point that companies should value "diversity of thoughts" rather than diversity of <the current hot topic class>!

hn_throwaway_99 9y ago

While I have a lot of problems with the memo, I was pissed to see CNN's subtitle on this topic: "Boss condemns manifesto sent by a male engineer that claims women aren't suited for work in tech." To say that the manifesto claimed "women aren't suited for work in tech" is more than a gross mischaracterization, it's outright false.

marcoperaza 9y ago
It was even worse. I'm pretty sure the headline yesterday was that he called women "biologically unfit for tech".

imartin2k 9y ago

"A particular brand of liberalism has reached the point of being a religion, and the establishment is running an inquisition against any who dare to question its points of dogma." Indeed. I also felt reminded of dynamics in the realm of religion.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]