3 ms·

So, stating true, scientifically verified facts that challenge Google's official political ideology is now a fireable offence. This is insane. The speed at wh

So, stating true, scientifically verified facts that challenge Google's official political ideology is now a fireable offence. This is insane. The speed at which this ideology has taken over SV is breathtaking, and a massive disincentive for anyone not already so inclined to work there.

donohoe 9y ago
Oh no, no, not at all. These are not scientifically verifiable facts. Actually, I take that back. His broad claims can be scientifically demonstrated as false. I encourage you to pause and read this: https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788 https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-man... If that doesn't explain things, then I don't know what will. I hope it provides better context - whether we agree or not.
- ctlby 9y ago
  The link doesn't explain a thing about the science; in fact, the author states in the very first paragraph that he won't even bother. What exactly do you think you posted? The manifesto's claims are very much in the scientific mainstream. Evidence has only piled on since the Pinker-Spelke debate. You have very little to hang your hat on in this argument. [1] https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/debate05/debate05_index.html https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/debate05/debate05_index.htm...
  - cratermoon 9y ago
    They are not mainstream, they are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism
  - donohoe 9y ago
    Try this then: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/evzjww/here-are-the-citations-for-the-anti-diversity-manifesto-circulating-at-google https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/evzjww/here-are-t...
nxmehta 9y ago
> So, stating true, scientifically verified facts that challenge Google's official political ideology is now a fireable offence. Did you read the memo? I don't think you did. Let me help you distinguish fact from speculation. Quote from the memo: "Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing)" This is science supported by citations. Cool. "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" This is pure speculation without any supporting evidence. The document is littered with these unsupported conclusions that he arrives at which are several steps away from the actual science. I'd be happy to point them out at length. It's extremely deceptive of you to say that he was fired for stating facts, while the minority of the points in his doc had any supporting facts whatsoever. In fact, reports indicate that was fired for violating the Google code of conduct: http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/08/google-fires-james-damore-for-writing-anti-diversity-memo.html http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/08/google-fires-james-damore.... If you'd like to present the argument for a) why he didn't violate the code of conduct or b) that's not why he was fired, by all means proceed. I'd be interested to see your evidence for that.

donohoe 9y ago

Oh no, no, not at all. These are not scientifically verifiable facts. Actually, I take that back. His broad claims can be scientifically demonstrated as false. I encourage you to pause and read this: https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788 https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-man... If that doesn't explain things, then I don't know what will. I hope it provides better context - whether we agree or not.

ctlby 9y ago
The link doesn't explain a thing about the science; in fact, the author states in the very first paragraph that he won't even bother. What exactly do you think you posted? The manifesto's claims are very much in the scientific mainstream. Evidence has only piled on since the Pinker-Spelke debate. You have very little to hang your hat on in this argument. [1] https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/debate05/debate05_index.html https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/debate05/debate05_index.htm...
- cratermoon 9y ago
  They are not mainstream, they are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism
- donohoe 9y ago
  Try this then: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/evzjww/here-are-the-citations-for-the-anti-diversity-manifesto-circulating-at-google https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/evzjww/here-are-t...

nxmehta 9y ago

> So, stating true, scientifically verified facts that challenge Google's official political ideology is now a fireable offence. Did you read the memo? I don't think you did. Let me help you distinguish fact from speculation. Quote from the memo: "Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing)" This is science supported by citations. Cool. "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" This is pure speculation without any supporting evidence. The document is littered with these unsupported conclusions that he arrives at which are several steps away from the actual science. I'd be happy to point them out at length. It's extremely deceptive of you to say that he was fired for stating facts, while the minority of the points in his doc had any supporting facts whatsoever. In fact, reports indicate that was fired for violating the Google code of conduct: http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/08/google-fires-james-damore-for-writing-anti-diversity-memo.html http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/08/google-fires-james-damore.... If you'd like to present the argument for a) why he didn't violate the code of conduct or b) that's not why he was fired, by all means proceed. I'd be interested to see your evidence for that.