6 ms·

I believe you have misconstrued the message Sundar was giving. The difference between having the freedom to speak one's mind, and breaching a code of conduct t

by se2 9y ago

I believe you have misconstrued the message Sundar was giving. The difference between having the freedom to speak one's mind, and breaching a code of conduct that you sign when you agree to work for Google is clear cut in his note.

lagadu 9y ago
By firing the employee they're effectively sending out a strong message about it no matter how they sugarcoat it.
- cdubzzz 9y ago
  A strong message about breaking the code of conduct, yes. The message here seems abundantly clear and I have trouble understanding how it can miscontrued to be anything other than reacting to a clear violation. I can't even think of how to restate what is so clearly laid out in the note. I wouldn't rule out the potential that there is uneven enforcement of such violations, and that would make this action look questionable. But I don't know enough about Google's internal operations to get to that conclusion.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - visarga 9y ago
    When calling it a "code of conduct" does it refer to concrete actions, or just expressing opinions? Other than speech, what was the violation here? Restricting free speech by threat of firing is the solution everyone is applauding? Apparently Google is declaring an attitude in opposition to what they did: "many points raised in the memo ... are important topics. The author had a right to express their views on those topics...". But got fired as a result.
    - cdubzzz 9y ago
      Speech is action and just as capable of breaking any rule or code as physical action. Free speech is also not really relevant here as it has to do with the government's inability to restrict speech. I think it is certainly a very fine line to walk and people (including Google employees) will definitely see it in a lot of different ways. But, reading this as an outsider, the note appears to me to address the situation very directly and conveys a real sense of urgency (more so than I have ever seen from any of my employers, at least).
      - stefantalpalaru 9y ago
        > Free speech is also not really relevant here as it has to do with the government's inability to restrict speech. From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
    - tchaffee 9y ago
      Expressing opinions that make employees feel less adequate due to their gender is a violation of the CoC. I applaud restricting that kind of speech, as do most companies. At some companies the motivation might be strictly legal, but regardless of the motivation you're going to get fired if you open the company up to future gender discrimination lawsuits. "many points raised in the memo ... are important topics." So what? Other points were a violation of the CoC. Goodbye, good luck, see you around the campus!
      - Caveman_Coder 9y ago
        So I'd expect every employee posting "The Future is Female" or "#YesAllMen" or something on Memegen/Eng-Misc to be fired as well...but that is not going to happen.
        tchaffee 9y ago
        > but that is not going to happen. At every company in the world. You aren't seriously expecting a company code of conduct to be applied fairly in some sort of scientifically measurable way? The code of conduct is there to protect against the worst types of behavior, and plenty of bad behavior will slip under the radar. So what? It's not meant to create some sort of utopian workplace. It's meant to create a better workplace for those who have historically been discriminated against. So far, it looks like it has come in handy at least once in a very public way.
  - fwn 9y ago
    Not sure whether a management decision to remove the author is helping or hurting the goal to create an environment that isn't intimidating. ..because - compared to what was written in the memo - this is a very intimidating thing to do.
    - cdubzzz 9y ago
      This is a tough one. I think it effectively does both (help and hurt), including all the positive and negative fall out of each decision. Intimidating is a strong word for this, I think. I would call it intimidating if the original memo was a challenge to the code of conduct, as opposed to a violation of it. Either way, I agree that other employees could see this as intimidation and that makes the whole situation much more complex. I suppose that ultimately I would not stand 100% in defense of the course of action, but I am also not grabbing my pitchfork over it.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    - tchaffee 9y ago
      > this is a very intimidating thing to do. It should be. If violating the CoC has no consequences then there should be no CoC in the first place. The CoC makes it clear that some actions and some types of speech are entirely unwelcome at the company. The memo also makes it clear that if you have a minority viewpoint that does not violate the CoC, then you should be encouraged to express those viewpoints. It even gave specific examples of the parts of the original memo that do not violate the CoC.
      - fwn 9y ago
        I do not know their full code of conduct. However, the part referenced by Pichai did not help to decrease uncertainty at all. This is problematic since the toxic effect of uncertainty and ideological supression at the work place is not mitigated by it being produced through arbitrary executives or an executives arbitrary interpretation of some given code of conduct. edit: If the purpose of the code of conduct is to create this uncertainty, than that alone should be reason enough for the code to be improved. edit2: And of course, this specific code of conduct did not generate the legitimicy it should have created, which is why we are talking about this incidence.
  - ai_ja_nai 9y ago
    Banning free speech is unconstitutional. Any "Code of Conduct" or other self proclaiming binding clauses on your contract that try to go against your constitutional rights should be void.
    - cdubzzz 9y ago
      Banning free speech is absolutely not unconstitutional. I think the Wikipedia article[0] sums it up best (emphasis mine): In the United States, freedom of speech and expression is strongly protected from government restrictions by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, many state constitutions, and state and federal laws. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite...
  - zaptheimpaler 9y ago
    This is some ridiculous shit right here. When a murderer is sentenced for murder... there are 2 levels of understanding the sentencing. One is that he broke the "code of conduct"/law, the deeper is why we consider that to be unlawful (societal harm). Saying he clearly broke the code of conduct just shifts the question to how useful the code of conduct is.. its not some fucking holy unbreakable scripture from the sky, its man made, just as the firing is.
    - cdubzzz 9y ago
      > there are 2 levels of understanding the sentencing. One is that he broke the "code of conduct"/law, the deeper is why we consider that to be unlawful (societal harm). I wholeheartedly agree with this. I'll even stick with your example in asking - is murdering someone a good way to start debating the "why" of the law against murder? There are certainly examples where breaking the law proves to be a powerful and effective way to start the conversation. But how often does this hold true when breaking the law causes real harm to others? I doubt the answer is "never", but I can't come up with any argument for how this applies to the current situation.
      - zaptheimpaler 9y ago
        The employee in question tried to start a conversation by posting a memo on email to other people - so starting a conversation the way they are usually started. It was abruptly ended. Anyways my main point was the breach of code of conduct is just the technical reason he was fired. If you read the line item he was fired for, its clear its vague enough to be used many many different ways. I don't think its productive to focus on whether he broke some rule somewhere when the whole situation that led to the firing is known to us.
  - SamBam 9y ago
    > reacting to a clear violation. If it's so clear, then could you specify exactly which parts of the memo were "fair to debate" (as Pichai says) and which part were "clear violation?"
    - joshuamorton 9y ago
      Pichai does in the note.
      - nailer 9y ago
        Where?
        joshuamorton 9y ago
        >So to be clear again, many points raised in the memo—such as the portions criticizing Google’s trainings, questioning the role of ideology in the workplace, and debating whether programs for women and underserved groups are sufficiently open to all—are important topics. The author had a right to express their views on those topics—we encourage an environment in which people can do this and it remains our policy to not take action against anyone for prompting these discussions.
        nailer 9y ago
        Sorry I should have been clearer: which parts were the clear violation?
  - Aunche 9y ago
    Every instance of censorship is justified by saying the offender broke a code of conduct. The Sedition Act, ban of Huck Finn in school libraries, and even preventing sex education are justified this way. Equating a well meaning discussion to harassment is a dangerous precedent to set. Anything can be construed as breaking Google's code of conduct. If I compliment a coworker's new haircut, and they interpret it as an inappropriate sexual advance, should I be fired for making the coworker uncomfortable?
zaptheimpaler 9y ago
The bigger message is the actions, not the words. It is very clear.
h4l0 9y ago
Misconduct would be expressing these views under his blog while putting emphasis on Google and blaming his company for what he finds unreasonable. He used internal messaging services. Someone leaked the document. That "someone" is sitting in his/her office today getting no punishment whatsoever.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  I haven't read the code of conduct, and I'm disappointed the person was fired, but I presume there's a clause about saying bigoted things. And people consider parts of what he said bigoted.
  - jamesrcole 9y ago
    > And people consider parts of what he said bigoted. Is it enough for some people to consider it that? Consider gay marriage. Each side thinks the other is being bigoted towards some group. Do we just take people's words for it?
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      I agree. I'm just stating a possible justification for dismissal.
    - josteink 9y ago
      Looking at the response in this friend it is worringly normal to let you ever get most easily offended define what is reasonable. This only leads to people getting increasingly sensitive over increasingly minor things and it's a vicious circle. So how do we break it? How do we re-establish open discourse?
  - talmand 9y ago
    I consider what you just said as bigoted. You should apologize and fall on your sword for my feelings.
  - shaggerty 9y ago
    Its intetesting how in the last couple years bigot has been redefined from "someone who is not tolerant of the opinions of others" to "anyone who disagrees with leftist moral thought"
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
eeks 9y ago
You cannot pose as a parangon of free speech when your company just fired a dissenting voice. For all intents and purposes the content of the memo was balanced, polite, and restricted to the Google audience. The adult reaction should have been to punish the leaker (which I believe should be an actual breach of the code of conduct) and organize internal debates to allow multiple viewpoints to confront. Rallying with the hysterical mass and shutting down the minority voice is certainly not about supporting debates and free speech. It's about throwing red meat to the wolves so the company can quietly solve its all too real gender pay gap issues without making too much PR waves.
- jsf666 9y ago
  > real gender pay gap issues There is no such thing, there's been a plethora of research about this that disprove this false claim
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  I agree. Having read the original memo, if anything in there actually violates Google's Code of Conduct, then they need to have a serious discussion about the CoC itself (and how they interpret it).
  - xenadu02 9y ago
    Uhh Pichai repeats exactly what the memo claimed: that women are >being “agreeable” rather than “assertive,” showing a “lower stress tolerance,” or being “neurotic.” Go ahead and claim women are more neurotic and have a lower stress tolerance. Don’t expect everyone to pat you on the back and claim you’re just expressing a minority viewpoint... because you clearly aren’t. James Damore didn’t bother to do any research on the topic - I guess he just assumed his feelings were correct? And he assumed he wouldn’t suffer any consequences for claiming 1/3 of his coworkers were meek easily spooked neurotics?
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      > James Damore didn’t bother to do any research on the topic - I guess he just assumed his feelings were correct? Go and actually read the original memo at https://medium.com/@Cernovich/full-james-damore-memo-uncensored-memo-with-charts-and-cites-339f3d2d05f https://medium.com/@Cernovich/full-james-damore-memo-uncenso.... Which, for this particular point, links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology#Personality_traits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology#..., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathizing%E2%80%93systemizing_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathizing%E2%80%93systemizin... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism (see in particular https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism#Sex_differences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism#Sex_differences). From which you can access about a metric fuck ton of actual research. We can't expect to have any reasonable discussion on the topic if the standard of criticism is not reading the piece one is criticizing, and then stating obvious falsehoods (like "didn’t bother to do any research") as facts - probably hoping other readers also won't bother checking. EDIT: Also: > Go ahead and claim women are more neurotic and have a lower stress tolerance. Don’t expect everyone to pat you on the back and claim you’re just expressing a minority viewpoint... Those are actual falsifiable statements. They can be either true or false. The whole idea of considering them as "viewpoints" is ridiculous and it's precisely what's the problem with the whole environment surrounding the discussion.
tryingagainbro 9y ago
I totally agree with you and Google. It's like "you can choose your car color, as long as it is black." https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Henry-Ford-say-%E2%80%9CA-customer-can-have-a-car-painted-any-color-he-wants-as-long-as-it%E2%80%99s-black%E2%80%9D https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Henry-Ford-say-%E2%80%9CA-cust... Oh wait, maybe I don't agree with you...
JustAnotherPat 9y ago
>"each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination.” Which part did he break exactly? Bias? Seems like something that can be construed to mean basically any ideology or opinion, conservative or liberal.
- unethical_ban 9y ago
  I think he went too far when he suggested women are inherently less capable in the computer sciences than men. Saying diversity training sucks, or that Google should re-evaluate how they encourage diversity, or that men are getting a raw deal, would have been tolerable.
  - IshKebab 9y ago
    Would he have gone too far to suggest that women are inherently physically weaker than men? Or that they are inherently longer-lived than men? What about that they are inherently less interested in football?
    - pgodzin 9y ago
      Probably, because longer-lived and interest in football are not inherent biologically. A male baby is not born interested in football, it is socialized. Men work more dangerous jobs and are socialized into more unhealthy behaviors, diets, etc that can result in lower lifespan than women.
      - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
        Testosterone has a direct, measurable effect on competitiveness and aggressiveness. Why wouldn't you think this would affect the overall sports preference between the sexes? In an environment where men have significantly higher testosterone than women, wouldn't there naturally be more men than women in an aggressive sport like football? Would you expect a 50% gender parity in such an environment? Culture plays an effect, but we really need to realize that biology probably pays a role too, and potentially affects gender parities in many careers.
swat535 9y ago
Google can indeed impose a code of conduct on its employees when they sign up. However, that does not give licence to Google to place unreasonable limits on employees constitutional rights. To do so would give privately entered contracts the power to overturn the constitution which society has enacted. The debate here is over whether his comments were reasonable in this context.
- tchaffee 9y ago
  Which constitutional rights? The right that guarantees the government will not interfere with your free speech? Or some other right?

by se2 9y ago

lagadu 9y ago

By firing the employee they're effectively sending out a strong message about it no matter how they sugarcoat it.

cdubzzz 9y ago
A strong message about breaking the code of conduct, yes. The message here seems abundantly clear and I have trouble understanding how it can miscontrued to be anything other than reacting to a clear violation. I can't even think of how to restate what is so clearly laid out in the note. I wouldn't rule out the potential that there is uneven enforcement of such violations, and that would make this action look questionable. But I don't know enough about Google's internal operations to get to that conclusion.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- visarga 9y ago
  When calling it a "code of conduct" does it refer to concrete actions, or just expressing opinions? Other than speech, what was the violation here? Restricting free speech by threat of firing is the solution everyone is applauding? Apparently Google is declaring an attitude in opposition to what they did: "many points raised in the memo ... are important topics. The author had a right to express their views on those topics...". But got fired as a result.
  - cdubzzz 9y ago
    Speech is action and just as capable of breaking any rule or code as physical action. Free speech is also not really relevant here as it has to do with the government's inability to restrict speech. I think it is certainly a very fine line to walk and people (including Google employees) will definitely see it in a lot of different ways. But, reading this as an outsider, the note appears to me to address the situation very directly and conveys a real sense of urgency (more so than I have ever seen from any of my employers, at least).
    - stefantalpalaru 9y ago
      > Free speech is also not really relevant here as it has to do with the government's inability to restrict speech. From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
  - tchaffee 9y ago
    Expressing opinions that make employees feel less adequate due to their gender is a violation of the CoC. I applaud restricting that kind of speech, as do most companies. At some companies the motivation might be strictly legal, but regardless of the motivation you're going to get fired if you open the company up to future gender discrimination lawsuits. "many points raised in the memo ... are important topics." So what? Other points were a violation of the CoC. Goodbye, good luck, see you around the campus!
    - Caveman_Coder 9y ago
      So I'd expect every employee posting "The Future is Female" or "#YesAllMen" or something on Memegen/Eng-Misc to be fired as well...but that is not going to happen.
      - tchaffee 9y ago
        > but that is not going to happen. At every company in the world. You aren't seriously expecting a company code of conduct to be applied fairly in some sort of scientifically measurable way? The code of conduct is there to protect against the worst types of behavior, and plenty of bad behavior will slip under the radar. So what? It's not meant to create some sort of utopian workplace. It's meant to create a better workplace for those who have historically been discriminated against. So far, it looks like it has come in handy at least once in a very public way.
- fwn 9y ago
  Not sure whether a management decision to remove the author is helping or hurting the goal to create an environment that isn't intimidating. ..because - compared to what was written in the memo - this is a very intimidating thing to do.
  - cdubzzz 9y ago
    This is a tough one. I think it effectively does both (help and hurt), including all the positive and negative fall out of each decision. Intimidating is a strong word for this, I think. I would call it intimidating if the original memo was a challenge to the code of conduct, as opposed to a violation of it. Either way, I agree that other employees could see this as intimidation and that makes the whole situation much more complex. I suppose that ultimately I would not stand 100% in defense of the course of action, but I am also not grabbing my pitchfork over it.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - tchaffee 9y ago
    > this is a very intimidating thing to do. It should be. If violating the CoC has no consequences then there should be no CoC in the first place. The CoC makes it clear that some actions and some types of speech are entirely unwelcome at the company. The memo also makes it clear that if you have a minority viewpoint that does not violate the CoC, then you should be encouraged to express those viewpoints. It even gave specific examples of the parts of the original memo that do not violate the CoC.
    - fwn 9y ago
      I do not know their full code of conduct. However, the part referenced by Pichai did not help to decrease uncertainty at all. This is problematic since the toxic effect of uncertainty and ideological supression at the work place is not mitigated by it being produced through arbitrary executives or an executives arbitrary interpretation of some given code of conduct. edit: If the purpose of the code of conduct is to create this uncertainty, than that alone should be reason enough for the code to be improved. edit2: And of course, this specific code of conduct did not generate the legitimicy it should have created, which is why we are talking about this incidence.
- ai_ja_nai 9y ago
  Banning free speech is unconstitutional. Any "Code of Conduct" or other self proclaiming binding clauses on your contract that try to go against your constitutional rights should be void.
  - cdubzzz 9y ago
    Banning free speech is absolutely not unconstitutional. I think the Wikipedia article[0] sums it up best (emphasis mine): In the United States, freedom of speech and expression is strongly protected from government restrictions by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, many state constitutions, and state and federal laws. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite...
- zaptheimpaler 9y ago
  This is some ridiculous shit right here. When a murderer is sentenced for murder... there are 2 levels of understanding the sentencing. One is that he broke the "code of conduct"/law, the deeper is why we consider that to be unlawful (societal harm). Saying he clearly broke the code of conduct just shifts the question to how useful the code of conduct is.. its not some fucking holy unbreakable scripture from the sky, its man made, just as the firing is.
  - cdubzzz 9y ago
    > there are 2 levels of understanding the sentencing. One is that he broke the "code of conduct"/law, the deeper is why we consider that to be unlawful (societal harm). I wholeheartedly agree with this. I'll even stick with your example in asking - is murdering someone a good way to start debating the "why" of the law against murder? There are certainly examples where breaking the law proves to be a powerful and effective way to start the conversation. But how often does this hold true when breaking the law causes real harm to others? I doubt the answer is "never", but I can't come up with any argument for how this applies to the current situation.
    - zaptheimpaler 9y ago
      The employee in question tried to start a conversation by posting a memo on email to other people - so starting a conversation the way they are usually started. It was abruptly ended. Anyways my main point was the breach of code of conduct is just the technical reason he was fired. If you read the line item he was fired for, its clear its vague enough to be used many many different ways. I don't think its productive to focus on whether he broke some rule somewhere when the whole situation that led to the firing is known to us.
- SamBam 9y ago
  > reacting to a clear violation. If it's so clear, then could you specify exactly which parts of the memo were "fair to debate" (as Pichai says) and which part were "clear violation?"
  - joshuamorton 9y ago
    Pichai does in the note.
    - nailer 9y ago
      Where?
      - joshuamorton 9y ago
        >So to be clear again, many points raised in the memo—such as the portions criticizing Google’s trainings, questioning the role of ideology in the workplace, and debating whether programs for women and underserved groups are sufficiently open to all—are important topics. The author had a right to express their views on those topics—we encourage an environment in which people can do this and it remains our policy to not take action against anyone for prompting these discussions.
        nailer 9y ago
        Sorry I should have been clearer: which parts were the clear violation?
- Aunche 9y ago
  Every instance of censorship is justified by saying the offender broke a code of conduct. The Sedition Act, ban of Huck Finn in school libraries, and even preventing sex education are justified this way. Equating a well meaning discussion to harassment is a dangerous precedent to set. Anything can be construed as breaking Google's code of conduct. If I compliment a coworker's new haircut, and they interpret it as an inappropriate sexual advance, should I be fired for making the coworker uncomfortable?

zaptheimpaler 9y ago

The bigger message is the actions, not the words. It is very clear.

h4l0 9y ago

Misconduct would be expressing these views under his blog while putting emphasis on Google and blaming his company for what he finds unreasonable. He used internal messaging services. Someone leaked the document. That "someone" is sitting in his/her office today getting no punishment whatsoever.

humanrebar 9y ago
I haven't read the code of conduct, and I'm disappointed the person was fired, but I presume there's a clause about saying bigoted things. And people consider parts of what he said bigoted.
- jamesrcole 9y ago
  > And people consider parts of what he said bigoted. Is it enough for some people to consider it that? Consider gay marriage. Each side thinks the other is being bigoted towards some group. Do we just take people's words for it?
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    I agree. I'm just stating a possible justification for dismissal.
  - josteink 9y ago
    Looking at the response in this friend it is worringly normal to let you ever get most easily offended define what is reasonable. This only leads to people getting increasingly sensitive over increasingly minor things and it's a vicious circle. So how do we break it? How do we re-establish open discourse?
- talmand 9y ago
  I consider what you just said as bigoted. You should apologize and fall on your sword for my feelings.
- shaggerty 9y ago
  Its intetesting how in the last couple years bigot has been redefined from "someone who is not tolerant of the opinions of others" to "anyone who disagrees with leftist moral thought"

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

eeks 9y ago

You cannot pose as a parangon of free speech when your company just fired a dissenting voice. For all intents and purposes the content of the memo was balanced, polite, and restricted to the Google audience. The adult reaction should have been to punish the leaker (which I believe should be an actual breach of the code of conduct) and organize internal debates to allow multiple viewpoints to confront. Rallying with the hysterical mass and shutting down the minority voice is certainly not about supporting debates and free speech. It's about throwing red meat to the wolves so the company can quietly solve its all too real gender pay gap issues without making too much PR waves.

jsf666 9y ago
> real gender pay gap issues There is no such thing, there's been a plethora of research about this that disprove this false claim
TeMPOraL 9y ago
I agree. Having read the original memo, if anything in there actually violates Google's Code of Conduct, then they need to have a serious discussion about the CoC itself (and how they interpret it).
- xenadu02 9y ago
  Uhh Pichai repeats exactly what the memo claimed: that women are >being “agreeable” rather than “assertive,” showing a “lower stress tolerance,” or being “neurotic.” Go ahead and claim women are more neurotic and have a lower stress tolerance. Don’t expect everyone to pat you on the back and claim you’re just expressing a minority viewpoint... because you clearly aren’t. James Damore didn’t bother to do any research on the topic - I guess he just assumed his feelings were correct? And he assumed he wouldn’t suffer any consequences for claiming 1/3 of his coworkers were meek easily spooked neurotics?
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    > James Damore didn’t bother to do any research on the topic - I guess he just assumed his feelings were correct? Go and actually read the original memo at https://medium.com/@Cernovich/full-james-damore-memo-uncensored-memo-with-charts-and-cites-339f3d2d05f https://medium.com/@Cernovich/full-james-damore-memo-uncenso.... Which, for this particular point, links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology#Personality_traits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology#..., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathizing%E2%80%93systemizing_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathizing%E2%80%93systemizin... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism (see in particular https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism#Sex_differences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism#Sex_differences). From which you can access about a metric fuck ton of actual research. We can't expect to have any reasonable discussion on the topic if the standard of criticism is not reading the piece one is criticizing, and then stating obvious falsehoods (like "didn’t bother to do any research") as facts - probably hoping other readers also won't bother checking. EDIT: Also: > Go ahead and claim women are more neurotic and have a lower stress tolerance. Don’t expect everyone to pat you on the back and claim you’re just expressing a minority viewpoint... Those are actual falsifiable statements. They can be either true or false. The whole idea of considering them as "viewpoints" is ridiculous and it's precisely what's the problem with the whole environment surrounding the discussion.

tryingagainbro 9y ago

I totally agree with you and Google. It's like "you can choose your car color, as long as it is black." https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Henry-Ford-say-%E2%80%9CA-customer-can-have-a-car-painted-any-color-he-wants-as-long-as-it%E2%80%99s-black%E2%80%9D https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Henry-Ford-say-%E2%80%9CA-cust... Oh wait, maybe I don't agree with you...

JustAnotherPat 9y ago

>"each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination.” Which part did he break exactly? Bias? Seems like something that can be construed to mean basically any ideology or opinion, conservative or liberal.

unethical_ban 9y ago
I think he went too far when he suggested women are inherently less capable in the computer sciences than men. Saying diversity training sucks, or that Google should re-evaluate how they encourage diversity, or that men are getting a raw deal, would have been tolerable.
- IshKebab 9y ago
  Would he have gone too far to suggest that women are inherently physically weaker than men? Or that they are inherently longer-lived than men? What about that they are inherently less interested in football?
  - pgodzin 9y ago
    Probably, because longer-lived and interest in football are not inherent biologically. A male baby is not born interested in football, it is socialized. Men work more dangerous jobs and are socialized into more unhealthy behaviors, diets, etc that can result in lower lifespan than women.
    - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
      Testosterone has a direct, measurable effect on competitiveness and aggressiveness. Why wouldn't you think this would affect the overall sports preference between the sexes? In an environment where men have significantly higher testosterone than women, wouldn't there naturally be more men than women in an aggressive sport like football? Would you expect a 50% gender parity in such an environment? Culture plays an effect, but we really need to realize that biology probably pays a role too, and potentially affects gender parities in many careers.

swat535 9y ago

Google can indeed impose a code of conduct on its employees when they sign up. However, that does not give licence to Google to place unreasonable limits on employees constitutional rights. To do so would give privately entered contracts the power to overturn the constitution which society has enacted. The debate here is over whether his comments were reasonable in this context.

tchaffee 9y ago
Which constitutional rights? The right that guarantees the government will not interfere with your free speech? Or some other right?