5 ms·

> The guy who was fired was way out of line, far beyond any reasonable limits to topics of discussion. What did the author say that was "out of line"? Can you

> The guy who was fired was way out of line, far beyond any reasonable limits to topics of discussion. What did the author say that was "out of line"? Can you please cite a section of the essay and explain? Note: Please see this response to the memo from four scientists who study the field of psychology: http://archive.is/z6xxP http://archive.is/z6xxP The reason given by Google for the author's termination was "advancing harmful gender stereotypes". I didn't see any evidence in the memo of "advancing harmful gender stereotypes". Where are the stereotypes? Where's the evidence that they're harmful? Is the author really advancing them? The author appears to be referencing scientific research into the topics that he mentioned. Scientific research into sex differences is not "harmful stereotypes". The way in which the Google CEO's reply is worded gives me the impression that they don't even understand that the author's claims are scientific ones. For example: > Our co-workers shouldn’t have to worry that each time they open their mouths to speak in a meeting, they have to prove that they are not like the memo states, being “agreeable” rather than “assertive,” showing a “lower stress tolerance,” or being “neurotic.” These terms -- agreeableness, neurotic -- are personality traits in the field of psychology. There is a significant amount of research into how men and women differ in these traits. See Wikipedia for sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism#Sex_differences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism#Sex_differences > This paper investigates gender differences in personality traits, both at the level of the Big Five and at the sublevel of two aspects within each Big Five domain. Replicating previous findings, women reported higher Big Five Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism scores than men. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/ The author's mention of terms like "neuroticism" and "agreeableness" are statements of personality trait trends established by scientific research, not personal views or stereotypes. The message from Google's CEO seems to interpret them as personal insults, thereby missing the point of the essay. The original memo raises points like: women tend to have higher neuroticism on average (low stress tolerance) than men. If some tech jobs have high stress, then is it possible fewer women than men seek those jobs? That seems like a reasonable question to explore, to me, and a question that's grounded in existing scientific research, not the promulgation of a stereotype. The author also cited other research such as "Women, careers, and work-life preferences": https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2011/SPP457/um/23632422/Hakim_2006.pdf https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2011/SPP457/um/23632422/Hakim...

Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
A lot of what he said was on-point and I agree with it. However, it also puts forth a lot of inappropriate generalizations, and in many places presents absurdisms as valid points. I think his "manifesto" would have been a lot more compelling and less divisive if he had presented it much differently.
- sebastos 9y ago
  SUCH AS? Jesus Christ.
  - Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
    1. He boils down the sides do absurd minimal values that understandably cause offense. He calls the people the "left" support as "weak" and says the left worldview prefers an "unstable" approach. 2. He jumps directly into generalizations about men and women. THe subject has hardly been breached at this point and he's already stirring discomfort among any readers for whom his generalizations do not hold. 3. He says that women have a harder time negotiating for salary et al as part of their inherent nature. 4. He directly states that women are neurotic and indirectly states that women cannot handle high-stress work. These terms were called "scientific" by the parent comment, but so is "retarded", and calling someone a retard is pretty fucking rude. I empathise with the idea that men are being marginalized in order to accomodate for others. Supressing the views of conservatives is equally troubling and worth addressing. Many of his other points hold as well. But he goes too far and throws a rotten egg into the whole document.
    - sebastos 9y ago
      "Support of the weak" and "neurotic" are being used in their technical sense though, as rough axes upon which people can lie. It's not normative, it's descriptive. I don't really know if your #3 is true or not (this isn't the hill I die on), but I don't think it's heresy to suggest it might be. Is that really so impossible as to be an absurdism? Obviously some of the things he's saying are generalization, but that's hardly a coherent criticism in this context - everything we're talking about on this topic is, by its very nature, generalization. We're saying fewer women than men take jobs in the computer science sector _in general_. If you're trying to look at broad trends it's okay to talk about averages. Real scientists don't need to preface every single statistic with a huge preamble reminding the reader that individual samples are not the same thing as the distribution they are drawn from. The silly thing is I actually agree that this was a useless move to try and 'educate' the whole company. But saying he was being unscientific is garbage. He's being perfectly coherent and scientific, it was just a fairly rude thing to blast out to a company as large as Google.

Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago

A lot of what he said was on-point and I agree with it. However, it also puts forth a lot of inappropriate generalizations, and in many places presents absurdisms as valid points. I think his "manifesto" would have been a lot more compelling and less divisive if he had presented it much differently.

sebastos 9y ago
SUCH AS? Jesus Christ.
- Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
  1. He boils down the sides do absurd minimal values that understandably cause offense. He calls the people the "left" support as "weak" and says the left worldview prefers an "unstable" approach. 2. He jumps directly into generalizations about men and women. THe subject has hardly been breached at this point and he's already stirring discomfort among any readers for whom his generalizations do not hold. 3. He says that women have a harder time negotiating for salary et al as part of their inherent nature. 4. He directly states that women are neurotic and indirectly states that women cannot handle high-stress work. These terms were called "scientific" by the parent comment, but so is "retarded", and calling someone a retard is pretty fucking rude. I empathise with the idea that men are being marginalized in order to accomodate for others. Supressing the views of conservatives is equally troubling and worth addressing. Many of his other points hold as well. But he goes too far and throws a rotten egg into the whole document.
  - sebastos 9y ago
    "Support of the weak" and "neurotic" are being used in their technical sense though, as rough axes upon which people can lie. It's not normative, it's descriptive. I don't really know if your #3 is true or not (this isn't the hill I die on), but I don't think it's heresy to suggest it might be. Is that really so impossible as to be an absurdism? Obviously some of the things he's saying are generalization, but that's hardly a coherent criticism in this context - everything we're talking about on this topic is, by its very nature, generalization. We're saying fewer women than men take jobs in the computer science sector _in general_. If you're trying to look at broad trends it's okay to talk about averages. Real scientists don't need to preface every single statistic with a huge preamble reminding the reader that individual samples are not the same thing as the distribution they are drawn from. The silly thing is I actually agree that this was a useless move to try and 'educate' the whole company. But saying he was being unscientific is garbage. He's being perfectly coherent and scientific, it was just a fairly rude thing to blast out to a company as large as Google.