6 ms·
What's more likely: the author was fired for suggesting alternate methods of improving diversity at Google or the author was fired for repeating unsupported gen
by sidlls 9y ago
What's more likely: the author was fired for suggesting alternate methods of improving diversity at Google or the author was fired for repeating unsupported gender stereotypes, offering alternate methods that themselves played on gender stereotypes, and creating an environment in which he would not be able to effectively carry out his responsibilities as a result of promoting gender stereotypes?
- leereeves 9y ago> unsupported Did you only read the Gizmodo version that removed all the references? Here's a copy with the references: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...
- wfunction 9y agoWhoever in Gizmodo redacted or allowed the reduction of the 25+ citations should be fired. That was such irresponsible journalism that it honestly looks actively malicious, and it wasn't matter what side you're on. You can't remove all the support someone provides for their position and hide it behind a short and vague disclaimer while presenting it as though it's materially equivalent to the original. If their evidence is bad then you include it and let people be the judges. Or just don't report on the story. What you don't do is edit it in accordance with your own opinion and misrepresent it as the original. People need to call this crap out and shame Gizmodo, and Gizmodo needs to come clean about the honest reasons for the redaction and respond harshly enough that it doesn't happen again. The last thing we need is biased journalism, or an impression of such.
- kuschku 9y ago
- dqv 9y agoThe only link that I could find in his memo that could classify as a random WordPress blog was a summary of an article posted in a peer reviewed journal.
- wfunction 9y agoFirst of all, he had far better references than random WordPress blog posts, and second of all, that is completely irrelevant and doesn't excuse you from providing an accurate representation of the original.
- noncoml 9y agoI don't see many references. I just see a lot of stereotyping with no citations at all. Eg: > Women, on average, have more: > ● Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing) > ● Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness. > ● Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance). A bit further down: > Men’s higher drive for status > We always ask why we don't see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life. Holy crap! - Edit below this line - This is not expressing a different opinion based on facts, but pure stereotyping. As a person who appreciates logic in arguments, I wouldn't like to work or have an argument with someone who presents his views of the world as axioms without data to support them.
- onli 9y agoThe very exact text you are citing has links that lead to sources. Why would you ignore them?
- noncoml 9y agoOK, I see now. I was expecting citations in the usual academic-paper form as they were in other parts of the document. Didn't notice they were inline links. My bad. Thanks for correcting me.
- onli 9y agoYou're welcome :) If you are a bit interested in more references (those claims sound horrible, but they are not as far-fetched as they sound), have a look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n691pLhQBkw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n691pLhQBkw. It's a presentation by Steven Pinker that explains a lot about what science actually has to say about biological differences, and in an aside at the end even mentions stereotypes. I already mentioned it in a subthread to this post, no harm intended.
- Aqua 9y agoSo the media are manipulating content of the document in order to provoke their readers. This is outrageous, I feel sorry for the guy. Freedom of speech is threatened by obssesive political correctness that silences unpopular points of view.
- sidlls 9y agoThose references are actually the opposite of helpful to his case. And, in fact, as a biologist he ought to know better than to apply the generalizations he refers to to specific populations or individuals.
- milcron 9y agoHis "references" are mostly Wikipedia links. I wish he had posted the anti-echo-chamber parts on their own, instead of using them to decorate an argument on gender differences.
- leereeves 9y agoI agree they weren't the best references available. I doubt he expected this to blow up like it did; I imagine a Harvard PhD candidate would have provided better references if he'd known it would be public.
- micahbright 9y agoIt's weird, but this is all pretty well known stuff in the fields from which he refers. And, as obsessed as we are with instilling diversity in everything, why even common people don't know these things who knows?
- quickben 9y agoIt depends. Is Google 50-50 male female ratio, or 95-5? Likelihood usually change on the environment, just look at Uber.
- onewhonknocks 9y agoNeither ought to be acceptable, IMHO.
- dopamean 9y agoThere's another possibility. This guy could have been rather obnoxious about his views in the past and had been repeatedly warned. Then he wrote a memo that appeared to be professional but espoused the same views and was finally fired for it.
- WalterSear 9y agoFrom what I have been told, he posted this to an internal list specifically created to provide a place for frank, open discussion of contentious, diversity related topics.
- MBCook 9y agoThat matches what I've heard, but we don't know what his behavior was like in the office. I think GP's point is that this may have just been (one hell of a) final straw.
- WalterSear 9y agoHis previous behaviour is as irrelevant as the content of his post: he was given an expectation of safety to express his opinion and that trust was abused by multiple parties.
- MBCook 9y agoIs it? If he has a pattern of making statements deemed by HR demeaning to women (or whatever the problem was) as was told "don't keep doing that or else you're fired" this could easily be seen as violating that agreement.
- WalterSear 9y agoOr maybe he was wearing a slutty dress.
- WalterSear 9y agoWhy don't you read it yourself and see what all the fuss was about. https://medium.com/@Cernovich/full-james-damore-memo-uncensored-memo-with-charts-and-cites-339f3d2d05f https://medium.com/@Cernovich/full-james-damore-memo-uncenso...
- dangerlibrary 9y agoA false dichotomy. A third: Google is currently in hot water with the Department of Labor for their extreme gender pay gap and wants a PR win.
- tanilama 9y agoHow is this a PR win? I don't think any company would love victory like this, not ever.
- landon32 9y agoIt's not a PR win, but it's a mitigated loss. They may have thought by not firing him they were endorsing his opinion, especially when many people were calling for him to be fired.
- rifung 9y agoDisclaimer: I work for Google I assume you're talking about when the Department of Labor asked for more information on employees? If so, I don't believe they actually found any gender pay gap; they were merely asking for more data which Google refused to give up due to privacy concerns. The judge ruled in Google's favor so it's hardly "hot water" (https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/16/judge-sides-with-google-in-its-battle-with-the-labor-department-over-employee-pay-data/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/16/judge-sides-with-google-in...)
- dangerlibrary 9y ago> The Department of Labor’s increasingly heated dispute with Google over a gender pay gap began, innocently enough, with a routine audit. > During the audit, however, the agency found “systemic compensation disparities against women pretty much across the entire workforce,” according to testimony from a DoL official. > The lawsuit was about accessing data, not the merits of the DoL’s arguments, she says, pointing out that the government has yet to present its case. https://www.wired.com/story/google-department-of-labor-gender-pay-lawsuit/ https://www.wired.com/story/google-department-of-labor-gende...
- coldtea 9y agoThe author was fired because some issues are considered thought crimes and you have to go with the mainstream opinion.
- vkou 9y agoFor a clear-cut example: Is calling my co-workers who are people of colour racial slurs a thought crime? Should I be fired for that, or should my employer tolerate it? Should I be allowed to make remarks about how evolutionary psychology tells me that women should be in the kitchen? Or that African Americans are predisposed to crime? At what point does saying things stops becoming thought crime, and starts becoming 'creating a hostile work environment'? There has to be a point of crossover, somewhere, right? If you said yes, you're an authoritarian stifling discourse. If you said no, then... Well, that's certainly a principled stance you can take.
- brighteyes 9y agoTo try to give a reasoned answer: there must be limits. And the limits will always be somewhat arbitrary. But the limits implied by Google's actions are clearly unreasonable in two ways: 1. I agree we should not allow racial slurs, or Nazi symbols, etc. We can do that because the vast majority of society disapproves of them. But the opinions in the document are not in that status: they are mostly rejected by progressives, debated by centrists, and mostly accepted by conservatives. In other words, Google has sent a signal of "you can't work here if you're not a progressive", and that's harmful on a societal level, because while we can have a functioning society after kicking out Nazis and people saying slurs, can we thrive if we have separate corporations for progressives and conservatives? No, we have to find a way to work together. Google's actions were a blow against such cooperation. 2. Saying that average group differences exist is a scientific fact (there are debates about where the differences lie, what they mean, what caused them, etc. but that some exist is long settled). And just acknowledging their existence seems to be what got this person fired, after others - including Google leadership - misunderstood average group differences to mean "one group is inferior to another".
- micahbright 9y ago
- dionidium 9y ago"repeating unsupported gender stereotypes" This is the part of this whole thing that bothers me the most. You can't just close this debate down with proof by repeated assertion. Whatever you think about the memo, its author, or the views he's presented, it's simply not settled science and certainly not settled on the side you seem to think it is.† The following should get you started: * Steven Pinker & Elizabeth Spelke | The Science of Gender & Science | Mind Brain Behavior Discussion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Hb3oe7-PJ8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Hb3oe7-PJ8 * http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exaggerated-differences/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagger... Answering questions as complicated as "Why aren't there more women in tech?" is extremely difficult. There are likely lots of factors, all intertwined, difficult to untangle. The idea that you could just say, "Nope. It's settled. It's 100% sexism and no other cause" is just patently absurd. Anybody telling you otherwise is full of shit. † Note that the science on this question is independent of questions like "Should he have posted this at work?" or "Did Google handle this the right way?"