73 ms·

Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

• batushka 9y ago
  The most intolerant wins. Society is sinking. "We can answer these points using the minority rule. Yes, an intolerant minority can control and destroy democracy. Actually, as we saw, it will eventually destroy our world." https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
• chasd00 9y ago
  I hate to just turn a blind eye to the issue but, man, I'm glad I work at a place where only getting shit done, done right, and done on time matters. My team is about 60% men 40% women and pretty much evenly distributed across Asian, Russian, White American, and Central American races. No one cares in the least about diversity, only the project(s) matter. I feel very fortunate.
  • humanrebar 9y ago
    Part of the problem with diversity culture is that, depending on the circumstance, Russians and Central Americans, especially fair skinned and Americanized ones, may not count as "diverse". And in most workplaces there is an obvious "Asian" presence (scare quotes because Filipino and Chinese go in the same category), so the Asian men aren't counted as "diverse" either. Companies can't come out with official taxonomies of diversity, so it's all vague and based on unspoken intuitions about which candidates count as more diverse. It's not a system someone would design from scratch. To me, it seems like hiring the first Mormon, albino, or Thai employee would be an obvious win from a diversity perspective, but it's not that simple.
• jorgemf 9y ago
  Completely right. I hope this is not banned because it is worth the read.
  • reitanqild 9y ago
    Whichever side you are on this is probably the most important topic discussed in this forum this week. It is also very interesting to a large number of the audience. Yet sadly there seems to be a number of people here who think they have a right to overrule everyone who upvote (and no, I'm not talking about the mods but about the flaggers.)
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    • jorgemf 9y ago
      I have to say that I flagged one of the other post because I was tired of the topic and there weren't adding anything new. But this one is outstanding.
      • reitanqild 9y ago
        Upvoted. Thanks for your honesty. I think this forum could benefit from a larger meta discussion about flagging. I believe we could have closed this faster and with less problems if we allowed the debate to happen and only flagged comments -on both sides- that broke hn guidelines. Instead we now have 50 threads and where people are getting increasingly frustrated.
        • jorgemf 9y ago
          I don't prevent any debating flagging another post saying exactly the same than the last 3 posts (actually I agree with most of the post). You can still comment in the post (I did indeed). I do think people flagged post because they didn't aline with their opinions, but they are in their right. If this is a community site and people decide to flag something, you should accept it (or leave the community if you don't like it). I also consider those flags under the community guidelines because we already have a couple of post about the topic. The debate is happening anyway. Don't get frustrated. I am learning a lot.
• mef 9y ago
  Yet another take on the diversity memo that doesn't mention the systemic sexism that the 50/50 target is intended to offset. The closest she gets is saying that having more women in the field will make their presence unremarkable, which will reduce bias. But what about the institutionalized sexism that prevents so many more women from ever getting anywhere near a job at Google in the first place?
  • chrischen 9y ago
    Offsetting masks the problem and makes it harder to focus on or identify the institutionalized sexism. Think about it: if you successfully offset the problem, it’d just entrench the root causes making everything seem erroneously fine, or normalizing instituionalized sexist behavior.
    • etchalon 9y ago
      That does doesn't make any sense. If the problem exists due to an imbalance, an offset can improve it.
      • yogipatel 9y ago
        I think what he's saying is that an artificial balance hides the actual biases. Kind of like how cooking the books doesn't mean you didn't cheat on your taxes, you just made the numbers work.
  • sna1l 9y ago
    She does mention this. In fact, she even mentions that she thinks that the 50/50 target is too low. "I believe for example if it wasn’t for biases and unequal opportunities, then the higher ranks in science and politics would be dominated by women. Hence, aiming at a 50-50 representation gives men an unfair advantage. I challenge you to provide any evidence to the contrary."
    • mirimir 9y ago
      Yes, love that comment :)
• mirimir 9y ago
  This is an excellent discussion. I especially love this comment: > I believe for example if it wasn’t for biases and unequal opportunities, then the higher ranks in science and politics would be dominated by women. Hence, aiming at a 50-50 representation gives men an unfair advantage. I challenge you to provide any evidence to the contrary. Because arguably that's where gender differences highlighted in Damore's memo point :) I'm reminded of Richard Morgan's Black Man aka 13. He argues that men basically don't play well in groups ;)
  • btilly 9y ago
    I'll take up that challenge with https://www.edge.org/response-detail/10670 https://www.edge.org/response-detail/10670 which provides quantitative data indicating that male abilities vary more than female ones, and this fact is sufficient to explain why men should be overrepresented in CEO boardrooms and prisons.
    • mberning 9y ago
      Mother nature does seem to roll the dice more when it comes to men. People then look at the outliers to the right and scream sexism while completely ignoring all the outliers to the left. There are many more profoundly stupid men than women. Men are incarcerated at a higher rate. Men kill themselves at 3x the rate of women. Yet this is quietly accepted.
      • SolaceQuantum 9y ago
        This implies suicide and homicide are done primarily by stupid people by rhetoric?
        • tetromino_ 9y ago
          Yes. Committing homicide is an irrational and maladaptive (i.e. stupid) thing to do in a peaceful 21st century society. Committing suicide is an irrational and maladaptive thing to do in almost all situations in history.
• ramensea 9y ago
  I agree that the left and the rights reaction over the memo has been overblown. However I am unsure whether or not you think the Googler's opinion is novel. You state both, "that Damore’s skepticism about current practices is widespread" and "imperfect his attempt, he was fired, in short, for thinking on his own". As someone who works in the tech industry let me tell you his beliefs were not novel. Its a commonly held belief in the tech industry. I have heard countless renditions of the same argument with vary degrees of sexism. I'm not sure whether or not he deserved to get fired. Sundar's response was well written and is worth reading Damore, however childish his written seems, is not young and has worked at Google for four years. He's by no means a junior engineer. At the very least the lack of understand of software development speaks for something. "And let us be clear that, yes, such policies mean every once in a while you will not hire the most skilled person for a job. Therefore, a value judgement must be made here, not a logical deduction from data. Is diversity important enough for you to temporarily tolerate an increased risk of not hiring the most qualified person? That’s the trade-off nobody seems willing to spell out." This is not how "affirmative action" works. "Affirmative action" states that if you have two "equally" qualified candidates you favor the least represented in your society or company. Thus there should be no added risk.
  • lloydde 9y ago
    > This is not how "affirmative action" works. "Affirmative action" states that if you have two "equally" qualified candidates If you can quantify candidates' capabilities, please start your money printing press.
    • ramensea 9y ago
      Then then why would affirmative action lead to less capable employees?
      • etchalon 9y ago
        There's shockingly little evidence it does, which is something AA opponents want to avoid talking about. There's a perception it does, based on anecdotal evidence.
• l33tbro 9y ago
  Okay, slipping into my bomb-squad EOD suit to comment on this topic. But, seriously, the more I read about Damore, the more it seems like this was a cunning plan to get fired and then sue the roller-hockey pants off Sergey Brin and Co. While much has been made of a Harvard education being no substitute for social intelligence, Damore is no slouch and really does just seem like a disgruntled employee who devised an almost surgical peace-out that would ensure he was compensated for life. This will be one interesting lawsuit.
  • Johnny555 9y ago
    While his plan may be to sue, what grounds do you think he can sue for? There's no right to free speech in the work place. If he was fired for something he wrote on his private blog, or discussed with coworkers at an off-site bar, that might be different. If he does sue, Google will have little problem showing that the employee, through his memo, has created a hostile workplace for women at Google.
    • tyingq 9y ago
      >While his plan may be to sue, what grounds do you think he can sue for? See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14967987 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14967987
    • stale2002 9y ago
      California has very strong employee protection. Yes, even though it is "at will" there are still some very strong protections. For example, in California it is illegal to fire someone for "political activity", which this memo, debateably, may have been. It is also illegal in California to fire someone for bringing up workplace concerns (this falls under union/worker organizing laws). Finally, and most ironically, it is illegal to fire someone for bringing up discrimination concerns, EVEN IF those concerns turn out to be false/not illegal/not discrimination. This guy, debateably, was bringing up discrimination concerns.
      • peoplewindow 9y ago
• mberning 9y ago
  I like the discussion. I think the point about software being significantly "people centric" is a bit off base and betrays the authors lack of experience in the field. Working with people is certainly part of the job and in some roles maybe a large portion of the work. Being a good communicator is an important part of being a good developer, but it doesn't make you a good developer. Being a talented and experienced programmer is the foundation on which the rest is built.
  • ebola1717 9y ago
    That's a nice theory, but I fail to see any evidence of it. I see lots of people cap out at senior engineer, cause that's how far you can get without having strong technical skills. Staff engineers, tech leads, and managers all get there because they're good communicators, and tbh, in those roles, their engineering skills are secondary.
    • mberning 9y ago
      If middling engineers end up in senior development positions I wonder where all the top performers go... certainly not 100% into management.
    • mehwoot 9y ago
      I see lots of people cap out at senior engineer What's wrong with that? The majority of software engineers are senior engineer or below, any skill you only need to make it past that level clearly can't be considered core to the job.
    • selimthegrim 9y ago
      Surely you meant strong people skills?
  • tyingq 9y ago
    >Being a talented and experienced programmer is the foundation on which the rest is built. I think that is sometimes true, sometimes not. Certainly there are mediocre developers thriving because they are good communicators. I see this often in niche spaces like "POS software for Pet Stores". They thrive because they can communicate well with the customers and create something that does what the customer wants. Even if the internals are a horrid spaghetti mess that's inefficient, took longer to write than it should have, is hard to maintain, etc.
• freespeech9009 9y ago
  Please consider donating to help get James Damore back on his feet and gainfully employed again: https://www.wesearchr.com/bounties/james-damore-official-fundraiser https://www.wesearchr.com/bounties/james-damore-official-fun... This could have been any of us.
  • Johnny555 9y ago
    This could have been any of us Well no, not any of us. Perhaps some of us, but not any of us.
  • Zpalmtree 9y ago
    While I feel bad for the guy, he was working at google. Provided he didn't hire hookers every night, I think he'll have a decent amount of money till he finds a new job.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  • etchalon 9y ago
    I generally reserve my donations to people whom are struck by tradegy, not the eminently employable and well educated who fail to think through their actions.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • jd75 9y ago
    >This could have been any of us. Not me! I know I'm not biologically ill-suited to geek out.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• anabis 9y ago
  Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers being fired in 2006 showed that there could be no rational discussion of this topic. Sad to see it unchanged in 2017. Doubly sad because if the anonymous survey linked in the post is true, 1/3 of Googlers agree with the memo. Only 1/3 "strongly disagree", and the people who wanted him fired should be a further fraction of that 1/3. https://basicgestalt.wordpress.com/2017/08/06/press-f-for-james-damore-the-only-set-of-balls-left-at-google/ https://basicgestalt.wordpress.com/2017/08/06/press-f-for-ja... EDIT: fixed link to alternative site.
  • kevincrane 9y ago
    I mean, you linked to a white supremacist's blog to prove your point. Is that a good case for your argument?
    • anabis 9y ago
      OK, OK. I noticed that the parent link has the same image, so fixed.
      • simlevesque 9y ago
        Definitely not better man... There are nazi memes and misoginistic memes on the new link.
        • anabis 9y ago
          Have you read the parent article? It is the same link that the parent article is using, at the 3rd to last paragraph with text "and a poll conducted at Google confirms" .
          • EvaK_de 9y ago
            This poll only had about 400 self-selected participants. That doesn't make for reliable numbers at all.
  • 9y ago
• steveeq1 9y ago
  > That leaked internal memo from James Damore at Google? The one that says one shouldn’t expect employees in all professions to reflect the demographics of the whole population? I don't see how this is an unreasonable argument to make. There is a dearth of male kindergarten teachers, for instance. This doesn't mean the school is being "sexist". It might just mean that certain genders tend to be attracted to certain types of professions.
  • Johnny555 9y ago
    Or it might mean that certain genders tend to be dissuaded from pursuing certain career paths.
    • imminentviolet 9y ago
      So what? There are some barriers, implicit and explicit, that are perfectly appropriate. Some of them serve a higher purpose, like reinforcing gender archetypes and standards of behavior that are productive in the long run in their own ways. Why should we be so quick to demolish those because a few loud mouths want to destroy them? If exceptional people really have something to offer in areas where they are shunned for other reasons, let them brave the consequences. Tearing down the entire social structure to cater to a minority who thinks too highly of themselves anyway is a poor trade off.
      • Johnny555 9y ago
        What would be appropriate about a barrier that discourages men from becoming teachers, or discourages women from STEM fields? Where is the productivity gain in pushing a young girl away from STEM? If exceptional people really have something to offer in areas where they are shunned for other reasons... Many exceptional people won't even discover their talent if they are actively dissuaded from pursuing the education and career they have the aptitude for, all in the name of "reinforcing gender archetypes". Tearing down the entire social structure Tearing down a social structure that's weighted against certain genders in certain career paths sounds exactly like the right solution. Let people choose their path on their own desires and aptitude, don't choose it for them based on some historical standards of behavior.
• mpweiher 9y ago
  Certainly much better than a lot of the outrage that's been going on. A couple of nits: > I know most of Google’s work is people-centric. Hmmm...is that really so? Last I checked a lot of Google's code output and value-generation is backend-y, with very little interaction with humans. Google is also notoriously bad-mediocre at UX, though this has improved lately. > Assuming that job skills and performance can be deduced from > differences among demographic groups. Hmm...he didn't do this, and in fact explicitly states that doing so is not correct. > Damore naturally assumes the differences between > typically female and male traits mean that men are more skilled. I also didn't see that in the memo. At all. First, what he talks about is mostly preferences, not skills. Second, there is the whole "you can't draw conclusions about individuals from slight variations in populations"-thing. So you can't turn "women have slightly stronger preferences, statistically, for these things" into "men are more skilled". Third, and maybe least intuitively, this is almost entirely about the people who don't (yet) work at Google. Finally, she brings up Northern Europe. I can relate, because I am also from Germany, and yes, the country finds, for example, having a female Chancellor simply not remarkable. So when people vote for or against her, it is largely (can't speak for everyone) because of what they think about her, her party and their policies (or in her specific case, lack thereof g), not because she is a woman or is not a man. And I also believe this applies to other jobs as well. However, what Sabine misses is that this has not had the effect of gender representation in the job market equalizing. Surprisingly, it has had the opposite effect, as has been documented many places. And yes, I want to stress again how utterly unexpected this is. And so: > I believe for example if it wasn’t for biases and unequal > opportunities, then the higher ranks in science and politics > would be dominated by women. Hence, aiming at a 50-50 representation > gives men an unfair advantage. I challenge you to provide any > evidence to the contrary. Challenge accepted (although not for politics, that's a different subject)! If it were obstacles, countries that (as we both agree) have fewer of those obstacles such as Northern Europeans ones would see more women in technical fields. The opposite is the case. And of course there is the point that the question is not "why aren't there more women in these jobs", but "why are there any men that do them", because they generally suck if you want to have a life. See Jordan Peterson's excellent take on "Women in High Paying Jobs": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NV2yvI4Id9Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NV2yvI4Id9Q
  • 9y ago
• supremesaboteur 9y ago
  This article also has a few problems > I believe for example if it wasn’t for biases and unequal opportunities, then the higher ranks in science and politics would be dominated by women. Hence, aiming at a 50-50 representation gives men an unfair advantage. I challenge you to provide any evidence to the contrary. Claim bearers are burdened with proof. Otherwise I can say 'I claim it is not so and if you believe otherwise you provide evidence to the contrary' and we would be a bunch of children shouting nonsense > I’m not remotely surprised, however, that Damore naturally assumes the differences between typically female and male traits mean that men are more skilled. He didn't say that > The biggest problem with Damore’s memo however is that he doesn’t understand what makes a company successful. If a significant fraction of employees think that diversity is important, then it is important. No further justification is needed for this. No, what makes a company successful is the positive impact it has on employees, customers, the communities it operates in and shareholders > Biases and unequal opportunities are real. (If you doubt that, you are a problem and should do some reading.) Why assume your readers can only reach conclusions if they are dumb ? Why not point out the specific readings that you have done ? > And let us be clear that, yes, such policies mean every once in a while you will not hire the most skilled person for a job. Therefore, a value judgement must be made here, not a logical deduction from data Value judgements should also be subject to logical deductions
  • dahart 9y ago
    > Claim bearers are burdened with proof. I think that was her point...
    • imminentviolet 9y ago
      It used to be common knowledge that men and women were different, and that they generally were inclined towards different kinds of pursuits and had different interests, in general. Then the radical left showed up with a bunch of unintelligible post modern theories that as far anyone can tell never proved much of anything, whose basis in scientific truth was non existent and whom nevertheless had the temerity to make wild, socially revolutionary claims. And here we are now, in Bizarro world, where the burden of proof has been shifted onto the status quo to justify itself without the usurping ideology ever having met even a minimum proof of viability, let alone the higher standard of superiority over the status quo required of a proposed replacement way of life. A large part of the population seems not to see any problem with this. They are ready to toss the whole thing out on the authority of some academics, whose work they could barely remember from freshman sociology class.
• GlobalServices 9y ago
  Google needs to fire the leaker, too.
• dvt 9y ago
  I know people always want to discuss the merits of the memo -- whether he was right, wrong, or somewhere in between -- but I'd like to have a meta-discussion. I believe the memo is irrelevant not because of its content, but rather because it's embarrassingly reductive. In my opinion, anyone that takes it seriously validates Damore's ultra-reductive approach to social policy -- and this is, I think, unequivocally wrong. I recently wrote a blog post, Confusing Math with Morality[1], in which I touch on a similar subject matter. The problem with smart non-liberal-science people is that they think they are just that -- smart -- when, in fact, the emotional intelligence of STEM majors is barely average[2][3]. Now this doesn't mean that this disqualifies math-y people from having opinions on social policy, but it certainly means I value their opinions much less. In the market of ideas, theirs are simply not worth a whole lot. For example, you may think you have an educated opinion on abortion, or euthanasia, or nuclear proliferation. But the reality is that you don't. And I've been called an elitist before, but until you take a few semesters on abortion[4] and read some court opinions, your views are simply not worth much of a damn. And, as far as Damore is concerned, it's a very similar scenario. He's trying to argue for or against some kind of social policy, but he simply has no idea what he's talking about. I doubt he's even heard of Bakke v. UC Regents, never-mind read Betty Friedan's Feminine Mystique. Knowing about these is very important in the context of gender/race/etc. policies. My point is only that strong, sweeping opinions and viewpoints need to be properly contextualized. There are, of course, good arguments on both sides. But Damore makes none of them -- or even if he does, it's merely accidental to his "spray and pray" strategy. And to be frank, I see this at work (and saw this at school) all the time. I've always tried to be broad in my education (both formal and otherwise) -- my grandmother was in charge of a library and I couldn't live without books. If you talk to a programmer and ask them what's the last book that they read, they'll probably mention something programming-related. If you ask them what news they read, they'll probably say slashdot. I had a co-worker recently question why I read fiction -- after all, we can expense any programming book we set our sights on. And don't think I'm ragging on programming books, I even wrote one! My point is only about the type of person attracted to this type of work -- and perhaps how STEM degrees have failed us. It doesn't seem like we are educating a generation of Isaac Newtons, but rather an army of regurgitating robots. Damore is intellectually lazy in a sea of intellectual laziness. His views might be wrong or might be right, but his intellectual sloth is unforgivable. [1] https://dvt.name/2017/07/10/confusing-math-with-morality/ https://dvt.name/2017/07/10/confusing-math-with-morality/ [2] http://www.recsam.edu.my/R&D_Journals/YEAR2008/dec2008vol2/emotional(132-163).pdf http://www.recsam.edu.my/R&D_Journals/YEAR2008/dec2008vol2/e... [3] http://publisher-connector.core.ac.uk/resourcesync/data/elsevier/pdf/068/aHR0cDovL2FwaS5lbHNldmllci5jb20vY29udGVudC9hcnRpY2xlL3BpaS9zMTg3NzA0MjgxMTAxOTg4NA%3D%3D.pdf http://publisher-connector.core.ac.uk/resourcesync/data/else... [4] You could also be self-taught, but that's a slippery slope. Ethics is much harder than Calculus.
• dahart 9y ago
  Really great post, and I had what I thought were some great observations about the article I wanted to share. But then in the article's comments I read this by Outer M.: "By the way, in science and technology, conservatism is a minority ideology (he says so himself in his letter). How would he feel if we start saying that conservative people aren't apt for science and technology? That if he doesn't feel welcome he should find a different profession? It's ironic he complains about it even though, in a way, he understands the struggle." After I read that, I went back and re-read the memo, but I swapped all gender references for politics, and vice-versa, and it was awesome. At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and political orientation, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Gender is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean male, we should critically examine these prejudices. ... Possible non-bias causes of the political gap in tech ... In highly progressive environments, women are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different genders to be able to express themselves. Alienating women is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because women tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is required for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.
  • nailer 9y ago
    Politics, favorite foods, religion, dress sense and other ideas aren't innate. Gender, age, ethnicity and sexuality are. Hence swapping gender for politics doesn't work. Additionally Damore argued for assessing individuals as individuals rather than as tribe members and assuming discrepancy is down to bias - even if you did sub someone's chosen politics for their gender, Damore's proposed fix would still require you to assess the individual.
    • yorwba 9y ago
      It doesn't matter whether a characteristic is innate or not; if it isn't relevant to the job, then nobody should be judged based on it. Even if you disregard that people can choose to change their gender or that politics can be inherited from the parents, gender and politics are interchangeable as far as social treatment is concerned. If you (dis)agree with the arguments of the memo in the gender/politics-swapped version, then you should also (dis)agree with the original. Of course the cited references won't make sense anymore, but if that is your only remaining sticking point, you might have to reevaluate your opinion.
• bobstaples 9y ago
  looking at the men:women (8:2) ratio in software science at my university in NL, I can perfectly understand where the inbalance in ratio in the workforce comes from. Maybe we should focus on that first? Trying to get a different ratio at the workforce in all companies will effectively mean you will have less qualified women. Assuming a CS university degree is an important qualification.
  • sidlls 9y ago
    Yes, it's important to attack the root cause. Might it be that the hyper-male workplace contributes to the perception of technology as a place hostile to women, and by attempting to counter that particular problem (e.g., by having diversity initiatives) it also helps attack the root cause? I do think "diversity initiatives" are like voting in that it's the least amount of effort to put to the issue. I agree with your comment in this sense: I'd like very much for companies to go much further to address the root issues.
  • arianvanp 9y ago
    8:2? That's super decent for Dutch standard. In Utrecht we are at 11%! It's totally insane. In the track I am following there are literally no women. Not a single one. http://universitairemasters.nl/aantal-studenten/natuur/ http://universitairemasters.nl/aantal-studenten/natuur/
  • alkonaut 9y ago
    The cause and effect is hard to tell, but this is exactly why large corporations should try to be diverse. How do you get from 8:2 to 7:3 in 5 or 10 years? Little girls don't want to be programmers or scientists - why is that? My gut feeling is that it's ti very a small part biological and to a large extent just momentum. With more female role models (moms not least!) in tech, things will change. Thats why I think it's very reasonable to hire for diversity (that is - hire someone on the basis of being a woman)
• sidlls 9y ago
  I'll repeat this again here: it's very likely he wasn't fired for trying to have a discussion. It is more likely he was fired because he did so by propagating gender stereotypes and doubling-down on those stereotypes (his suggestions for how to improve diversity essentially were just context-specific extensions of these stereotypes), which both almost certainly reduced his credibility as a coworker to the point that he could not be effectively managed or productive when assigned to work with others. The author glides right past the point in her article when she notes his improper application of findings about averages. It's possible to have a discussion about these issues today. It's not rational to give special preference and excessive leeway to discussion that isn't actually fact based (and is in many ways based on nothing related to facts).
  • nippples 9y ago
    > It's possible to have a discussion about these issues today. It's not rational to give special preference and excessive leeway to discussion that isn't actually fact based (and is in many ways based on nothing related to facts). Well, that's great, because his points on gender differences are actually extensively backed by research. When he's talking about that, he isn't talking about what should be or what can be, he's talking about what is. Even after clarifying to the poor-intended reader about what is, he still states that more diversity is what should be. He just doesn't agree with the present method.
    • thesmallestcat 9y ago
      There's a penalty in society and your career for being an asshole. If you do something to make yourself wildly unpopular at work, even if it's well within the lines technically, you might be out of a job. The issue is that most people at Google don't want to work with this guy. That makes for a distraction, not to mention the obvious legal risk if the engineer ever interacts with a woman or minority at Google again. You can have all the opinions you want, think women belong in the kitchen, hell, be a raging neo-Nazi, but please don't broadcast that shit at work. If you don't like that Google's promoting diversity, there are ways to make your voice heard like a normal adult. I would be livid if I got a link to a doc like this. Here we're busting our asses, and this guy has the gall, time, and energy to write a lengthy essay version of /r/theredpill and put it on a company server.
• Const-me 9y ago
  IMO the best comment from there: Giulio Prisco said... The results of this incident are easy to predict. Now everyone at Google (and everyone in large tech companies, and everyone in academy) knows that they can be fired for expressing opinions that dissent from the party line. Of course they'll shut up for fear of losing their job and the means to support their family. But they won't change their position. If anything, their position will be radicalized. For example, from classical liberal to alt-right. Yes, they'll stop expressing their opinion in public. But they'll express their opinion, with a vengeance, in the only place where one can do so in secrecy without fear of witch-hunting mobs: the voting booth. Yes, that explains Trump.
  • idibidiart 9y ago
    Sexism is not free speech.
  • relics443 9y ago
    Are you saying that Trump was only elected because he was appealing to the alt-right? Surely that was part of it, but why is everyone so eager to "blame" it on the marginalized alt-right? Is it a scare tactic for 2020 /r
    • Const-me 9y ago
      I’m not saying that, and the GP mentions alt right just as one possible outcome. But I think Trump is definitely more right than left, at least compared to Clinton. This might have contributed to his victory.
      • Super_Jambo 9y ago
        'More right' Clinton is a neo-liberal and Trump is a lunatic. It's pretty hard to put that into a left-right economic spectrum.
  • michaelchisari 9y ago
    We'll see how the trend moves going forward, but even after capturing (by rhetoric if not act) the white house, the alt-right continues to be a radical fringe, and suffers from serious internal contradictions that make any serious movement building doomed. The movement has attracted the attention of a lot of white nationalists, anti-semites and hardline fascists (amren, natall, kss), while also attracting a new wave of online-prominent trolls and shit-stirrers. But what happens when the 4chan poster with the anime pillow who denies the holocaust just to get a rise out of the libcucks crosses paths with an actual hardline anti-semite who is interested in building an even-more-final solution? To use a colloquialism, what happens when the rubber meets the road? Do the fascists tolerate what they would consider to be total degeneracy for the sake of finally building a mass movement? Does the online troll recognize that what was an ironic joke for him is a hard reality for others, and move to push their real-life activism away from those types of groups? This is what I mean by internal contradictions, the kind that can kill a mass movement before it even starts. So while there is a common refrain of "this is why Trump won, and the movement of contrarians, devils advocates, trolls, anti-pc crusaders, people who tweet about white genocide, stormfront regulars and conspiracy theorists is only going to grow if you being offensive towards them", the reality is much, much more complicated. Trust in Trump has plummeted, even amongst his core. The vote is very quickly slipping out of the grasp of the Right, and was always a race against time demographically to begin with. And if you're in a position where you can't win through democratic means, you have to use other means (boycotts, protests, organizing, etc). And the alt-right is utterly lamed by it's own hand before that race has even started.
• bobdole1234 9y ago
  Because that huge California block of Trump supporters really changed the landscape huh?
  • dang 9y ago
    Would you kindly stop posting snarky comments on inflammatory topics? These discussions are flamewarrish enough without that. Pouring fuel on the fire amounts to vandalism no matter how correct your underlying points are. We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14976935 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14976935 and marked it off-topic.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
• jancsika 9y ago
  > And let us be clear that, yes, such policies mean every once in a while you will not hire the most skilled person for a job. Therefore, a value judgement must be made here, not a logical deduction from data. Is diversity important enough for you to temporarily tolerate an increased risk of not hiring the most qualified person? That’s the trade-off nobody seems willing to spell out. Perhaps because it's not a necessary trade off of diversity policies per se, only a trade-off of the one specific type of diversity policy with which the author happens to be familiar. For an historical example that does not feature such a trade-off: 1. I put up a curtain between the judges and the musician auditioning for the orchestra. 2. I hire whoever the judges say sounded the best. 3. The number of women in orchestras grows. In no case where this diversity policy is used does the policy cause a less skilled player get chosen because that player was female.
  • OscarCunningham 9y ago
    What if you do that and the number of women in the orchestra shrinks?
    • axlprose 9y ago
      Or even if the number of women just stays the same. Is the effort to level the playing field then deemed a 'failure' if the results don't change in the way they're expected to? That's the important question here, especially since there have now been preliminary experiments in tech interviews suggesting such an outcome is not implausible: http://blog.interviewing.io/we-built-voice-modulation-to-mask-gender-in-technical-interviews-heres-what-happened/ http://blog.interviewing.io/we-built-voice-modulation-to-mas...
      • mathw 9y ago
        If you've removed possible bias from your hiring process, then you have to accept an imbalance is either a result of uneven retention inclusive-or something operating earlier in the process of training your candidates. The point is to remove as many obstacles as possible. We want the best to get the jobs, but if the are barriers based on gender or race or religion that's potentially denying us a brilliant woman, or black man, or Muslim. It doesn't necessarily mean you end up at 50/50, I'm quite willing to accept that the sexes might be biologically different in brain structure and that this might mean one sex might have different average aptitudes, but I won't accept a societal construct on top of that. You should never hear that someone shouldn't try to do something because of their sex. Never. Well unless it involves the more obvious anatomical differences. The average man is going to have some difficulty becoming an effective wet nurse.
• Udik 9y ago
  As an aside, I noticed that many of the negative or outraged comments about Damore's memo stem from some inability to grasp the difference between the statements: "Men are more skilled" and "More men are skilled"
• fsaneq2 9y ago
  Come on, try to make an effort. Your comment is full of straw men.
  • KirinDave 9y ago
    Just because you're unaware of the context doesn't make it a straw man. There is a larger ongoing dialogue at HN in which this theme consistently crops up. And coincidentally, it is also a consistent argument that having a memory of these threads is either unfair or unsportsmanlike.
  • rustynails 9y ago
    The article is full of straw men too. However, I liked most of it. I support the Google Engineer for speaking out. "I don’t normally write about the underrepresentation of women in science". I wonder how much you research your facts. We know that at least 85% of veterinary science (yes, science) students are female [1] and nobody is complaining about this or asking for balancing of numbers in that field. This article is strongly implying that forcing a quota (artificially influencing interest) in veterinary science would be diversity. How? Diversity has nothing to do with quotas, nothing. In fact, I consider personality far more important than gender to diversity. The article also makes remarks about females and males as if they are an absolute. Again, this is a fallacy. If you force 50% of females in an organisation (as an example as many have called for that), you may not actually be diversifying at all! If all the females you hire are tomboys (or masculine), you've achieved what? Just as many masculine personalities, but some just don't have a penis. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of what "diversity" even means! The author talks about "affirmative action" and "equal opportunity" as if they are compatible. How does that work? You either hire the best candidate or you do not. The other elephant in the room is that nobody discusses the areas where females dominate. Show me! Vets are one of many examples [1]. Why is that? I believe this whole topic is one big power struggle by a one-eyed ideology. "much of the data in Damore’s memo is well backed-up by research" Thank you for saying that. Several leading behavioural psychologists also confirmed what he said. Which makes the reason behind the outrage even more interesting. "That coding actually requires “female” skills was spelled out clearly by Yonatan Zunger, a former Google employee". This is a misleading argument. It implies quotas of 50/50. It also assumes that all females are one type and all males are another. The author did not think this argument out well. "I believe for example if it wasn’t for biases and unequal opportunities, then the higher ranks in science and politics would be dominated by women." You mean like veterinary science that we do see [1]? And why politics? What about politics is specifically female? "I’m likewise biased in favor of women" I really respect your honesty but it's to your own detriment. Your arguments are often flawed. Your research is scant and easily proven wrong in far too many instances. You should really check out Sweden as you suggested. Have a look at their IT and veterinary science numbers. It will turn most of your flawed theories on their head. Yes, I have researched it. "... increasing diversity" Again, you really need to be clear. You seem to be saying "hire people based on their genitals because that's diversity". "change societal gender images" Please read the work by Dr Simon Baron Cohen on very young children [2]. It sounds like you're saying "I don't care if there's a natural inclination, force people to behave how someone else believes they should so that some ideologists' numbers balance". I strongly disagree with your views here. Strongly. I respect differences in people (and to me, that's true diversity). You appear to want to force a homogeneous society for "diversity". There are many other sections I could critique. I really don't care if someone is a man or a woman. This is probably why your more sexist views stand out (and you admitted that). If you need to change one attitude, it's your definition of diversity. Recognising people are different (and trends do exist) is a significant part of it. Quotas are not diversity, especially when they are cherry picked by the media. [1] http://career-advice.careerone.com.au/career-development/professional-development/girls-just-wanna-be-vets/article.aspx http://career-advice.careerone.com.au/career-development/pro... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/education/2003/apr/17/research.highereducation https://www.theguardian.com/education/2003/apr/17/research.h...
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• williamaadams 9y ago
  This whole episode leaves me a bit perplexed because in tech we keep missing the mark when it comes to diversity. I work at Microsoft. The back of my ID badge has our mission statement: Empower every person and every organization on the planet to achieve more. To me, that mission is a blueprint for how I can easily approach issues of diversity and inclusion. It says "everyone". To me it's a simple matter of gaining empathy for a wider set of customers so that I can more effectively create software for them. As an engineering manager, I need to somehow be able to include the views, perspectives, and experiences of a wheat farmer in rural Kenya. Same goes for the high speed day trader in Iceland (I've been to neither place, so how do I know what they really need). I want more women in engineering precisely because they're not me. Nothing about them makes them less capable of writing code, and several of their attributes (grossly generalizing) makes them far better collaborators than most men I know. So, I'm just shaking my head, and continuing to do my bit to improve things in ways that I believe are useful: http://aka.ms/leapit http://aka.ms/leapit
  • williamaadams 9y ago
    ...and, this guy being fired has nothing to do with political correctness or any of the other inane arguments people are rallying around. It's simple corporate calculation. He release something that turned into a fire storm. Google no doubt did a law suit calculation and figured firing him was cheaper than the inevitable "hostile work environment" lawsuits they figured would be filed if they didn't take such action. If the goal was to not get fired, but still have the dialog, he probably could have found a forum to do it. Instead, he blasted into their internal interweb, and here's the outcome. Most large companies would probably end up doing the same thing, regardless of what they might believe about what was actually written.
  • hnnsj 9y ago
    I see this mentality pop up time after time: How dare you say there are differences in women's capabilities! Except of course, here are some things women are _better_ at. Sorry, but no. Either we are equally capable by nature and any differences in outcome are due to upbringing ("nurture"), or there are biological differences which means you have to accept there very well may be things women are less capable of as well as the opposite. I'm firmly in the first camp and think it's mostly if not only upbringing and cultural biases, but you don't get to shun the notion that women are less capable at some things while at the same time claiming there are many things women are actually more capable of. Don't open that door.
• danschumann 9y ago
  I giggled when this article said "most of Google's work is people centric". It's data. It's an isolated intelligent person at a computer screen. At the center is a server. On one end, a programmer, the other end, a user. People don't enter into it.
  • dunkelheit 9y ago
    There is plenty of people-centric work in big organizations. Less charitably, it can be described as "navigating the bureaucracy".
    • Khaine 9y ago
      Its called HR and its dominated by women
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
• chmike 9y ago
  The main problem is that stupidity is mainstream. The guy was fired not because of what he wrote, but because the stupid people criticized google and google can't afford to fight against the stupid people. This is a fight one can't win alone. Google's goal is to make money, not to make people less stupid. Now regarding the firering, the lesson to learn is not that one should stop saying that the king is naked when it is. One should use anonymizer because the stupid people are still dominating the population. The focus of making money of capitalizm is nurturing stupidity in the population because it makes business so simpler. (e.g. junk food consuming) Things need to change.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• dandare 9y ago
  Disagreeing with Damore’s arguments is perfectly ok. Not liking the style of his memo is perfectly ok. Calling Damore young and clueless is useless ad hominem. Chances are he is smarter than you and me and the memo is actually well sourced. Calling him a WHITE MAN is an essentialism that reveals the author's bias.
  • pmlnr 9y ago
    This. To respond to that manifesto, to argue, talk, discuss, write a similarly well organised response.
    • kuschku 9y ago
      Please try doing that to every internet troll out there, if you have the time. Most of the population don't, and at some point just have to dismiss some ridiculous arguments instead of discussing every single badly researched wall of text. I suggest you start with all the articles on /r/the_donald.
      • TACIXAT 9y ago
        Like many online echo chambers, /r/the_donald bans people who dissent in any way. It is not a place where it is possible to engage in discussion. In fact, reddit is a horrible place to engage in meaningful discussion, as users can downvote any opinion they disagree with and make it disappear, and mods can ban any users they disagree with. It's easy to label people as trolls, but I have been banned from multiple subreddits when attempting to participate in discussions in good faith.
        • kuschku 9y ago
          > In fact, reddit is a horrible place to engage in meaningful discussion, as users can downvote any opinion they disagree with and make it disappear, and mods can ban any users they disagree with. That's a funny response to a comment that was so heavily downvoted it's completely hidden for users unless they specifically change their HN settings.
• rurban 9y ago
  Outraged about the leaked manager reactions. Will be hard to attract any talent with such middle management.
  • jcadam 9y ago
    Nah, it's Google. They could require all employees to receive a swift kick to the gonads when they walk into the building every morning, and they would still have absolutely no problem attracting top talent.
  • akvadrako 9y ago
    Any link to those reactions?
• wvh 9y ago
  Oh man, voices of reason sound nice. What happened to reason instead of hollow emotion? I am right, you are wrong, and you shouldn't be listened to, because you are a nazi, and nazis are bad, and you deserve bad things happening to you.
• marcuslager 9y ago
  This is not about Trump. This is about men feeling more obliged to success than women, because: culture. If James Damore's claims (a former Google'r) are that people who are not female have no biological reason, and thus no moral reason, for acting like a complete asshole towards people, which is my take-away from his internet publications, then why do women act like assholes toward each other? And also, who the fuck are you, James Damore, to say anything about the oppression of women in a world defined by men. I hope you never get another job.
• evangelista 9y ago
  You know something? I have come around on my thinking on this topic. There is a single central point where everyone on both sides of this debate are getting stuck and that is in the nature of the term "Sexism." What helped me to better understand what people mean when they say "Sexism" is to replace that word with the phrase: "Males Competing For Limited Resources With Females." Once I made that mental shift I really was able to bridge to a place where I can sort of see what people from the Left are trying to say (but the problem is they are using a meaningless and overwrought phrase to get there and also attempting to jam insane ideas down people's throats using Orwellian tactics along the way while holding onto delusional optimistic views about reality). ahem There are limited jobs at Google, very very high paying jobs which everyone in the entire world wants. There are people living in absolutely desperate circumstances all around America (let alone the entire globe!) who would basically kill for a job at Google. You see people lying in their own filth every day in downtown San Francisco who can't hold a job down and pay rent. The ones who can actually afford rent (barely) are sometimes not all that much better off. If you think these people are going to be nice to one another once they get inside Google and are competing for the same promotions, you are hilariously wrong. I have seen myself what men in large corporations are willing to do to one another in a closed environment with few promotions and resources: We are f*cking really mean to one another. We back-stab. We lie. We undermine. I have done it myself, it was fun when I was winning and awful when it was being done to me. Large corporations spend a tremendous amount of money on PR and marketing to polish their images, but inside they are filled with men acting like rats trapped in a jar with dwindling food pellets: They eat each other sometimes. Maybe 15-35% of the time, but its enough. Now add in a couple women to this environment: The experiment ends badly for them unless some structures are put into place. Men can and will tend to use whatever techniques they have at their disposal to get rid of or manipulate those around them. This includes being condescending and demeaning to reduce the influence of women. However, no matter what you do. No matter how much you train your workforce, when you lift the lid you are going to find the following: Men competing with women and other men for few resources and promotions. The problem is that corporations are built around making employees compete with one another. Thats how promotions work! Thats how money and stock are allocated: You did better than your peers or screwed them over so they failed. The biggest lie companies like Google and Facebook tell the world is that they are lovely meritocracies ruled by fairness when they aren't. Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon all share the same thing in common: People competing using whatever tools they have to get few resources. All this SJW bullshit is simply an attempt to polish what is fundamentally a smiling bloodsport and always will be, its how corporations work.
• reubeniv 9y ago
  I'm trying to understand his motivations, maybe it is just naivety, but that he wanted to talk about something that was bothering him, and didn't understand why he couldn't (or shouldn't) talk about it publicly seems fairly typical of a condition like aspergers, is it possible he simply has something like that? Either way the witch hunt needs to cease immediately.
  • oculusthrift 9y ago
    after watching his hour long interview with jordan peterson, it's almost certain. he was painfully awkward. if not aspergers, he must have zero social iq.
    • reubeniv 9y ago
      That's where I got that impression too. I'm not sure how that changes things, but it does seem to make his firing especially harsh.
      • oculusthrift 9y ago
        well he's suing so i guess we'll see if he decides to try to use that as a defense
  • e40 9y ago
    That was my first thought after reading a small portion of the memo.
    • oculusthrift 9y ago
      any normally functioning person would realize the reaction that memo would cause. (not that the reaction is justified, just that hes in a super politicially correct area where making nuanced points isnt tolerated)
      • akvadrako 9y ago
        He may have realised it any did it anyway.
• rsp1984 9y ago
  Quite refreshing to hear a European voice in this debate (not suggesting that she represents all Europeans -- but it definitely strikes a chord with me). She's wrong about one thing though: Damore was fired, basically, for making a well-meant, if amateurish, attempt at institutional design, ... , he was fired, in short, for thinking on his own. No, he was fired because Google is already neck-deep into being investigated by the DoL for gender pay discrimination [1] and they have a class action lawsuit coming up about the same issue [2]. He was fired for the same reason that they recently hired a chief diversity officer [3]. Believe me, at that point they would do almost anything to avoid those cases turning south (and what that would mean for the corporate public image), and giving voice to someone who has even the slightest doubt about diversity in the workplace is a big fat political No-Go. James Damore made the mistake of saying the wrong thing at the wrong time, that's all. [1]https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/07/google-pay-disparities-women-labor-department-lawsuit https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/07/google-pa... [2]https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/08/google-women-discrimination-class-action-lawsuit https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/08/google-wo... [3]https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/29/google-hires-intels-former-head-of-diversity-as-vp-of-diversity/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/29/google-hires-intels-former...
• jamespo 9y ago
  It's interesting to see the right wing interest and faith in scientific papers here, I look forward to similar enthusiasm for climate science.
  • ryanx435 9y ago
    Go virtue signal somewhere else
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    • Apocryphon 9y ago
      It's ironic that using the very term "virtue signaling" has itself become an act of virtue signaling.
• dsfjksdf 9y ago
  Isn't a minority person who decides against some career because few people "like him" are in it racist against themselves? Why do they consider their skin color their defining feature (the "like me" feature)? Most professions have a lot of humans in them. Most minority people are human - hence there are a lot of people "like them" in those professions. It's a lie that feminist and SJWs reinforce that gender or skin color are supposedly the most defining features of a person. I'd maintain that for example a woman and a man from an affluent part of town have often more in common than an affluent man and a working class man. Don't be racist against yourself!
• pavlov 9y ago
  But however imperfect his attempt, he was fired, in short, for thinking on his own. Why is this surprising? People get fired in America all the time for thinking on their own. It's also called "disagreeing with the boss".
• wisty 9y ago
  > To begin with, even I know most of Google’s work is people-centric. It’s either serving people directly, or analyzing people-data, or imagining the people-future. If you want to spend your life with things and ideas rather than people, then go into engineering or physics, but not into software-development. That's silly. Every job involves people, at some level, otherwise you wouldn't get paid. By this logic, a lighthouse keeping is a people-centric job, because you maintain a light that other people will look at. > That coding actually requires “female” skills was spelled out clearly by Yonatan Zunger, a former Google employee. But since I care more about physics than software-development, let me leave this aside. I believe this is the one that points out that managers deal with people, not software (so why not just get MBAs?). I'd counter that liking people doesn't mean you're good with them, there's even research that introverts make better CEOs. Similarly, being predisposed to like programming (or any other task) doesn't mean you're naturally good at it (though putting in the hours will help a lot).
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• kromem 9y ago
  An interesting anecdote regarding gender bias and tech. In the very early stage of my company, we wanted to outsource some UX work. After an exhausting review of applicants on one of the freelance sites out there, we finally settled on a Pakistani woman who had the best balance of portfolio vs cost. At the initial Skype call, there was no video. And it turned out to be a guy speaking in a very high voice. We didn't really care and just went along with it (after a call or two he dropped his octave significantly, but everything continued with the original female name). But it was curious that this enterprising individual decided that the best way to stand out from the countless other developers with similar demographics he was competing against was to pretend to be a woman. I do suspect that the presumed bias that women aren't actually as skilled and got where they are because of gender preference, while an uncomfortable bias for women, does make it so that a woman with equal skill to a male candidate is perceived as a greater rarity/find because "oh wow, this one is legit." (Not saying women are actually less likely to be legit, just saying the perception that is true can work to board in the opposite direction). I'd be extremely curious to see the classic "attach picture to resume/work sample" experiment done for tech with actual hiring managers. I'd be very surprised if the work with the female photo has a lower net score than the male photo across the experimental groups.
  • saiya-jin 9y ago
    This is my experience too. I've only experienced positive discrimination towards women in software dev field... It's what being a gentleman means and it feels natural to us. But proper equality? A guy can be much harsher towards another guy compared to a woman. My fiancee sometimes doesn't like it if I treat her as equal, as I would treat my best friend
  • mpweiher 9y ago
    That experiment was done in STEM academia recently, and showed a 2:1 hiring advantage for women. http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.abstract http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.abstract It should also be noted that the earlier study, which showed a smaller effect and only if the resumes were calibrated to be (a) mediocre and (b) precisely calibrated to be the same, was done in Psychology. Which is, of course, a field dominated by women and maybe not the typical "STEM" that we think about when we talk about the underrepresentation of women in tech. Those two findings in turn gel with a recent French study that showed bias in grading in favor of the underrepresented gender in a particular field (though the bias was stronger in favor of women than in favor of men). http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/46681/title/Slight-Female-Bias-in-French-Science-Teacher-Exams/ http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/46681/... And of course there was the recent trial (not an experiment AFAICT) in Australia to reduce gender bias: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to-improve-gender-equality-failing-study/8664888 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-tria... "The trial found assigning a male name to a candidate made them 3.2 per cent less likely to get a job interview. Adding a woman's name to a CV made the candidate 2.9 per cent more likely to get a foot in the door." UPDATE: I was looking for one more thing, and finally found it. Despite the fact that the study showing bias against women is much weaker, it has been cited several times more often than the study showing bias for women (table near the bottom). https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/why-brilliant-girls-tend-favor-non-stem-careers https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/wh...
• sersi 9y ago
  I do not agree with a lot of points of that diversity memo but that means that it's a topic that needs to be discussed instead of being censored and the author fired. Discussion is how people change their opinion. It's by being free to discuss and say what you think that you can exchange ideas with other people you disagree with and maybe change your mind once you understand their view point. If you close discussion, then those opinions will be more radicalized and will tend to be discussed in echo chambers where people are not afraid of being shamed by their writings. As Voltaire once said[1] "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it " and I think, forgetting this, is what leads to Trump and to an increase of misogyny. [1] It's actually apocryphal, he never actually wrote or said that but it does illustrate his philosophy so wouldn't have been out of character for him.
  • tchaffee 9y ago
    > that means that it's a topic that needs to be discussed instead of being censored and the author fired. Here is what CEO said on the about it in his response [1]: "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." The author of the original memo wasn't fired because of trying to discuss the topic. He was fired because he violated Google's code of conduct, which expects: "each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination." If you intimidate enough employees via a widespread memo, you will get fired. I see no problem with that. The freedom to discuss a topic also comes with responsibilities. As an example, would anyone expect to keep their job if they published a memo with "Blacks on average are [insert negative here]." at any big company anywhere in the world? Regardless of scientific basis? It's an absurd expectation, unless you work at a company doing scientific research on that specific subject. [1] https://www.blog.google/topics/diversity/note-employees-ceo-sundar-pichai/ https://www.blog.google/topics/diversity/note-employees-ceo-...
• huji 9y ago
  Hilary Clinton lost to a pussy graber you don't have to be a Google employee with PhD to see the world for what it is.
  • demonshalo 9y ago
    A pussy grabber won over Hilary Clinton. You don't have to be a Google employee with PhD to see how bad of a candidate she was. You see... two people can play that game. If anything, a pro-trump person could have used that same sentence of yours to demonstrate the opposite sentiment. Don't attribute biases to situations that are nothing other than complete and utter incompetence.
    • huji 9y ago
      A former senator and secretary of state - complete and utter incompetence - sure whatever you say snowflake.
      • Joeri 9y ago
        I'm sure you're trolling, but... Her credentials worked against her. She was as establishment as you can be, with no perspective on any major change from the viewpoint of the average person, just continuing on down the existing path. The reason Trump got elected is the same reason Obama got elected, and it is the same reason Bush Jr. got elected, and Clinton before him: people want change.
        • matwood 9y ago
          I think you're underestimating the damage the DNC did when they screwed over Sanders. A lot of the traditional democrats I know simply refused to vote after that. Sanders also offered the change you're talking about.
          • Joeri 9y ago
            I'm actually pretty sure Sanders would have won against Trump, provided he got the necessary funding. I think he was too unpalatable for the money men and that's why the DNC swatted him down.
• acjohnson55 9y ago
  This is a thought provoking response, but I think she's wrong to say the firing was not justified. Simple fact is that if you whip up a shitstorm of this caliber, you will not be long for your role. But more importantly, if you're going to walk the path of claiming that some of your coworkers are biologically unsuited for their roles, you'd best be sure your research and reasoning are ironclad. There's no "just starting a discussion" on such a topic.
• partycoder 9y ago
  The existing legislative context, e.g: Equal Employment Opportunity, is incompatible with some of the things in this memo, particularly, stating that females do not perform well at certain roles and should not be preferred. That would not be compliant with the EEO law.
• calafrax 9y ago
  "Worse, one of the biggest obstacles that minorities face is a chicken-and-egg problem that time alone doesn’t cure. People avoid professions in which there are few people like them. This is a hurdle which affirmative action can remove, fast and efficiently." I think this assumption is made by most people but unfortunately simply filling slots based on socially constructed identity labels does not seem to be effective in addressing underlying inequalities. For instance, we have had "race" based affirmative action policies for universities for decades but very limited effect in having those policies translate into balancing income and wealth gaps between socially constructed race groups. In fact those gaps have widened considerably over the past couple decades. I think that people still fail to understand the extent of sub-conscious prejudice and fail to understand that the programs they are putting in place to try to solve inequalities between socially constructed identity groups are actually reinforcing the underlying causes of those inequalities instead of eliminating them.
• throw2016 9y ago
  Casting aspersions on colleagues is not cool. There is no 'science' to do this. The science of studying gender and racial differences does not lend itself to 'easy conclusions' and generalizations and certainly not practical application or advocacy. Tomorrow a colleague could write a tome pointing to studies about male aggression and the risk of putting them in collaborative environments or about introverts unsuitability for certain roles and presume to advocate 'other roles' for them. This is beyond the pale. Cherry picking studies in a way they are not meant to applied in any real world scenario is a dangerous unscientific preoccupation of bigots and supremacists. The fact that you are making these conclusions not as an expert in the field trying to further knowledge but in a real world application context about your fellow workers in an act of extreme prejudice and hostility and completely compromises this individual and his memo. The biggest concern of this misguided memo is the level of support for this troubled individual. It appears women in the valley really have something to worry about. There exist all these men and colleagues who harbor deep doubts about their capabilities. This is alas what hostility looks like.
• jernfrost 9y ago
  Great perspective. As a Northern European having dealt with American company ownership I don't think the main problem in Google's case was political correctness but rather a general American problem with how free speech is defined in the US. Freedom in America is always about government NOT doing something, while in Europe government is defined as a protector of these freedoms. This shows up clearly with respect to stating an opinion at a US company. There is no protection of free speech on private property in the US. I first encountered this when out company got bought by an American one and they i sisted that religion and politics should not be discussed at work. It surprised them that such a demand was illegal in Norway. Private property does not trumph everything else as it often seems to do in the US. While americans are free to utter quite inflamatory speech in the public, I find that American culture seems to discourage any sort of controversial topic in polite company. That applies to conservatives and liberals alike in the US. Discussing religion among conservatives in the US seems taboo. While liberals are not very open to having PC opinions challenged.
  • vasilipupkin 9y ago
    To be clear, a private company in the US cannot stop you from discussing anything at work but reserves the right to fire you at will, including for discussions it deems unproductive. Discussing politics in polite company in the US is indeed discouraged by culture. I personally think that's a good thing as people on opposite sides of the spectrum often can't agree on a basic set of facts, which makes discussions pointless. Do supporters of far right parties in Scandinavian countries often discuss politics with supporters of left wing parties at dinner ?
    • humanrebar 9y ago
      Sometimes the point of the conversations is reminding each other that we're decent and intelligent humans. Giving up on engaging because you haven't converted people is giving up too soon. Sometimes the changed mind is in how we value political opponents, not whether we agree with them.
      • vasilipupkin 9y ago
• whistlerbrk 9y ago
  > Women indeed are, on the average, more neurotic than men. It’s not an insult, it’s a common term in psychology. Women are also, on the average, more interested in people than in things. They do, on the average, value work-life balance more, react differently to stress, compete by other rules. And so on. Here's the problem. These studies model the status quo, not the way things would be if women weren't subjected to different historical and social pressures. I would venture that the profile distribution of women in tech is perhaps different than the population wide distribution. Imagine a world where women weren't told they are naturally good/bad at things, now project that forward 50 years and redo the study. This is my chief problem with the memo, and the fact that he launches into IQ, the talking point of the prejudiced everywhere.
  • ryanx435 9y ago
    Here's the real problem: you want to talk about hypotheticals and what it's, while the memo is talking about his view of how reality actually is so that it can be improved.
  • ggdG 9y ago
    >Imagine a world where women weren't told they are naturally good/bad at things, now project that forward 50 years and redo the study. I doubt you have read James Damore's memo ( https://diversitymemo.com/ https://diversitymemo.com/ ) because he addresses your very question explicitly by citing a scientific paper: http://www.bradley.edu/dotAsset/165918.pdf http://www.bradley.edu/dotAsset/165918.pdf And guess what? Less constraints on gender roles lead to more sexual dimorphism. Here's another study, resulting in the same conclusion: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0153857 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.... >This is my chief problem with the memo, and the fact that he launches into IQ, the talking point of the prejudiced everywhere. Damore doesn't "launch into IQ" at all. The memo mentions "IQ" only 2 times and touches the subject very fleetingly. It appears to refer to an opinion piece that is more elaborate on it: https://www.city-journal.org/html/real-war-science-14782.html https://www.city-journal.org/html/real-war-science-14782.htm... . As it turns out, research on IQ has been defunded in the past for being "racist". You can call Damore "prejudiced", but then you will have a lot of work disproving the body of scientific research cited here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence Damore's memo is on solid ground regarding the scientific consensus on gender differences in the statistical distribution of psychological traits. It's an honest and fair attempt at describing biological reality. When reality doesn't turn out to be as you want it to be doesn't mean that the author is "prejudiced".
• d--b 9y ago
  I am sorry if I come across as a liberal who gets offended, but I completely support the decision of Google to fire him. In fact, I think that Google had no other choice than to fire him, and that's mostly because the engineer shot himself in the foot. Memos are not meant to express debatable personal arguments, memos are meant to express a company position. By widely spreading a personal view, the author impersonated the company in a way that the company does not endorse. As a culture manager, you just cannot let this kind of things happen. Regarding the content of the "manifesto", the author should have known better. Even if it was genuinely true that women's biology explains the gender gap in technology, it is not provable - as in, there is simply no way to quantify the effect, if any. And using unprovable causes to justify a societal bias is not acceptable. The problem is that you can use unprovable statements to justify anything. The debate regarding whether it is good or not to intervene at company level to try and change an industry culture is a perfectly healthy debate. Widely sharing one's view which uses unprovable arguments and that will offense some people is simply a dumb thing to do.
  • biofox 9y ago
    As I understand the situation, it was an internal memo to try and open up a debate within the organisation. It was never intended to impersonate the company or be externally distributed. It contained nothing extreme or explicitly hateful.And even if his arguments are flawed, they should have been discussed and countered.
  • leereeves 9y ago
    If it's forbidden to even propose a possible explanation, how can anyone ever seriously discuss the question of why engineering isn't 50/50 male/female? But then, I suppose that's the point. No competition for the equally unprovable, unquantifiable theory that's currently dominant.
  • kfriede 9y ago
    Here as a conservative, I do think Google had the right to fire him. I don't agree with the decision, but I don't need to. It's not my company. On that note, I don't think the memo was intended to speak for Google, but rather _to_ Google. Was it even intentionally public? Or was it leaked?
• tchaffee 9y ago
  "one also doesn’t solve a problem by yelling “harassment” each time someone asks to discuss whether a diversity effort is indeed effective." Google simply didn't, and neither did Google employees. The letter from CEO Sundar Pichai makes this clear: "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" I don't understand why there is so much discussion around whether or not what the fired employee said was scientifically true or not. "Blacks on average are more [insert negative here]" "Jews on average are more [insert negative here]" "Men on average are more [insert negative here]" How would I get away with any of the above statements in widely published memo at any big company, regardless of basis in fact? It's a PR disaster that costs the company money to manage, and it also violates Google's code of conduct by having made a significant portion of employees feel harassed or intimidated. Here is an excerpt from the Google employee code of conduct which expects: "each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination." The fired employee didn't do that, and that's why he was fired. I suspect the reason so many people have trouble with the firing, and the responsibility stated in employee CoC is that it puts a lot of power in other people's hands. You can no longer sit behind your screen and insist that it's a scientific fact and therefor you are right. Respecting the CoC requires empathy, people skills, listening, perhaps sometimes even submissiveness - all things that "technical people on average are bad at."
  • Caveman_Coder 9y ago
    > "I suspect the reason so many people have trouble with the firing, and the responsibility stated in employee CoC is that it puts a lot of power in other people's hands." I disagree. I think people are upset, at least conservatives within Google, because they see this "against the CoC" idea selectively applied. I can tell you first hand that there were a lot of things said by those on the left, especially after the election, about conservatives that many felt violated the CoC, the issue is just that its a minority at Google that are conservative. I mean, after the election at the TGIF, a member of management basically told everyone to stand up and hug the person next to you and "it's going to be alright." If this isn't alienating, lacking in empathy, and downright rude toward the conservative Googlers, I don't know what is...
• Joeri 9y ago
  People are making way too big a deal of genetic predisposition. Yes, there are genetic predispositions, like how musical talent may run through some families, but what matters way more is how we are brought up, and how we choose to act. If someone is a musical virtuoso, they became that way not because of the talent they were born with, but because of the encouragement of their parents and environment and long hours of practice they chose to put in. Young minds are impressionable, and if you tell a young person they're probably less capable of something, they probably will be. Even as the stereotypical nerdy white male programmer I can see how people look differently at a young girl who is interested in computers. It is considered odd, if not improper. Boys never have to contend with this bias (although they have similar yet opposite biases in different fields, like child care). Inevitably this societal pressure will cause fewer girls to go into programming, and in turn fewer women to end up at google. That's not a consequence of some genetic predisposition, it is a consequence of being brought up in a world where not everyone is treated equally. How do you flip that around? You stop thinking in terms of averages and you start thinking in terms of individual opportunity. We treat every child as deserving of the same chances as any other child, and we stop trying to steer them into directions based on their birth. That requires a modal shift in thinking where gender is just not a factor anymore, for any profession or any talent. The diversity memo's failing is not the statistics it cites, it is that it furthers the notion that diversity is a set of statistics to control for. True diversity is about ignoring statistics and instead giving every single person the same chances, regardless of where they came from. I want my daughter to have the same chance of becoming a programmer as my son, and my son to have the same chance of becoming a kindergarten teacher as my daughter, and for no one to tell them either choice is odd or improper.
  • merpnderp 9y ago
    "The diversity memo's failing is not the statistics it cites, it is that it furthers the notion that diversity is a set of statistics to control for. True diversity is about ignoring statistics and instead giving every single person the same chances, regardless of where they came from." Your point is the memo failed because it makes exactly your point - that people should be treated like individuals rather than their group's statistical means. I'm curious if you've even read it.
• menacingly 9y ago
  It's funny that the outrage actually opens opportunities for white men to feign outrage too and stay in power. That's why you keep seeing so much agitation in this area but not much actual change, because the smart play is to be the white male in a comfy position but distract from that by disguising yourself as a fellow freedom fighter.
• micahbright 9y ago
  Interesting perspective, but: >I’m not remotely surprised, however, that Damore naturally assumes the differences between typically female and male traits mean that men are more skilled. He never said or implied that. The whole problem is people overreacting about what they read in to it.
• koolio 9y ago
  Before talking about gender imbalances in computer science related jobs we should fix the imbalance in the most male centric jobs. We need more women miners, bricklayers and mechanics along with trashwomen and oil rig workers.
  • notyourday 9y ago
    We also should limit the number of women models, especially the ones on runway and in catalog and start paying all models the same $150/h rate non-supermodels make.
• kaden 9y ago
  I find it hilarious that this guy was somehow okay with using disparate, unrelated facts to create detached conclusions to make a contrived political point, and when the obvious solution is to fire him because of his toxic, baseless beliefs that disrupt a working environment it's suddenly about free speech? That's delusional. You out right take an unreasonable course of action, "predict" that there will be negative out comes from it, and cry foul when those negative outcomes come to fruition. What's sickening is how dishonest that is, what's disheartening is that the memo's creator is being defended by a sizable audience in the tech community. There's a good deal of irony where the memo wanted to remove emotion from the conversation and face the "true" facts, yet the defenders of this guy want to cry about free speech (that isn't being violated) and defend terribly contrived pseudo-scientific points just to be outraged to defend some principle that was never being threatened in the first place. It seems to be a continuing trend that people aligning to one side of the political spectrum are surprised when the rest of society rebukes them, and they get unimaginably offended at the reality that people actually react to things you do and say, especially when the latter statements are completely baseless.
  • akvadrako 9y ago
    What language is this? I can barely understand what point you are trying to make; why don't you just come out and say it?
    • kaden 9y ago
      The language is English. The point is pretty clear. Why don't you elaborate on what you're confused by?
• losteverything 9y ago
  Let me present a walmart associate opinion on the person that was fired. Tldr - sometimes really smart people do the dumbest things. Where was his common sense? For the average associate i know the overarching Question would be did he not know he could be fired? "I would have loved to go to college. I couldn't afford it. Id love to have a job at Google. He probably makes over one hundred thousand dollars. All those years spent in college to get a good job and to then lose it. Didn't he think saying something bad about your employer can get you fired? I cant go on Facebook and write sh#! about walmart and not expect to get fired or at least reprimanded. I just dont understand how people who are supposed to be so smart can be so dumb." -- I am fortunate to have straddled upper and lower classes in my life. I learn new things working with adults who have never known a family member who attended college. Managers who never flew in a plane. The ground level view of living where you work to get by. The joy of life (imo, more joy with less wealth) I have no outrage personally.
  • fulfillaneed 9y ago
    There is a big difference between going on Facebook to talk shit about your employer and what happened here. The memo writer asked for feedback on his memo and was ignored. He tried again and again to get feedback on his opinion internally until turning to the Google internal 'skeptic' community. The skeptics doesn't quite like what he wrote so they strung him up and made an example of him. He was encouraged to give feedback like this so that the company could react to internal problems and self correct before they became worse. In a collective sense Google is acting like a child by refusing to address this problem and their reaction will alienate employees more than this memo ever could. On a personal rant, I've contracted for Google doing software architecture on a few projects. They do have practices which mildly disgust me. Stuff like flagging people as 'diverse' and making sure the correct number of diverse people are in attendance.
    • losteverything 9y ago
      <He was encouraged to give feedback like this so that the company could react to internal problems and self correct before they became worse. I never got that. Ty. But isnt one of the mechanisms to get feedback making input anonymous? Did they ask for authored input? Really? About diversity?
• andreasgonewild 9y ago
  You can't fix inequality by discriminating; discrimination is part of the problem, not the solution. It's about time we started considering other, more constructive ways of cleaning up our collective mess.
• rdlecler1 9y ago
  Anyone else notice how bloggers and the media emphasize 'white man' or 'white male' to transform it into a perjorative term?
• HumbleGamer 9y ago
  As a black male, I guess I just comprehend that I dont have the right to spout off my opinions at work, at least not if I want to keep my job. If I start rocking BLM merch around the office, I might not have a job. Feel free to finish telling me how unfair it is that he can't express his opinions, while we ignore the fact that he likely insulted a great deal of his colleagues while doing so. But they don't matter, right? Whats most important is James getting his opinions across. He is free to write what he wants, and they are free to can him.
  • kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago
    > If I start rocking BLM merch around the office, I might not have a job. You are kidding right? At least in the major tech companies of the area, people would be out with pitchforks if a black man was fired for rocking BLM merch around the office. Heck, Mark Zuckerberg specifically reprimanded his employees for writing stuff like 'All Lives Matter' over BLM posters at Facebook.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• jl6 9y ago
  In the last month I have hired 4 people in specialist technical roles. I reviewed 15 CVs. All were from men. No women applied. There is clearly something filtering women out. There is something deep in the supply chain of labor (by which I mean education) which results in women being siphoned off long before they hit my company's diversity and inclusion policies. I believe these policies are reasonably effective at tackling unconscious bias, but they are unable to affect the underlying talent pool. My personal theory is that specialisms are risky (good pay if you can find employment, no pay if not), and men are more likely to take risks than women. There is research to support the latter point. Casual googling digs up this for example: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Byrnes2/publication/232541633_Gender_Differences_in_Risk_Taking_A_Meta-Analysis/links/00b49514c47ab0f093000000.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Byrnes2/publicati...
  • hashberry 9y ago
    I'm skeptical of blaming education. For example, 69% of developers say they are partially self-taught[0]. I've worked with many talented developers with liberal art degrees. The main takeaway of the memo is that women are filtering themselves out. [0] https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2016 https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2016
    • jl6 9y ago
      But how many of those self-taught developers managed to do so with the aid of a love of mathematics/detail/technicality that survived an encounter with high school peer pressures?
• pi_qed 9y ago
  There's an irony to the downvotes in this thread. People are outraged that this guy was harassed for expressing his opinion and then downvoting anyone here who expresses an opinion they don't like. Are people so afraid of having a discussion with opposing views that they shut down any conversation they don't like with downvotes. If you disagree say why and give the person a chance to respond.
• crb002 9y ago
  Mostly shocked that Google got caught discriminating on race/gender grounds.
• tynpeddler 9y ago
  An interesting article, but I was baffled by this line: 'The bigger mistake in Damore’s memo is one I see frequently: Assuming that job skills and performance can be deduced from differences among demographic groups.' From my understanding, Damore does not argue this. Instead, he argues that job skill and performances in groups might be deduced from differences in demographic groups. I don't recall Damore every claiming that differences in a group make an individual less skilled. I think this confusion arises from a misunderstanding of Damore's argument flow, which goes something like this: 1. Women as a group tend to be interested in things other than programming, so there are fewer female programmers overall relative to their population. 2. Because there are fewer female programmers, there are fewer female programmers applying to google. 3. The distribution of skills in the population of female programmers that apply to google is identical to the distribution of skills to the male programmers that apply to Google. (This is an important assumption that we don't have a lot of data for) 4. Google wishes to hire women in proportion to their representation in the general population (looots of anecdotal support for this point). Conclusion: Google hires a larger percentage of their female applicant than their male applicants. Because of point 3, they will end up hiring more low skilled females than males[1]. You'll notice that a lot hinges on point 3. There is some data to suggest that women self select much more when applying to a job than men do, thus it's possible that the distribution of female engineers applying to google is either more high skilled, or the distribution is right shifted, than the distribution of skills among male engineers. If this shift was big enough, google would not require special considerations in order to hire a larger percentage of female, than male applicants. Since Google's discriminatory hiring practices are one of the worst kept secrets in the tech industry, it's unlikely that the skill distribution among female applicants is that skewed, though there is very likely some skew. Point 1 is interesting because it suggests that the fundamental problem is not Google's fault so it can't be fixed by Google's hiring or retention practices. Even if point 1 is actually "Women as a group are discouraged from being programmers therefore there are fewer female programmers", it still puts the problem squarely outside Google's hiring and retention practices. [1]The actual error being made here is much more complex. Since hiring is an error prone process, a certain percentage of unsuitable candidates will be hired. Since there are so many more men hired by Google than women, even lacking any positive discrimination in favor of women, there will be far more low skilled men hired than low skilled women. What would actually happen is that the error rate for hiring low skilled candidates would be much higher for women than for men. Absent any other intervention, this could lead to a lower retention rate for female hires as managers realize that their skills are not up to par. Thus Google also introduces a plethora of retention programs designed to raise the skill level of the female engineers. Note that these low skilled female hires are not low skilled because they are women, but they are low skilled because Google was less stringent while hiring them. This argument is not sufficient to say if a particular female engineered is low skilled, only that if you were to evaluate and group the skills of all the female and male developers, the female skill distribution would have a larger left tail than the male left tail. Thus for a given female engineer, they are more likely to be low skilled, despite the fact that you will almost certainly meet more low skilled male engineers.
• HoppedUpMenace 9y ago
  Just because there is science and studies that indicate that women and men are "X", on average, it does not mean you can immediately dismiss people's grievances with the fact that some people are under-represented in one area or another. My wife certainly does not fall under what the studies would deem a woman to be on average (nor that of which the author of the blog describes). Therefore, she would most definitely protest any notion that the reason why she is not "X" is due to her biology and scientific studies and take issue with anyone in the workplace trying to frame her current position as "she is in that job role due to her biology."
• SJWDisagree111 9y ago
  The problem here is that there actually is a biological disadvantage that women possess in regard to career success. That disadvantage is that on average 100% of children are born from women. Additionally on average 100% men do not bear children. Due to this statistical anomaly even if only a small percent of women; say 10% decide to have children there will be a measurable disadvantage/bias towards the male gender in the workforce for a simple reason. A person carrying a child even on a most optimistic outlook must spend a least a tiny percent of their time dealing with the fact they are pregnant. This includes hormone levels, energy, medical issues and general physiological inconvenience. Furthermore this inconvenience lasts a minimum of 9 months and reasonably even a year. During this time of less than maximum career effort a man will never suffer such setbacks and is theoretically able to devote nearly 100% of his effort to career advancement. Until we either have artificial wombs or completely change the laws dealing with childbearing to deal with the actual childbearing rather than serve an outdated form of social contract (marriage) there will never be a true resolution.
• zaccus 9y ago
  I don't have much to add to this discussion, except that this is why I never respond to workplace surveys unless I'm required to, and even then, I say what I think upper management wants to hear. If I'm unhappy or unsatisfied with something that I'm not in an immediate position to change, I'll get a job elsewhere. I want to control if and when that happens, which means no whining or complaining, even if I'm asked to. It's not worth the risk.
• doubleshame 9y ago
  In my opinion, a lot of this rhetoric is being repeated. But the points raised by the original memo require a bit of perhaps subtle mathematics to understand. This is an attempt at curating a list of relevant math and rationality articles, so that we can at least speak the same language when talking about this. Start here: I personally view it as the base model of all beliefs that we can hold. It talks about some kinds of things that we can know and how much we should have confidence in what we know. Bayes theorem: http://arbital.com/p/bayes_rule_guide http://arbital.com/p/bayes_rule_guide
  • doubleshame 9y ago
    Appreciate that this notion exists: Confidence intervals https://www.mathsisfun.com/data/confidence-interval.html https://www.mathsisfun.com/data/confidence-interval.html Let's say I give you a biased coin, but don't tell you what the bias is. You make 10 flips and record what you see. What can you tell about the coin and how much confidence can you have in your assertions?
  • doubleshame 9y ago
    Another Bayes theorem. This is IMO the most important idea so I am including this alternate text as well. http://yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes/ http://yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes/
  • doubleshame 9y ago
    "Magic is fueled by belief and willpower" "Magic that works whether or not you believe in it" What is belief and what is reality. An existential notion of truth that I subscribe to. http://yudkowsky.net/rational/the-simple-truth/ http://yudkowsky.net/rational/the-simple-truth/
  • doubleshame 9y ago
    (Advanced) Bayes nets. How to understand the relation between different assertions i.e. if you have some degree of confidence in some assertions, what can you say about the others? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_network
• daveheq 9y ago
  See, just because STEM is less than 50% women means it's sexist against them... Just like nursing, HR, home care, child care, social services, accounting, and a bunch of other services being less than 50% men is sexist against men! Make them equal! Begin the gender wars! Don't take my word for it though: https://www.monster.com/career-advice/article/professions-women https://www.monster.com/career-advice/article/professions-wo...
• zaro 9y ago
  No, not at all.
• siliconc0w 9y ago
  Damore's thesis was really more around difference in personality between populations as the likely cause of differences in the same population's distributions in STEM Fields/Leadership. It's about the aggregate interests of a population and not a comment on ability. The people turning it into the latter need to re-read the memo. The gender gaps in STEM/Leadership are likely a combination of both biological and social factors but moderate centrist viewpoints are boring and don't get you views/clicks.
• krasicki 9y ago
  https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/why-brilliant-girls-tend-favor-non-stem-careers https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/wh...