6 ms·

The main problem I see with that is that poll that says that a third of the employees didn't disagree with the memo. If there's such a large percentage that agr

by sersi 9y ago

The main problem I see with that is that poll that says that a third of the employees didn't disagree with the memo. If there's such a large percentage that agree with it then it's time for discussion. It's not a minority opinion and that memo shows what a lot of people think but will not be afraid to express. So, instead of having open discussion on the topic which would help changing ideas, those opinions are being suppressed and the people holding them will be further radicalized.

tchaffee 9y ago
In my comment I quoted the CEO saying many parts of the memo are open to discussion. Discussion and debate comes with responsibilities, and one of the responsibilities per the CoC is that you do not intimidate or harass other employees. Is it unreasonable to say you are not allowed to intimidate or harass other employees? > be afraid to express. They should be afraid to express an opinion that violates the code of conduct. The code of conduct values some things over others, and a workplace free of harassment and intimidation is more important to Google than making sure no one is ever afraid of expressing an opinion. It might well be the opinion of some engineer in Google that all blacks should be called niggers. That engineer should rightly be afraid of expressing that opinion no matter how deeply held that opinion is, and no matter how many other employees share that opinion. > the people holding them will be further radicalized. Source?
- sersi 9y ago
  Ok, where is the intimidation or harassment? He expressed unpopular opinion and unenlightened points of view but is there harassment? In another comment, you say it's the mention that women tend to have on average more neuroticism although you seem to acknowledge in that comment that it has basis in research [1]. If, as you say, it's a fact, then how can it be harassment? You cannot have reasonable discussions, if you dismiss what you consider to be true facts because you consider them to be harassment. There could be factors that could cause a statistical difference between genders due to physiology or due to culture (I disagree with the memo's author in his dismissal of cultural and parenting influences on gender behaviors) and any discussion of diversity would need to take those into account. Now, the author claims that his memo had notes to supporting evidence but the leaked copies do not have that. [1] For the record, I haven't found the research on that and I'm rather skeptical of that result.
  - yorwba 9y ago
    There is a leaked copy with the links intact: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I... The citation for higher neuroticism is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology#Personality_traits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology#..., this in turn cites http://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0022-3514.81.2.322 http://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0022-3514.81..., which confirms the claims. > ... gender differences are small relative to individual variation within genders; differences are replicated across cultures for both college-age and adult samples, and differences are broadly consistent with gender stereotypes: Women reported themselves to be higher in Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Warmth, and Openness to Feelings, whereas men were higher in Assertiveness and Openness to Ideas.
  - tchaffee 9y ago
    > where is the intimidation or harassment? Many employees felt intimidated and that they now had to prove in a work setting that they are not "more neurotic on average than men". This is about human relationships. If enough people say they felt intimidated, how can anyone dispute that? Can you prove they didn't feel intimidated? Can I prove they did feel intimidated? No to both questions. It's not in the domain of science or facts. It's in the domain of human relationships and emotions. > If, as you say, it's a fact, I said it was a fact? Where? I actually don't care if it's a fact or not. It just doesn't mean a lot to me either way. > then how can it be harassment? Easy. There is zero relationship between facts and harassment. I can tell the truth and harass you. I can also lie and harass you. If I pass your workspace every day and say "You have a smaller penis than the average man and some people here are better at programming than you" does it matter whether both of those are facts? It's still clearly harassment. Unless we have an inside joke.... human relationships are far more complex than science. No wonder so many of us would like to shoehorn everything into black and white scientific facts! > You cannot have reasonable discussions, if you dismiss what you consider to be true facts because you consider them to be harassment. Of course you can. A reasonable discussion around your penis size at work wouldn't include facts about your penis size. The reasonable discussion would be "that's inappropriate and if you don't leave me alone I'll report you to HR for harassment." You are confusing "facts" with "appropriateness". One is a scientific concept, the other is a social concept. The two have almost nothing to do with each other. > the author claims that his memo had notes to supporting evidence It might be interesting, but it doesn't matter in the least in this case. The domain isn't science. Per the Google code of conduct, it expects "each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination." Do you see anything about science in the code of conduct? Or is it talking about culture and human relationships?
- mistermann 9y ago
  > In my comment I quoted the CEO saying many parts of the memo are open to discussion. It's open, but you'll be fired. > Is it unreasonable to say you are not allowed to intimidate or harass other employees? If talking about something is considered intimidation or harassment, which is the reality of the situation in USA 2017, then yes I consider it unreasonable. All these do-gooders are going to reap what they sow in the long run, and it sure as heck isn't what they think it is.
  - tchaffee 9y ago
    > It's open, but you'll be fired. A gross mischaracterization. Open never means anyone can just say whatever comes to mind. "Open discussion??? Oh goody!!! Kike, kike, kike, kike, the bosses are cheap Jews! Wait, what??? You're firing me? Whaaaaaaa, look at me tears, you promised open discussion!!! I'm suing, all woe is me!" I'm confident you're not that naive, and I hope you can see the point of my exaggeration. Everything, even open discussion, has limits. The CEO made it clear which parts of the memo were ok (almost every part of it). And which parts violated the code of conduct. Violate the code of conduct, and you're fired. Sed lex, dura lex. Everything has limits. So the discussion then is about what those limits should be. > If talking about something is considered intimidation or harassment, It's not. There are almost endless things you can talk about at work that aren't considered harassment or intimidation. There isn't a little rule book to guide you. It's up to you as an adult to to have adult relationships with your co-workers and to figure out for yourself what other people are comfortable hearing and what they consider harassment. I'm sure you already know that you can't tell a female employee she has bigger than average tits, no matter how factual it is or even if it's just "talking about something". But the more subtle points are up to you to work out with your co-workers. Be enough of an jerk to enough people by just "talking about something", and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. This has been the reality since humans have had emotions. Every adult with an ounce of understanding about human relationships knows that there is a lot of stuff you can't talk about at work. > which is the reality of the situation in USA 2017 Where did you get this idea that you ever had some kind of right at some point in history to talk about whatever you want to talk about at work - with no care towards how it makes your fellow employees feel? For most of America's business history you could get your butt thrown out the door just for saying something the boss doesn't like. You're actually slightly more protected in USA 2017, but a smart boss will find a way if he doesn't like what you say. So will your co-workers. I guess at one point in USA history you could more easily get away with sexually harassing female employees. Safe to say that's not the point in history you're trying to return to? If I'm right, can you describe the point in history you are trying to return to and why it was better? What was ok then that isn't ok now? Specific examples please? > All these do-gooders are going to reap what they sow in the long run, and it sure as heck isn't what they think it is. I guess we should be afraid... of.... something? Your revenge? Back up your vague threat with what you predict will actually happen or with what you plan on doing.
whataretensors 9y ago
Yes, if you deny the reasonable conversation then the extremists will claim it as validating their ridiculous standpoints. You can see this in action if you read the response to this on any extremist online gathering spot. A lot of people didn't fully read or comprehend the memo and use it as proof of their nonsense world view.

by sersi 9y ago

tchaffee 9y ago

In my comment I quoted the CEO saying many parts of the memo are open to discussion. Discussion and debate comes with responsibilities, and one of the responsibilities per the CoC is that you do not intimidate or harass other employees. Is it unreasonable to say you are not allowed to intimidate or harass other employees? > be afraid to express. They should be afraid to express an opinion that violates the code of conduct. The code of conduct values some things over others, and a workplace free of harassment and intimidation is more important to Google than making sure no one is ever afraid of expressing an opinion. It might well be the opinion of some engineer in Google that all blacks should be called niggers. That engineer should rightly be afraid of expressing that opinion no matter how deeply held that opinion is, and no matter how many other employees share that opinion. > the people holding them will be further radicalized. Source?

sersi 9y ago
Ok, where is the intimidation or harassment? He expressed unpopular opinion and unenlightened points of view but is there harassment? In another comment, you say it's the mention that women tend to have on average more neuroticism although you seem to acknowledge in that comment that it has basis in research [1]. If, as you say, it's a fact, then how can it be harassment? You cannot have reasonable discussions, if you dismiss what you consider to be true facts because you consider them to be harassment. There could be factors that could cause a statistical difference between genders due to physiology or due to culture (I disagree with the memo's author in his dismissal of cultural and parenting influences on gender behaviors) and any discussion of diversity would need to take those into account. Now, the author claims that his memo had notes to supporting evidence but the leaked copies do not have that. [1] For the record, I haven't found the research on that and I'm rather skeptical of that result.
- yorwba 9y ago
  There is a leaked copy with the links intact: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I... The citation for higher neuroticism is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology#Personality_traits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology#..., this in turn cites http://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0022-3514.81.2.322 http://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0022-3514.81..., which confirms the claims. > ... gender differences are small relative to individual variation within genders; differences are replicated across cultures for both college-age and adult samples, and differences are broadly consistent with gender stereotypes: Women reported themselves to be higher in Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Warmth, and Openness to Feelings, whereas men were higher in Assertiveness and Openness to Ideas.
- tchaffee 9y ago
  > where is the intimidation or harassment? Many employees felt intimidated and that they now had to prove in a work setting that they are not "more neurotic on average than men". This is about human relationships. If enough people say they felt intimidated, how can anyone dispute that? Can you prove they didn't feel intimidated? Can I prove they did feel intimidated? No to both questions. It's not in the domain of science or facts. It's in the domain of human relationships and emotions. > If, as you say, it's a fact, I said it was a fact? Where? I actually don't care if it's a fact or not. It just doesn't mean a lot to me either way. > then how can it be harassment? Easy. There is zero relationship between facts and harassment. I can tell the truth and harass you. I can also lie and harass you. If I pass your workspace every day and say "You have a smaller penis than the average man and some people here are better at programming than you" does it matter whether both of those are facts? It's still clearly harassment. Unless we have an inside joke.... human relationships are far more complex than science. No wonder so many of us would like to shoehorn everything into black and white scientific facts! > You cannot have reasonable discussions, if you dismiss what you consider to be true facts because you consider them to be harassment. Of course you can. A reasonable discussion around your penis size at work wouldn't include facts about your penis size. The reasonable discussion would be "that's inappropriate and if you don't leave me alone I'll report you to HR for harassment." You are confusing "facts" with "appropriateness". One is a scientific concept, the other is a social concept. The two have almost nothing to do with each other. > the author claims that his memo had notes to supporting evidence It might be interesting, but it doesn't matter in the least in this case. The domain isn't science. Per the Google code of conduct, it expects "each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination." Do you see anything about science in the code of conduct? Or is it talking about culture and human relationships?
mistermann 9y ago
> In my comment I quoted the CEO saying many parts of the memo are open to discussion. It's open, but you'll be fired. > Is it unreasonable to say you are not allowed to intimidate or harass other employees? If talking about something is considered intimidation or harassment, which is the reality of the situation in USA 2017, then yes I consider it unreasonable. All these do-gooders are going to reap what they sow in the long run, and it sure as heck isn't what they think it is.
- tchaffee 9y ago
  > It's open, but you'll be fired. A gross mischaracterization. Open never means anyone can just say whatever comes to mind. "Open discussion??? Oh goody!!! Kike, kike, kike, kike, the bosses are cheap Jews! Wait, what??? You're firing me? Whaaaaaaa, look at me tears, you promised open discussion!!! I'm suing, all woe is me!" I'm confident you're not that naive, and I hope you can see the point of my exaggeration. Everything, even open discussion, has limits. The CEO made it clear which parts of the memo were ok (almost every part of it). And which parts violated the code of conduct. Violate the code of conduct, and you're fired. Sed lex, dura lex. Everything has limits. So the discussion then is about what those limits should be. > If talking about something is considered intimidation or harassment, It's not. There are almost endless things you can talk about at work that aren't considered harassment or intimidation. There isn't a little rule book to guide you. It's up to you as an adult to to have adult relationships with your co-workers and to figure out for yourself what other people are comfortable hearing and what they consider harassment. I'm sure you already know that you can't tell a female employee she has bigger than average tits, no matter how factual it is or even if it's just "talking about something". But the more subtle points are up to you to work out with your co-workers. Be enough of an jerk to enough people by just "talking about something", and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. This has been the reality since humans have had emotions. Every adult with an ounce of understanding about human relationships knows that there is a lot of stuff you can't talk about at work. > which is the reality of the situation in USA 2017 Where did you get this idea that you ever had some kind of right at some point in history to talk about whatever you want to talk about at work - with no care towards how it makes your fellow employees feel? For most of America's business history you could get your butt thrown out the door just for saying something the boss doesn't like. You're actually slightly more protected in USA 2017, but a smart boss will find a way if he doesn't like what you say. So will your co-workers. I guess at one point in USA history you could more easily get away with sexually harassing female employees. Safe to say that's not the point in history you're trying to return to? If I'm right, can you describe the point in history you are trying to return to and why it was better? What was ok then that isn't ok now? Specific examples please? > All these do-gooders are going to reap what they sow in the long run, and it sure as heck isn't what they think it is. I guess we should be afraid... of.... something? Your revenge? Back up your vague threat with what you predict will actually happen or with what you plan on doing.

whataretensors 9y ago

Yes, if you deny the reasonable conversation then the extremists will claim it as validating their ridiculous standpoints. You can see this in action if you read the response to this on any extremist online gathering spot. A lot of people didn't fully read or comprehend the memo and use it as proof of their nonsense world view.