3 ms·

Ok, where is the intimidation or harassment? He expressed unpopular opinion and unenlightened points of view but is there harassment? In another comment, you s

by 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?
- jshevek 9y ago
  > 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". Since we can't read minds, we don't know how they felt. We only know that they said they felt that way. When you believe it is for a higher cause - like fighting the patriarchy - lying about your feelings is a minor consideration. Witness how many of these identity activists lie about being pushed, lie about having their space invaded to accomplish their ends: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRlRAyulN4o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRlRAyulN4o Not a single one of them says "Hey, no, lying isn't right." The collective values of that massive group of identity activists has no regard for truth, on this level. We can't deny that there is cultural overlap between the identity activists in this video, and the identity activists currently working at Google.
  - tchaffee 9y ago
    You're basically saying what I'm saying: harassment isn't something that can be objectively determined. Googlers might be lying about it, they might be telling the truth. If you don't want to get fired for harassing folks, and you don't have great people skills, you should probably keep your controversial opinions at home. YMMV.

by sersi 9y ago

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?

jshevek 9y ago
> 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". Since we can't read minds, we don't know how they felt. We only know that they said they felt that way. When you believe it is for a higher cause - like fighting the patriarchy - lying about your feelings is a minor consideration. Witness how many of these identity activists lie about being pushed, lie about having their space invaded to accomplish their ends: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRlRAyulN4o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRlRAyulN4o Not a single one of them says "Hey, no, lying isn't right." The collective values of that massive group of identity activists has no regard for truth, on this level. We can't deny that there is cultural overlap between the identity activists in this video, and the identity activists currently working at Google.
- tchaffee 9y ago
  You're basically saying what I'm saying: harassment isn't something that can be objectively determined. Googlers might be lying about it, they might be telling the truth. If you don't want to get fired for harassing folks, and you don't have great people skills, you should probably keep your controversial opinions at home. YMMV.