15 ms·

The firing has been a PR disaster, and amplified and exaggerated the effect of this issue (not to mention that it drew attention to other factors, like Google's

• vkou 9y ago
  The firing was necessary, because not firing someone who creates a hostile working environment opens you to lawsuits from every single other person employed in your company. [1] Anyone who's taken training on sexual harassment would understand this. His essay is not scientific, or evidence-based. It's ten pages of micro-facts, followed by his biases or misunderstands, followed by enormous leaps of logic to macro-conclusions. It wouldn't pass as a bloody undergrad essay. [2] (It is a poster child of a techie looking at a complicated problem that they don't understand, and saying 'I'm smart! This is easy! You guys are all wrong!') [1] https://twitter.com/mcclure111/status/895071933666017280 https://twitter.com/mcclure111/status/895071933666017280 [2] https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-biological-claims-made-in-the-anti-diversity-document-written-by-a-Google-employee-in-August-2017/answer/Suzanne-Sadedin https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-bio...
  • GreaterFool 9y ago
    From the Quora post you've linked: > argues that cognitive sex differences influence performance in software engineering, but presents no supporting evidence This is completely made up
    • renaudg 9y ago
      And in more than one way too : 1) he didn't discuss "performance" but "affinity" 2) there was supporting evidence linked, before Gizmodo conveniently stripped it away.
  • Ajedi32 9y ago
    > It wouldn't pass as a bloody undergrad essay. At least a few psychology professors [seem to disagree with that assessment][1]: > Graded fairly, his memo would get at least an A- in any masters’ level psychology course. It is consistent with the scientific state of the art on sex differences. I'm sure you can probably find lot of opinions on both sides of the debate though, and that's fine. As the memo stated: > Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I'd be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations Instead of "discussing the document further" though, they fired him. [1]: http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/ http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-...
• aaron-lebo 9y ago
  By and large the people outraged about this are the crazy men's rights, reactionary, Trumpist, Alex Jones mob that have been looking for things like this to be outraged for the past 30 years. Everyone wants to be a victim. Damore isn't a victim of anything but bad judgment. If he's hero of the mob, so what.
  • RodericDay 9y ago
    You're getting downvoted but you're exactly right.
  • ubertaco 9y ago
    Paraphrased: By and large the people outraged about this are...people we don't like, whose opinions don't matter, and who I think should be marginalized anyways. If he's the hero of people we don't like, so what.
    • aaron-lebo 9y ago
      As a Southern white male from a conservative background, I don't want to be marginalized. But when I see the rabid way people are defending the guy like he wrote the Federalist Papers, who at best is guilty of being unaware that what he was saying is controversial, I don't feel outraged if he got fired in a massive company known for its liberal views. What did he expect? He's not helping it by making himself a darling of the right wing media. That and lowball jabs at political correctness and Marxism make it a little too obvious where his sympathies lie and if he really wanted an objective debate picking sides doesn't help.
      • urbanj 9y ago
        > He's not helping it by making himself a darling of the right wing media. That and lowball jabs at political correctness and Marxism make it a little too obvious where his sympathies lie and if he really wanted an objective debate picking sides doesn't help. Exactly. Retweeting people like Cernovich makes it very clear what his agenda really is
      • deleted 9y ago
• ebola1717 9y ago
  Only on the internet. I really don't think anyone in the real world is paying that much attention, and besides Brooks, I haven't seen many mainstream writers come out against the firing.
  • Bahamut 9y ago
    I can't say I agree about that not paying much attention - I pretty much see/hear discussion about this incident daily since Saturday. It probably doesn't help that I am in the Valley, but I have a lot of friends not in tech across the world also discussing this as well. Almost everyone I know/interacted with believes that Damore is wrong though, if not for the viewpoint, then for his approach to trying to create a dialogue in a suboptimal fashion & its negative effects on his former colleagues.
  • humanrebar 9y ago
    What do you mean by mainstream?
  • nunobrito 9y ago
    Seems to be same group of mainstream writers who also dished out Trump as a joke candidate and hailed Clinton as winner. Very few had the courage to talk against that trend, one of them was Michael Moore and check how accurate he was when compared to "mainstream": https://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/ https://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/
• demonshalo 9y ago
  Extreme beliefs manifest themselves in extreme behavior. If you so blindly believe in the diversity of skin color or gender while neglecting the diversity of ideas, I am rather sure that says a whole lot about you as a person and as a company. That, in my opinion, is the only PR they deserve.
• Yetanfou 9y ago
  Even 'punitive actions' would have been wrong as their is no punishable offence. Google supposedly wants to have an open culture so they should just have accepted the 'manifesto' as part of this open culture, something to use in discussions on the subject matter. Any other reaction - and certainly the current reaction - only goes to show the truth of the accusations about Google not having an open culture.
  • urahara 9y ago
    Open culture does not mean that actions that make environment more hostile to some group inside the company should not be punished. The 'memo' definitely did that to his female coworkers. That's why the story is not about open culture or freedom of speech, but in the first place about creating unhealthy environment for a particular group inside the company and setting a really bad precedent. Maybe the guy meant well, but the fact is his actions ended up harming both a particular group and the company.
    • Yetanfou 9y ago
      In what way did that memo make the environment 'more hostile to... his female coworkers'? I read the thing from start to finish and back again, checked the references and did not find anything which would serve to create a 'hostile environment'. Yes, he does question some of the programs at Google which discriminate against men (by refusing them access to resources solely based on their gender) but that criticism does not create a hostile environment in itself. Actual discrimination (against any group) can create a hostile environment. I do not see where he discriminates against women - or any other group for that matter.
      • urahara 9y ago
        In a very subtle and non-evident way. He doesn't do it directly, but as a whole, given the 'memo's structure and its tone, it creates wrong assumptions, ignores important points, emphasizes secondary ones, creates doubts where there is nothing to doubt about and doesn't question things that should be questioned instead, which in general presents an incompetent and harmful way of thinking about the subject. It's like someone would write an essay with a list of science-based points on why raping children is natural and suggest to doubt that it is a crime. Its pretty easy to kind of support any bad thing with scientific facts and make it look right, but doing this is bad in the first place. His post provokes subtle doubts on very sensitive things like female competence and questions if diversity is important enough to tolerate a risk of not hiring the most qualified person. Given what we know about the hardships women often face in society and at work, provoking doubts around those subjects does no good. At least, not in the way he presented the whole topic.
• whorleater 9y ago
  > The firing has been a PR disaster In the sense that it's an argument both sides want to have. The left want to argue for better workplace treatment of women, while the right want to argue for speech without social repercussions.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
• agentultra 9y ago
  > By firing him they made him a hero to enormous groups, To a small, vocal group. > By doing it in an anti-science, anti-evidence way There were good reasons for doing it that had nothing to do with science or evidence. There are women working at Google who do not need to be reminded of the genetic and biologic differences they have from their cishet male counterparts. If Damon had issues with the policies at Google there were many other channels open to him that didn't involve circulating a manifesto. He brought it upon himself. Once word of that memo leaked there was nothing for Google to do but fire him.
  • WalterSear 9y ago
    He didn't circulate one. He sent it to a mailing list which purported to be a safe place for open, honest sharing of opinions regarding diversity and hiring.
    • ebola1717 9y ago
      There are no safe spaces in the real world
      • WalterSear 9y ago
        If you are informed that you are safe to openly express your opinion, you should have a reasonable expectation that you do.
    • ghaff 9y ago
      Anyone who is willing to bet their job on a controversial posting about company policy to a broad company mailing list staying internal either doesn't mind being fired or is an idiot.
      • WalterSear 9y ago
        No question about that. But he's being internet lynched for 'circulating a manifesto'.
      • 9y ago
• s73ver 9y ago
  "By doing it in an anti-science, anti-evidence way" But they didn't. That man's argument was not science. It wasn't. There was absolutely no scientific evidence behind his argument. He misrepresented studied, and he cherry picked what he wanted. For more on that, check here: http://blog.goldieblox.com/2017/08/open-letter-james-damore-debra-sterling/ http://blog.goldieblox.com/2017/08/open-letter-james-damore-... It's an article from a female engineer who read the manifesto, and takes issue with the conclusions drawn from the studies. The ones claiming that his manifesto was "scientifically sound" are those who are anti-science and anti-evidence. "They could have simply said that they were taking punitive actions and kept him in the fold." No, they couldn't. By keeping him, they would be legitimizing his views. And by doing that, they would be further alienating all of their female employees, and a lot of others, both current and future. Just about no woman would want to work there, knowing that they endorse those viewpoints.
  • daenz 9y ago
    >That man's argument was not science. It wasn't. There was absolutely no scientific evidence behind his argument. He misrepresented studied, and he cherry picked what he wanted. I want to follow up on this, can you give an example? From what little I know, it's essentially settled science that men and women have statistically different interests, and those interests exist across all cultures (implying a biological cause).
    • charrondev 9y ago
      You won’t get one. I’ve yet to see anyone serious even attempting to debunk that claim, and I doubt it will happen here.
      • devnonymous 9y ago
        I'm not sure why more people aren't pointing this out but I couldn't take his arguments seriously when he weaseled in racial diversity after the evidenc about gender differences were presented. It is pretty clear from that alone that the intent was not to have a scientific discourse, it was to dress up bias as science.
• taysic 9y ago
  By not firing him, the same thing would have happened. Except now that vocal group would be Google employees too who feel uncomfortable at their workplace. Anti-science way? Do you realize how subjective this is and how impossible it is to prove that today there are no other influences at play than biology? And that we've maxed on the number of woman in this field and we're now at an equilibrium determined by biology? I would have been far more convinced if he noted a dwindling amount of harassment and reported bias using studies.
  • Ajedi32 9y ago
    > Anti-science way? Do you realize how subjective this is and how impossible it is to prove that today there are no other influences at play than biology? First of all, the original memo said nothing of the sort. Secondly, I'm pretty sure GP is not saying the reaction to this memo is anti-science merely because it opposes the position taken in the memo. Rather, it's anti-science because they threw all rational debate out the window and fired the guy without even trying to address the points he made.
    • taysic 9y ago
      Why even bother mentioning biology then if there are other influences more important and relevant? It seemed very emphasized. They did not fire him because they didn't believe in the studies he linked. Obviously that's very much mischaracterizing things. This is a complicated issue with ample studies to link to from both sides. And anyway, I truly question studies on such broad topics.
      • Ajedi32 9y ago
        > Why even bother mentioning biology then if there are other influences more important and relevant? It seemed very emphasized. Because that portion of the essay was meant to counter what the author perceived to be Google's current position on the matter: that societal factors are the _only_ factor resulting in a lower percentage of women in tech. From the memo: > For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal representation. Followed by a section titled: > Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech The author isn't saying that biological differences are the _only_ factor; only that that they are _a_ factor, and that Google has been completely neglecting that factor with the current implementation of their efforts to improve diversity within the company.
• ghaff 9y ago
  It ends the news cycle. Most people outside the bubble haven't even heard of this and those who have will forget about it by next week. Right or wrong, it was the path of least resistance for Google going forward.
  • emerged 9y ago
    I disagree -- IMO, the only hope in this case to "end the news cycle" would've been to walk a very delicate line where Google's position in the debate was made known, but nobody was dramatically fired in the process. Instead, Google's leadership decided to take an ideological stance with relatively little regard to immediate PR. The result is further churning and an intensified reaction of the public and media. This is either a good or a bad thing, depending on a person's perspective. But surely it's a reaction which will perpetuate the intensity of drama.
• tdb7893 9y ago
  The firing has only been a pr disaster in small groups. Even for me personally even though I think that he probably shouldn't have been fired I'm not super mad at Google because having him there was a liability to the company. I think it's mainly more libertarian circles that are mad but those people already generally don't like Google