4 ms·

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. Ant

by 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.
    - nobodyman 9y ago
      > The author isn't saying that biological differences are the _only_ factor; only that that they are _a_ factor... This is true, but as /u/taysic pointed out elsewhere, Damore dedicates the majority of his memo on this this one factor and wishes to change corporate policy because of it. > ... and that Google has been completely neglecting that factor with the current implementation of their efforts to improve diversity within the company Perhaps Google is evaluating more factors than Damore? Perhaps Google concluded that social issues and gender bias play a larger role in workforce disparity than biological issues, and therefore decided to prioritize attacking the larger problem over the smaller problem?
      - Ajedi32 9y ago
        > Damore dedicates the majority of his memo on this this one factor and wishes to change corporate policy because of it. Right. I explained why that was in the previous part of my comment. > Perhaps Google is evaluating more factors than Damore? [...] Perhaps so. They made no such claim in their response to Damore's essay though. In fact, they didn't address any of his points at all; they just fired him, thus proving the main point of his essay: > People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document. Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. [...] > Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence.
        palerdot 9y ago
        > Perhaps so. They made no such claim in their response to Damore's essay though. In fact, they didn't address any of his points at all; they just fired him, thus proving the main point of his essay Google's firing should be seen in the context of how it affects their workplace. This notion of "anyone can say anything" does not stick in a social gathering like a workplace. Free speech is relative, in this case relative to the workplace. This memo challenges that and that was addressed by google. This is similar to firing someone making a "I will gut you if you send me a poorly constructed pull request" threat. That is not free speech. That is unsettling a social gathering. The person making the threat may be right on his intentions, but context and how he puts across matters.
where_do_i_live 9y ago
You overgeneralize and mischaracterize the memo with your claims, which leads me to suspect you never read it. >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 He never claims there are no other influences at play - From the memo; note the works "in part" and "may explain" - Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. > And that we've maxed on the number of woman in this field and we're now at an equilibrium determined by biology? There is no such claim of this whatsoever. Your comment is a great example of the problems with this debate.
- taysic 9y ago
  One of his main points in the memo is at the top:"Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. " What am I missing? This is the topic he explores the most in his memo and I don't see anything analyzing social effects. While his paper is nuanced, he basically only focuses on the biological argument and seeks to change company policy as a result of this. One of these being... to end the diversity goals. Yes I did read the memo.
  - where_do_i_live 9y ago
    I'm not sure what your counter argument is exactly. He argued to change their diversity goals and implementation, with an intention to do a better job of getting a _more_ not less diverse company, including more woman and minorities. He did not argue to end all diversity goals outright, again that appears to be a mischaracterization.
    - taysic 9y ago
      I suppose you can say his argument was implied then in my eyes since he spent the first large part of the memo reviewing the biology of women and then stopped short there. No time was spent exploring inherent biases in history or how they may affecting things today. This is why those policies were put into place so why not make it the meat of the discussion. Though the implication may be that his approach will create a setup in which there will be more diversity that is highly debatable... again the reason why these policies are there in the first place. I don't feel the argument was so strong. Does he have other examples in history when a minority group allowed the free market to dictate things after a long period of bias and things quickly adjusted overnight?

by taysic 9y ago

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.
  - nobodyman 9y ago
    > The author isn't saying that biological differences are the _only_ factor; only that that they are _a_ factor... This is true, but as /u/taysic pointed out elsewhere, Damore dedicates the majority of his memo on this this one factor and wishes to change corporate policy because of it. > ... and that Google has been completely neglecting that factor with the current implementation of their efforts to improve diversity within the company Perhaps Google is evaluating more factors than Damore? Perhaps Google concluded that social issues and gender bias play a larger role in workforce disparity than biological issues, and therefore decided to prioritize attacking the larger problem over the smaller problem?
    - Ajedi32 9y ago
      > Damore dedicates the majority of his memo on this this one factor and wishes to change corporate policy because of it. Right. I explained why that was in the previous part of my comment. > Perhaps Google is evaluating more factors than Damore? [...] Perhaps so. They made no such claim in their response to Damore's essay though. In fact, they didn't address any of his points at all; they just fired him, thus proving the main point of his essay: > People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document. Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. [...] > Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence.
      - palerdot 9y ago
        > Perhaps so. They made no such claim in their response to Damore's essay though. In fact, they didn't address any of his points at all; they just fired him, thus proving the main point of his essay Google's firing should be seen in the context of how it affects their workplace. This notion of "anyone can say anything" does not stick in a social gathering like a workplace. Free speech is relative, in this case relative to the workplace. This memo challenges that and that was addressed by google. This is similar to firing someone making a "I will gut you if you send me a poorly constructed pull request" threat. That is not free speech. That is unsettling a social gathering. The person making the threat may be right on his intentions, but context and how he puts across matters.

where_do_i_live 9y ago

You overgeneralize and mischaracterize the memo with your claims, which leads me to suspect you never read it. >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 He never claims there are no other influences at play - From the memo; note the works "in part" and "may explain" - Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. > And that we've maxed on the number of woman in this field and we're now at an equilibrium determined by biology? There is no such claim of this whatsoever. Your comment is a great example of the problems with this debate.

taysic 9y ago
One of his main points in the memo is at the top:"Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. " What am I missing? This is the topic he explores the most in his memo and I don't see anything analyzing social effects. While his paper is nuanced, he basically only focuses on the biological argument and seeks to change company policy as a result of this. One of these being... to end the diversity goals. Yes I did read the memo.
- where_do_i_live 9y ago
  I'm not sure what your counter argument is exactly. He argued to change their diversity goals and implementation, with an intention to do a better job of getting a _more_ not less diverse company, including more woman and minorities. He did not argue to end all diversity goals outright, again that appears to be a mischaracterization.
  - taysic 9y ago
    I suppose you can say his argument was implied then in my eyes since he spent the first large part of the memo reviewing the biology of women and then stopped short there. No time was spent exploring inherent biases in history or how they may affecting things today. This is why those policies were put into place so why not make it the meat of the discussion. Though the implication may be that his approach will create a setup in which there will be more diversity that is highly debatable... again the reason why these policies are there in the first place. I don't feel the argument was so strong. Does he have other examples in history when a minority group allowed the free market to dictate things after a long period of bias and things quickly adjusted overnight?