3 ms·

There's nothing revelationary about that statement. Anyone could read Google's code of conduct and know that Google would fire/reprimand someone for being toxi

There's nothing revelationary about that statement. Anyone could read Google's code of conduct and know that Google would fire/reprimand someone for being toxic to their coworkers. Employees are free to debate and cherry pick evidence about their opinions on the world being flat, 9/11 being an inside job, even a fake moon landing. James decided he wanted to debate about his opinion on his workers being biologically inferior (among other opinions). He had a chance to receive feedback on this from coworkers and change his position, the problem was he didn't and continued to broadcast his opinion which was toxic to his coworkers. It's a strange hill to pick to die on because nothing is surprising about how this played out, other than how the media is still talking about it.

humanrebar 9y ago
If he has the opinion that his coworkers are biologically inferior, I didn't see that in the memo. Can you explain how you came to that conclusion?
- bduerst 9y ago
  That's a loaded question. I didn't come to the conclusion, many others have based on his premise of using personality constructs as being caused by evolutionary psychology. You can see it in the paper how he starts with the obvious, "Men and Women are biologically different" and then jumps into observable personality differences, which are not proven to be biologically driven. It wouldn't be so bad if he didn't attribute these "biologically-caused" personality differences (neuroticism, agreeableness, less ambition, etc.) to women being the ones to blame for their problems in tech. This opinion is toxic to his coworkers, which is a violation of the Google Code of Conduct.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    Saying someone has racist ideas is a loaded accusation. I think it's fair to ask for elaboration. > ...jumps into observable personality differences, which are not proven to be biologically driven. Some personality differences in populations are supported by some studies. He cites studies about personal interests, for example. It's possible that he goes too far (scientifically speaking) with some conjecture, but he was careful to say that properties of large populations don't apply on the level of an individual or selected group.
    - bduerst 9y ago
      >Saying someone has racist ideas is a loaded accusation. I think it's fair to ask for elaboration. Except I didn't accuse James of having racist ideas, I pointed out that his opinions are toxic to his coworkers. I'm not sure what you're getting at. It's true that he attempts to check himself throughout the paper, but it's contradictory because he then proceeds to take it too far. It's the equivalent of saying, "I'm for diversity, but...." and then demonstrating he's not for diversity by arguing against it. Which is why this paper is a rambling rant from someone who chose to commit career suicide for his opinion, and it's surprising that the media is still focused on it.
      - humanrebar 9y ago
        "Racist ideas" was the wrong term to use. That was a typo. Apologies. Is "sexist ideas" fair? "Bigoted ideas"? That seems to be the implication when labeling ideas about gender "toxic". The colloquial language around this sort of thing is imprecise. That brings me to my next point: > ...and then demonstrating he's not for diversity by arguing against it. The paper seems contradictory because people have definitions in mind for words like "diversity". But not everyone has the same definitions in mind. He can be for diversity of thought and want to encourage that with discussion of structural changes while still preferring a world with more women in tech. This position is not the Google HR definition of "diversity", but it's clearly part of his idea of diversity.
        bduerst 9y ago
        I'm not sure what invoking semantics on the word "Diversity" has to with this, especially since you thought I accused James of being racist (which I didn't). Despite his leaked rant, you don't know what his definition of diversity is, nor do you know what Google HR's definition is. All you know is that he was let go, the details of which are not leaked. You seem to be reading a bit more into this, which is probably why the media is still writing about it. There's something for everyone to confirm their beliefs in the paper, whether it's to defend or attack it, and you're demonstrating that with the repeated word games.

humanrebar 9y ago

If he has the opinion that his coworkers are biologically inferior, I didn't see that in the memo. Can you explain how you came to that conclusion?

bduerst 9y ago
That's a loaded question. I didn't come to the conclusion, many others have based on his premise of using personality constructs as being caused by evolutionary psychology. You can see it in the paper how he starts with the obvious, "Men and Women are biologically different" and then jumps into observable personality differences, which are not proven to be biologically driven. It wouldn't be so bad if he didn't attribute these "biologically-caused" personality differences (neuroticism, agreeableness, less ambition, etc.) to women being the ones to blame for their problems in tech. This opinion is toxic to his coworkers, which is a violation of the Google Code of Conduct.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  Saying someone has racist ideas is a loaded accusation. I think it's fair to ask for elaboration. > ...jumps into observable personality differences, which are not proven to be biologically driven. Some personality differences in populations are supported by some studies. He cites studies about personal interests, for example. It's possible that he goes too far (scientifically speaking) with some conjecture, but he was careful to say that properties of large populations don't apply on the level of an individual or selected group.
  - bduerst 9y ago
    >Saying someone has racist ideas is a loaded accusation. I think it's fair to ask for elaboration. Except I didn't accuse James of having racist ideas, I pointed out that his opinions are toxic to his coworkers. I'm not sure what you're getting at. It's true that he attempts to check himself throughout the paper, but it's contradictory because he then proceeds to take it too far. It's the equivalent of saying, "I'm for diversity, but...." and then demonstrating he's not for diversity by arguing against it. Which is why this paper is a rambling rant from someone who chose to commit career suicide for his opinion, and it's surprising that the media is still focused on it.
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      "Racist ideas" was the wrong term to use. That was a typo. Apologies. Is "sexist ideas" fair? "Bigoted ideas"? That seems to be the implication when labeling ideas about gender "toxic". The colloquial language around this sort of thing is imprecise. That brings me to my next point: > ...and then demonstrating he's not for diversity by arguing against it. The paper seems contradictory because people have definitions in mind for words like "diversity". But not everyone has the same definitions in mind. He can be for diversity of thought and want to encourage that with discussion of structural changes while still preferring a world with more women in tech. This position is not the Google HR definition of "diversity", but it's clearly part of his idea of diversity.
      - bduerst 9y ago
        I'm not sure what invoking semantics on the word "Diversity" has to with this, especially since you thought I accused James of being racist (which I didn't). Despite his leaked rant, you don't know what his definition of diversity is, nor do you know what Google HR's definition is. All you know is that he was let go, the details of which are not leaked. You seem to be reading a bit more into this, which is probably why the media is still writing about it. There's something for everyone to confirm their beliefs in the paper, whether it's to defend or attack it, and you're demonstrating that with the repeated word games.