8 ms·

"... if James Damore deserves to be fired from Google, for treating evolutionary psychology as potentially relevant to social issues, then Steven Pinker deserve

"... if James Damore deserves to be fired from Google, for treating evolutionary psychology as potentially relevant to social issues, then Steven Pinker deserves to be fired from Harvard for the same offense. Yes, I realize that a employee of a private company is different from a tenured professor. But I don’t see why it’s relevant here." Its relevant because Damore is employed to develop products to benefit Google's sharesholders, wheras Pinker is employed by Harvard to do science and publicly communicate ideas. Pinker's tenure gives him licence to pursue controversial ideas if that is where the evidence takes him. Damore gets to write code on an at-will basis.

thinkfurther 9y ago
Don't they have something about "organizing the world's information and making accessible"? Here's a guy saying it's not that great to suppress view points or hard scientific facts based on dogma, that this damages Google like it would damage any other group or company, and -- he gets fired and many people distort what he actually wrote. The relationship between Google and "information" seems to kind of complicated. This is like a chef you see putting dirt into a meal; maybe they cook tasty things most of the time, but if they're a good chef, why are they ever doing something as "anti-chef" as that?
- andyjohnson0 9y ago
  > organizing the world's information and making accessible That's a corporate business objective. It doesn't give every Google employee the right to publicly say what they want, when they want, using company systems, and when engaged in their job.
  - falcolas 9y ago
    I find myself repeating this a lot: According to the original coverage, his (and other Google employees') opinions on the topic of diversity in hiring was requested. He originally put his response up on a group explicitly created for this discussion. He never sent it to Google at large - someone else did that in outrage at his opinion. Just as someone else leaked it from being internal to Google to the media.
  - thinkfurther 9y ago
    > to publicly say what they want, when they want, using company systems That just makes you another person distorting what happened. I know I'm correct, I don't need further proof, but thanks.
js8 9y ago
I disagree with you and agree with her. And even if I agreed with you, Damore actually wrote his memo as a response to Google soliciting feedback. So he in fact got the "license" that you talk about from Google.
- andyjohnson0 9y ago
  > and agree with her. Just to be clear, the passage I quoted was Scott Aaronson expressing his own opinion.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  > Damore actually wrote his memo as a response to Google soliciting feedback. So he in fact got the "license" that you talk about from Google. As an aside, this is an extraordinary dangerous assumption for an employee to make. Suggestion boxes aren't magical shields from blowback. Tenure exists for a good reason, and parent's point is well-taken. If you aren't tenured (or even if you are), you should probably assume that you have to play a careful political game if you want to stay employed. (I'm not making any judgement, just stating some IMO facts.)
  - js8 9y ago
    That's true. But humans can't have it both ways. If you obfuscate the language, you are at risk of someone not understanding it and taking it literally. And then a hypocrisy can be revealed. In one of the previous discussions, I linked to Charta 77. These guys did the same thing - they took the Czechoslovak government for the word that it respects human rights, because it was a signatory of some human rights agreements. They were persecuted. The same problem you have with tenure. You are saying professors are protected with tenure, but are they really? Unless someone tests the boundaries, then you don't know if it really protects you. So assuming tenure will protect you is, likewise, a dangerous assumption. Addendum: I would also like to point out this excellent book: https://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/1491514132 https://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/1491514... That's why Google cannot change its mind even if it wanted to, sadly.
    - 9y ago
stupidcar 9y ago
Who decides which scientific ideas are too "controversial" for a person to express without losing their job? Or is it just something CEOs decide on a case-by-case basis after considering the degree of media outcry and misrepresentation involved?
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  > Or is it just something CEOs decide on a case-by-case basis after considering the degree of media outcry and misrepresentation involved? Welcome to at-will employment without organized labor. It has always been this way and always will be, a few nice and/or complacent CEOs not withstanding.
- virtuabhi 9y ago
  > Who decides which scientific ideas are... First who decides that the ideas are scientific? Quoting poor quality research (psychology professor publishing neuroscience papers in third-grade locations) and forming causal relationships on a whim (testosterone increases attention span, therefore it is required for programming) are not part of scientific research. In this specifc case many of the "scientific ideas" came from alt-right sources. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/13/james-damore-google-memo-youtube-white-men-radicalization https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/13/james-dam...
daSn0wie 9y ago
> Damore gets to write code on an at-will basis. Exactly, Google has every right to fire Damore. Google can do whatever it needs to do if they think this is going to hurt their reputation, finances, or stock price. If your fundamental beliefs don't line up with the organizations', then you probably shouldn't work there.

thinkfurther 9y ago

Don't they have something about "organizing the world's information and making accessible"? Here's a guy saying it's not that great to suppress view points or hard scientific facts based on dogma, that this damages Google like it would damage any other group or company, and -- he gets fired and many people distort what he actually wrote. The relationship between Google and "information" seems to kind of complicated. This is like a chef you see putting dirt into a meal; maybe they cook tasty things most of the time, but if they're a good chef, why are they ever doing something as "anti-chef" as that?

andyjohnson0 9y ago
> organizing the world's information and making accessible That's a corporate business objective. It doesn't give every Google employee the right to publicly say what they want, when they want, using company systems, and when engaged in their job.
- falcolas 9y ago
  I find myself repeating this a lot: According to the original coverage, his (and other Google employees') opinions on the topic of diversity in hiring was requested. He originally put his response up on a group explicitly created for this discussion. He never sent it to Google at large - someone else did that in outrage at his opinion. Just as someone else leaked it from being internal to Google to the media.
- thinkfurther 9y ago
  > to publicly say what they want, when they want, using company systems That just makes you another person distorting what happened. I know I'm correct, I don't need further proof, but thanks.

js8 9y ago

I disagree with you and agree with her. And even if I agreed with you, Damore actually wrote his memo as a response to Google soliciting feedback. So he in fact got the "license" that you talk about from Google.

andyjohnson0 9y ago
> and agree with her. Just to be clear, the passage I quoted was Scott Aaronson expressing his own opinion.
throwawayjava 9y ago
> Damore actually wrote his memo as a response to Google soliciting feedback. So he in fact got the "license" that you talk about from Google. As an aside, this is an extraordinary dangerous assumption for an employee to make. Suggestion boxes aren't magical shields from blowback. Tenure exists for a good reason, and parent's point is well-taken. If you aren't tenured (or even if you are), you should probably assume that you have to play a careful political game if you want to stay employed. (I'm not making any judgement, just stating some IMO facts.)
- js8 9y ago
  That's true. But humans can't have it both ways. If you obfuscate the language, you are at risk of someone not understanding it and taking it literally. And then a hypocrisy can be revealed. In one of the previous discussions, I linked to Charta 77. These guys did the same thing - they took the Czechoslovak government for the word that it respects human rights, because it was a signatory of some human rights agreements. They were persecuted. The same problem you have with tenure. You are saying professors are protected with tenure, but are they really? Unless someone tests the boundaries, then you don't know if it really protects you. So assuming tenure will protect you is, likewise, a dangerous assumption. Addendum: I would also like to point out this excellent book: https://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/1491514132 https://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/1491514... That's why Google cannot change its mind even if it wanted to, sadly.
  - 9y ago

stupidcar 9y ago

Who decides which scientific ideas are too "controversial" for a person to express without losing their job? Or is it just something CEOs decide on a case-by-case basis after considering the degree of media outcry and misrepresentation involved?

throwawayjava 9y ago
> Or is it just something CEOs decide on a case-by-case basis after considering the degree of media outcry and misrepresentation involved? Welcome to at-will employment without organized labor. It has always been this way and always will be, a few nice and/or complacent CEOs not withstanding.
virtuabhi 9y ago
> Who decides which scientific ideas are... First who decides that the ideas are scientific? Quoting poor quality research (psychology professor publishing neuroscience papers in third-grade locations) and forming causal relationships on a whim (testosterone increases attention span, therefore it is required for programming) are not part of scientific research. In this specifc case many of the "scientific ideas" came from alt-right sources. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/13/james-damore-google-memo-youtube-white-men-radicalization https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/13/james-dam...

daSn0wie 9y ago

> Damore gets to write code on an at-will basis. Exactly, Google has every right to fire Damore. Google can do whatever it needs to do if they think this is going to hurt their reputation, finances, or stock price. If your fundamental beliefs don't line up with the organizations', then you probably shouldn't work there.