9 ms·

For a company supposedly full of smart people, you'd think they'd be able to gracefully handle so called "problematic" views like Damore's.

refulgentis 9y ago
His views _as stated_ necessarily meant _some_ women he worked with weren't qualified to be his coworkers because of their gender. You have a right to free speech, not to alienate your coworkers.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  Could you point out that specific passage? As I read it he specifically went out of his way to say that all of the women he worked with were qualified.
  - refulgentis 9y ago
    He literally says that those hiring practices can lower the bar. Sure, maybe he's saying that the bar for white/Asian men is higher than intended rather than that the bar for women and minorities is lower than intended, but you can't honestly argue that he isn't saying that women and minorities could be clearing a lower bar than white/Asian men.
    - said 9y ago
      I urge you read the memo yourself. He said Google lowers the false negative rate for women.
      - refulgentis 9y ago
        From a statistics point of view, this statement is dispositive: "...decrease the false negative rate, not increase the false positive rate." The interaction between type I and type II errors virtually always have an inverse relationship. You cannot decrease one without increasing the other. It is, for example, one of the difficulties in making good medical diagnostic tests. P.S. snarky commentary such as 'read the memo yourself', implying I'm lying about having read it, doesn't contribute to civil discussion.
        Dylan16807 9y ago
        > The interaction between type I and type II errors virtually always have an inverse relationship. If you're adjusting a dial, yes. But hiring is complex, and having more time to evaluate candidates means you can do a better job. Spending more effort is a simple way to improve false negatives and false positives. It's entirely plausible that a company might have extra time budgeted for double-checking resumes from certain groups.
    - jules 9y ago
      If the hiring practices do in fact lower the bar, should he still be prohibited from saying that?
      - refulgentis 9y ago
        Was he?
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        jules 9y ago
        That's your argument!
        refulgentis 9y ago
        It's explicitly _not_ my argument! :) "You have a right to free speech, not to alienate your coworkers."
        jules 9y ago
        Precisely! So that is your argument for why prohibiting him from saying that was legitimate (firing somebody for behaviour X is pretty much the definition of a company prohibiting behaviour X, I mean, what else can a company do?).
        refulgentis 9y ago
        He wasn't prohibited from saying anything.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - Consultant32452 9y ago
      I'm sorry, but you sound like you're using double-speak. If Google has indeed lowered the bar for some minorities then it's Google who is exhibiting the soft bigotry of lowered expectations, not Damore for simply pointing it out. If Damore has simply incorrectly interpreted Google's hiring policy, then Damore is still not a bigot based on this statement. Damore went out of his way to specify that all of his coworkers were qualified and offered suggested policies which would attract more women without the bigotry he interpreted in the current hiring practices.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - refulgentis 9y ago
        Damore did not specify that all his coworkers were qualified. Damore believed Google lowered the bar, hence the statements I've made explaining how he offended his coworkers. It is reasonable to believe Google _hasn't_ lowered the bar, and if you did, you would be offended by a long document warning about gender-biased consequences of lowering the bar. I'm not sure how productive this thread is. I'm very surprised by your repeated assertions that there's direct textual evidence I'm mistaken, yet you're willing to accuse me of bad faith repeatedly, instead of just correcting me.
        Consultant32452 9y ago
        So I'm not afraid to eat crow when it's due. I've re-read the memo and you're right, in the memo he did not specifically state that everyone was qualified. I must have been thinking about an interview I saw of him. I agree with you that it's reasonable to believe that Google _hasn't_ lowered the bar, but I don't see what difference that makes. There is a very applicable quote here by Albert Maysles, "Tyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance." With that in mind, I would like to plainly state my position here. I personally don't find Damore's memo to be unsettling, even though I disagree with some of it. If it were my company, I might have stopped at a firm one-on-one in HR with him. But I don't have all the details available internally and it's not my company. I fully support Google's right to fire him over the memo. The problem I have is that a nobody with no power was publicly destroyed for cheap political points by the national media and general public. None of us here should even be having this discussion because a random nobody at Google with some incorrect ideas about diversity should never make national headlines with phrases like, "anti-diversity manifesto." This is a random socially awkward super-nerd, not David Duke.
  - evrydayhustling 9y ago
    Two sections: - In the "personality differences" section, Damore repeats broad stereotypes about behavior that might make women less interested or less effective in tech jobs. He admits these are small effects and shouldn't be used to judge individuals, but goes on to propose policy changes that would impact individuals based on the stereotypes. Institutionalizing assumptions about womens' interests and capabilities is exactly what labor laws are designed to avoid. - His section about discriminatory practices specifically suggests that there has been a lower bar for "diversity candidates", implying some of his more diverse co-workers shouldn't be there.
    - Consultant32452 9y ago
      1. There's another way to interpret this which is that masculine interests and capabilities are already institutionalized (patriarchy). The changes he suggests create a more gender neutral environment where everyone is capable of maximal success. I'm less interested in how labor laws are currently interpreted than I am in trying to find a system that maximally benefits the most people. 2. Yes, his section about discriminatory practices does accuse Google of being guilty of the bigotry of lowered expectations. But that doesn't make Damore or the memo bigoted. Context is important here, he just came out of diversity training classes and was asked his opinion. This memo is in direct response to presumably having been trained to hire in a discriminatory way. It's possible Damore misinterpreted his training, but that's different than making him a bigot. And further, even if you take the most egregious interpretation of these writings, take everything out of context, and try to paint it in the worst light possible, the reaction is still unreasonable. I'm not talking about him getting fired. That's fine, Google can fire him for wearing the wrong tie as far as I'm concerned, so they can surely fire him for potentially questionable opinions. The position in my original post is about the national media and general public. Fire him sure, but is this really so bad that the entire nation needed to be brought in to witness his public flogging? This is a socially awkward nobody with no power who might have some bad ideas about diversity policy, not David Duke on some white nationalist crusade.
- ThomPete 9y ago
  He never stated that anywhere.
  - Natsu 9y ago
    There was a confusingly-written part that I've seen a lot of people misinterpret in that particular way. My understanding of what he was trying to argue was this: Imagine you have a skill-based RPG, where you gain skill in some task only by doing it and men and women are completely identical in every single way. Now imagine that more women enjoy alchemy, but more men prefer to spend their time mining. In this game, because of how skill gain works, if you look for really talented alchemists, most of your candidates will be women, even though the sexes are every bit as good as each other.
    - refulgentis 9y ago
      From a statistics point of view, this statement is dispositive: "...decrease the false negative rate, not increase the false positive rate." The interaction between type I and type II errors virtually always have an inverse relationship. You cannot decrease one without increasing the other. It is, for example, one of the difficulties in making good medical diagnostic tests.
      - dmoy 9y ago
        I'm not clear why this is being down voted, this was drilled pretty hard into my head the first time I had a job that relied on stats.
        DoreenMichele 9y ago
        I am reasonably mathy and I don't understand the statement. That plus the topic -- sexism in tech generally, especially Damore -- makes me think the motivation for down voting it is probably "political." ie it sounds like it could be supporting Damore's position, much of the world has decided he is an evil sexist pig etc.
- dingobongo 9y ago
  If I believe my employer is discriminating against women, or against black people, that requires that some of my male or non-black coworkers were hired over more capable women or black people. Should anyone alleging that kind of discrimination be fired? Because they tend not to be.
rmrm 9y ago
You are not allowed to make protected groups feel harassed or discriminated against. Women are a protected group. Its a federal workplace law. A company will correctly fire you if you cause women to feel harassed or discriminated. Peoples understanding of whats allowable needs to catch up with the implications of the laws.
- ikeyany 9y ago
  That is true. But I ask you this: do companies hire less technically capable engineers to boost diversity numbers? Do you believe that it does not happen at all, in any sense? If you think that this does not happen, then how do companies boost the numbers of non-traditional candidates? Google, as smart as they are, should be able to easily and conclusively prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this does not happen. Yet they resort to silencing.
  - alsetmusic 9y ago
    > Google, as smart as they are, should be able to easily and conclusively prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this does not happen. Yet they resort to silencing. You’re suggesting that they should prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the party that accuses them of a given issue.
    - ikeyany 9y ago
      No, I'm suggesting that they aren't smart at handling certain topics.

refulgentis 9y ago

His views _as stated_ necessarily meant _some_ women he worked with weren't qualified to be his coworkers because of their gender. You have a right to free speech, not to alienate your coworkers.

Consultant32452 9y ago
Could you point out that specific passage? As I read it he specifically went out of his way to say that all of the women he worked with were qualified.
- refulgentis 9y ago
  He literally says that those hiring practices can lower the bar. Sure, maybe he's saying that the bar for white/Asian men is higher than intended rather than that the bar for women and minorities is lower than intended, but you can't honestly argue that he isn't saying that women and minorities could be clearing a lower bar than white/Asian men.
  - said 9y ago
    I urge you read the memo yourself. He said Google lowers the false negative rate for women.
    - refulgentis 9y ago
      From a statistics point of view, this statement is dispositive: "...decrease the false negative rate, not increase the false positive rate." The interaction between type I and type II errors virtually always have an inverse relationship. You cannot decrease one without increasing the other. It is, for example, one of the difficulties in making good medical diagnostic tests. P.S. snarky commentary such as 'read the memo yourself', implying I'm lying about having read it, doesn't contribute to civil discussion.
      - Dylan16807 9y ago
        > The interaction between type I and type II errors virtually always have an inverse relationship. If you're adjusting a dial, yes. But hiring is complex, and having more time to evaluate candidates means you can do a better job. Spending more effort is a simple way to improve false negatives and false positives. It's entirely plausible that a company might have extra time budgeted for double-checking resumes from certain groups.
  - jules 9y ago
    If the hiring practices do in fact lower the bar, should he still be prohibited from saying that?
    - refulgentis 9y ago
      Was he?
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - jules 9y ago
        That's your argument!
        refulgentis 9y ago
        It's explicitly _not_ my argument! :) "You have a right to free speech, not to alienate your coworkers."
        jules 9y ago
        Precisely! So that is your argument for why prohibiting him from saying that was legitimate (firing somebody for behaviour X is pretty much the definition of a company prohibiting behaviour X, I mean, what else can a company do?).
        refulgentis 9y ago
        He wasn't prohibited from saying anything.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    I'm sorry, but you sound like you're using double-speak. If Google has indeed lowered the bar for some minorities then it's Google who is exhibiting the soft bigotry of lowered expectations, not Damore for simply pointing it out. If Damore has simply incorrectly interpreted Google's hiring policy, then Damore is still not a bigot based on this statement. Damore went out of his way to specify that all of his coworkers were qualified and offered suggested policies which would attract more women without the bigotry he interpreted in the current hiring practices.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - refulgentis 9y ago
      Damore did not specify that all his coworkers were qualified. Damore believed Google lowered the bar, hence the statements I've made explaining how he offended his coworkers. It is reasonable to believe Google _hasn't_ lowered the bar, and if you did, you would be offended by a long document warning about gender-biased consequences of lowering the bar. I'm not sure how productive this thread is. I'm very surprised by your repeated assertions that there's direct textual evidence I'm mistaken, yet you're willing to accuse me of bad faith repeatedly, instead of just correcting me.
      - Consultant32452 9y ago
        So I'm not afraid to eat crow when it's due. I've re-read the memo and you're right, in the memo he did not specifically state that everyone was qualified. I must have been thinking about an interview I saw of him. I agree with you that it's reasonable to believe that Google _hasn't_ lowered the bar, but I don't see what difference that makes. There is a very applicable quote here by Albert Maysles, "Tyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance." With that in mind, I would like to plainly state my position here. I personally don't find Damore's memo to be unsettling, even though I disagree with some of it. If it were my company, I might have stopped at a firm one-on-one in HR with him. But I don't have all the details available internally and it's not my company. I fully support Google's right to fire him over the memo. The problem I have is that a nobody with no power was publicly destroyed for cheap political points by the national media and general public. None of us here should even be having this discussion because a random nobody at Google with some incorrect ideas about diversity should never make national headlines with phrases like, "anti-diversity manifesto." This is a random socially awkward super-nerd, not David Duke.
- evrydayhustling 9y ago
  Two sections: - In the "personality differences" section, Damore repeats broad stereotypes about behavior that might make women less interested or less effective in tech jobs. He admits these are small effects and shouldn't be used to judge individuals, but goes on to propose policy changes that would impact individuals based on the stereotypes. Institutionalizing assumptions about womens' interests and capabilities is exactly what labor laws are designed to avoid. - His section about discriminatory practices specifically suggests that there has been a lower bar for "diversity candidates", implying some of his more diverse co-workers shouldn't be there.
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    1. There's another way to interpret this which is that masculine interests and capabilities are already institutionalized (patriarchy). The changes he suggests create a more gender neutral environment where everyone is capable of maximal success. I'm less interested in how labor laws are currently interpreted than I am in trying to find a system that maximally benefits the most people. 2. Yes, his section about discriminatory practices does accuse Google of being guilty of the bigotry of lowered expectations. But that doesn't make Damore or the memo bigoted. Context is important here, he just came out of diversity training classes and was asked his opinion. This memo is in direct response to presumably having been trained to hire in a discriminatory way. It's possible Damore misinterpreted his training, but that's different than making him a bigot. And further, even if you take the most egregious interpretation of these writings, take everything out of context, and try to paint it in the worst light possible, the reaction is still unreasonable. I'm not talking about him getting fired. That's fine, Google can fire him for wearing the wrong tie as far as I'm concerned, so they can surely fire him for potentially questionable opinions. The position in my original post is about the national media and general public. Fire him sure, but is this really so bad that the entire nation needed to be brought in to witness his public flogging? This is a socially awkward nobody with no power who might have some bad ideas about diversity policy, not David Duke on some white nationalist crusade.
ThomPete 9y ago
He never stated that anywhere.
- Natsu 9y ago
  There was a confusingly-written part that I've seen a lot of people misinterpret in that particular way. My understanding of what he was trying to argue was this: Imagine you have a skill-based RPG, where you gain skill in some task only by doing it and men and women are completely identical in every single way. Now imagine that more women enjoy alchemy, but more men prefer to spend their time mining. In this game, because of how skill gain works, if you look for really talented alchemists, most of your candidates will be women, even though the sexes are every bit as good as each other.
  - refulgentis 9y ago
    From a statistics point of view, this statement is dispositive: "...decrease the false negative rate, not increase the false positive rate." The interaction between type I and type II errors virtually always have an inverse relationship. You cannot decrease one without increasing the other. It is, for example, one of the difficulties in making good medical diagnostic tests.
    - dmoy 9y ago
      I'm not clear why this is being down voted, this was drilled pretty hard into my head the first time I had a job that relied on stats.
      - DoreenMichele 9y ago
        I am reasonably mathy and I don't understand the statement. That plus the topic -- sexism in tech generally, especially Damore -- makes me think the motivation for down voting it is probably "political." ie it sounds like it could be supporting Damore's position, much of the world has decided he is an evil sexist pig etc.
dingobongo 9y ago
If I believe my employer is discriminating against women, or against black people, that requires that some of my male or non-black coworkers were hired over more capable women or black people. Should anyone alleging that kind of discrimination be fired? Because they tend not to be.

rmrm 9y ago

You are not allowed to make protected groups feel harassed or discriminated against. Women are a protected group. Its a federal workplace law. A company will correctly fire you if you cause women to feel harassed or discriminated. Peoples understanding of whats allowable needs to catch up with the implications of the laws.

ikeyany 9y ago
That is true. But I ask you this: do companies hire less technically capable engineers to boost diversity numbers? Do you believe that it does not happen at all, in any sense? If you think that this does not happen, then how do companies boost the numbers of non-traditional candidates? Google, as smart as they are, should be able to easily and conclusively prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this does not happen. Yet they resort to silencing.
- alsetmusic 9y ago
  > Google, as smart as they are, should be able to easily and conclusively prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this does not happen. Yet they resort to silencing. You’re suggesting that they should prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the party that accuses them of a given issue.
  - ikeyany 9y ago
    No, I'm suggesting that they aren't smart at handling certain topics.