5 ms·

But the ruling says that the specific arguments you bring into play may still be in violation of company policy, and such arguments are not automatically protec

But the ruling says that the specific arguments you bring into play may still be in violation of company policy, and such arguments are not automatically protected by virtue of being connected to a working conditions complaint. In effect, the ruling ratifies a particular squishy, ideological interpretation of science.

YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
Actually, it flags Damore's interpretation of science as squishy and ideological. Which, let's be fair, it totally is, because he's no scientist and he has a very limited understanding of the sources he quotes in support of his views. Scientific debate doesn't take place in Google forums through Google memos, any more than it happens in HN comments, so what was Damore's point of providing references to back his position, other than a misguided attempt to appear "scientifick"?
- Chris2048 9y ago
  Same could be said of internal trainings that reference, e.g writings about implicit bias.
- stcredzero 9y ago
  Actually, it flags Damore's interpretation of science as squishy and ideological. The 55-country study he cited has effectively one of the highest P-values in social science of recent years. It's widely considered in psychology to be an important result. Denying this is basically parroting intellectual dishonesty on the level of Global Warming denialism. The Big-5 personality traits he cited are the strongest results in psychology outside of the effect of General Intelligence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKmyO3hbOz8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKmyO3hbOz8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Gender_differences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Ge... The NLRB is basically saying that it's now open season on anyone who cites scientific studies, based on whether anyone on the internet finds it offensive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGSQWajPxH8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGSQWajPxH8
  - tptacek 9y ago
    It's open season on everyone in virtually every American workplace. Why won't you acknowledge this? You're a reasonable guy. We've had dinner together! What's happening here isn't a shift. What you're demanding is a new special protection for "people who can defend their position scientifically".
    - stcredzero 9y ago
      It's open season on everyone in virtually every American workplace. Why won't you acknowledge this? Oh, but I do acknowledge this. I would like to call attention to it. I thank you for your support. What's happening here isn't a shift. In the old days, one could cite such studies. The reactions and the consequences are indeed a shift in society. An outrageously authoritarian shift. What you're demanding is a new special protection for "people who can defend their position scientifically". Funny, but the NLRB was once a new special protection. The witch-hunts back then had took a different direction. I would grant that your interpretation of what's been discussed and apparently needed as a special protection. It does seem to me that our current society apparently needs special protection for things that used to be ok and which are still vital to the workings of our democratic society. Things like: Peacefully donating to political PACs. Peacefully having a mainstream political opinion. (Like being a Republican or a Libertarian) Civilly stating an opinion. Peacefully gathering to express political views. At-will employment is now being used as a political tool against the category of people who are "Classical Liberals" and everyone to the right of that. It is different yet very similar in many regards to at-will employment being used against labor organizers in decades past.
      - tptacek 9y ago
        You understand that, in much of the country, you can be fired simply for being a Democrat or a Republican, right? The law recognizes the rights of the owners and managers of companies to organize them out of like-minded people. If that's problematic for you, you should lobby for employment laws to change. It's arguably not the NLRB's place to come up with new protections; they're an agency largely unaccountable to the voters.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> In effect, the ruling ratifies a particular squishy, ideological interpretation of science. No, it just says that you can't wave a “labor organizing” flag to immunize yourself for consequences of violation of your employers facially-reasonable anti-harassment policy, thereby avoiding a situation in which employers could be put in the position of having to choose between violating the NLRA and violating the Civil Rights Act.

YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago

Actually, it flags Damore's interpretation of science as squishy and ideological. Which, let's be fair, it totally is, because he's no scientist and he has a very limited understanding of the sources he quotes in support of his views. Scientific debate doesn't take place in Google forums through Google memos, any more than it happens in HN comments, so what was Damore's point of providing references to back his position, other than a misguided attempt to appear "scientifick"?

Chris2048 9y ago
Same could be said of internal trainings that reference, e.g writings about implicit bias.
stcredzero 9y ago
Actually, it flags Damore's interpretation of science as squishy and ideological. The 55-country study he cited has effectively one of the highest P-values in social science of recent years. It's widely considered in psychology to be an important result. Denying this is basically parroting intellectual dishonesty on the level of Global Warming denialism. The Big-5 personality traits he cited are the strongest results in psychology outside of the effect of General Intelligence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKmyO3hbOz8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKmyO3hbOz8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Gender_differences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Ge... The NLRB is basically saying that it's now open season on anyone who cites scientific studies, based on whether anyone on the internet finds it offensive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGSQWajPxH8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGSQWajPxH8
- tptacek 9y ago
  It's open season on everyone in virtually every American workplace. Why won't you acknowledge this? You're a reasonable guy. We've had dinner together! What's happening here isn't a shift. What you're demanding is a new special protection for "people who can defend their position scientifically".
  - stcredzero 9y ago
    It's open season on everyone in virtually every American workplace. Why won't you acknowledge this? Oh, but I do acknowledge this. I would like to call attention to it. I thank you for your support. What's happening here isn't a shift. In the old days, one could cite such studies. The reactions and the consequences are indeed a shift in society. An outrageously authoritarian shift. What you're demanding is a new special protection for "people who can defend their position scientifically". Funny, but the NLRB was once a new special protection. The witch-hunts back then had took a different direction. I would grant that your interpretation of what's been discussed and apparently needed as a special protection. It does seem to me that our current society apparently needs special protection for things that used to be ok and which are still vital to the workings of our democratic society. Things like: Peacefully donating to political PACs. Peacefully having a mainstream political opinion. (Like being a Republican or a Libertarian) Civilly stating an opinion. Peacefully gathering to express political views. At-will employment is now being used as a political tool against the category of people who are "Classical Liberals" and everyone to the right of that. It is different yet very similar in many regards to at-will employment being used against labor organizers in decades past.
    - tptacek 9y ago
      You understand that, in much of the country, you can be fired simply for being a Democrat or a Republican, right? The law recognizes the rights of the owners and managers of companies to organize them out of like-minded people. If that's problematic for you, you should lobby for employment laws to change. It's arguably not the NLRB's place to come up with new protections; they're an agency largely unaccountable to the voters.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> In effect, the ruling ratifies a particular squishy, ideological interpretation of science. No, it just says that you can't wave a “labor organizing” flag to immunize yourself for consequences of violation of your employers facially-reasonable anti-harassment policy, thereby avoiding a situation in which employers could be put in the position of having to choose between violating the NLRA and violating the Civil Rights Act.