4 ms·

Google did it to James Damore. People celebrated it, as it opposes their beliefs even though many psychologist publicly said that the gender difference identifi

Google did it to James Damore. People celebrated it, as it opposes their beliefs even though many psychologist publicly said that the gender difference identified in the memo are science backed.

raxxorrax 6y ago
I think it was wrong to fire him and that he genuinely had no ill intend. More detrimental are voices that attest pervasive sexism in the industry and that women are oppressed by computer nerds, but it is no competition. It was in conflict with the goals of management to get more women into tech. I also think such a memo (haven't read it) can put women under more scrutiny, even if it describes general trends that might not be applicable to individuals. I think he is someone who can easily make the distinction in contrast to his accusers and everyone who studied computer science knows the demographics. Discrimination can be ruled out as a main factor easily. But even if the opinion of his accusers is dead wrong on all levels, management has decided that employment is not beneficial anymore. Science or not.
Mangalor 6y ago
Damore wrote an essay basically arguing women and minorities should be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics. The effect of which would silence both their work rights and free speech rights. Google, a private corporation, not a government, decided to stop contracting with him, as they have women and minorities on staff whose employment output likely outweighs his personal need to write long, politically charged, essays at work. To me that sounds like no one's essential rights were violated at all.
- kgwgk 6y ago
  > Damore wrote an essay basically arguing ... Q.E.D.
- high_derivative 6y ago
  'should be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics' He absolutely did no such thing and this is an incredibly disingenuous representation. You can still argue he should be fired without this.
  - worik 6y ago
    I have just reread the first few pages of his memo. I had forgotten, it has been a few years. It is naive, pompous, and offensive to people who have been fighting against the currents of prejudice and bigotry for generations. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideo... Perhaps he should not have been fired, but what a prick!
    - humanrebar 6y ago
      I don't know Damore personally, so this concern might not apply, but I wonder if neuro-atypical folks aren't the hardest hit folks in the current reenactment of The Crucible. EDIT: And The Scarlet Letter seems relevant as well.
- zarkov99 6y ago
  > Damore wrote an essay basically arguing women and minorities should be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics. That is completely false and you should be ashamed if yourself for spreading such blatant lies. I urge anyone reading your comment to check for themselves and read Damore's essay, which was well researched, rational and compassionate, the exact opposite of the kind of libel that has been used to slander him. Damore will be a case study at some point when reason returns and people look back and try to understand how it came to be that fools and liars became the arbitrers of what others were allowed to say and think.
  - worik 6y ago
    Not completely false. "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." Which could be interpreted, honestly, as saying... "women and minorities could be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics"
    - kgwgk 6y ago
      That seems an acceptable interpretation only if it also means that "men and majorities could be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics." Because both are encompassed by the more general "people could be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics." And that's of course not the only interpretation possible, but the one you choose. You say it's because of "capability" but you could look at it in terms of "inclination", "interest", "comparative advantages" or other angles.
    - lr4444lr 6y ago
      "Differences in traits" doesn't mean "incapable". You know what happens if you take a whole population and deprive them of adequate calcium and protein in their early years? You get a "difference in traits" as to their height. Damore made no Essentialist claims about race or gender. He was just trying to be helpful in explaining an observed phenomenon at one causal level back.
    - 6y ago
- Chris2048 6y ago
  > decided to stop contracting with him Not sure how this differs from a firing unless you are suggesting it was unrelated to the memo. > his personal need to write long, politically charged, essays at work You don't know the context. He didn't force the memo on people - he was actively encouraged to provide feedback to a forum on this exact, politically-charged, topic; then that memo was leaked, without his permission, (to unfriendly, politically-charged outside recipients) when someone found issue with it. The insinuation "write long, politically charged, essays at work" that he abused company resources to do his own thing, versus being encouraged to engage with politics (which google does) and then finding himself on the wrong side of opinion is exactly the kind of abusive framing that hit-pieces used. > women and minorities on staff Who saw the memo because someone tried to offend them with it - not Damore. I don't disagree that sensitive topics might not be appropriate for wider audiences, but Damore is not responsible for that. No one was fired for leaking the memo, nor are media outlets being sued for propagating a false, offensive representation of the memo. To be clear "women and minorities should be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics" is not something Damore said, it is something the media said, attributing it to him. It is the media therefore that owns these words and the offence they (and their distribution) caused. Not only did they slander Damore, but they also caused the offense Damore was fired for.
lazyjones 6y ago
> People celebrated it No, some people celebrated it. A noisy minority.
- Chris2048 6y ago
  Backed by much of the media, and many spineless corps. It was a convenient mistruth (for corps not wanting to threaten their bottom line with unwinnable controversy) that Damore is just a rabble-rouser; You shouldn't pay too much attention to him, or read his actual memo, (or supporting links for context) - but if you are interested, we vox-plain the important stuff for you right here!..
rafiki6 6y ago
I re-read his memo. I think it was wrong that he was fired, despite the fact that I can't actually agree that his memo was correct. He cherry picked much of his research and actually made a few over arching claims that are not well supported such as biological differences being represented in women vs men across cultures. He reached in a few places. That being said, I don't know him personally, but I respect that he actually RESEARCHED and tried to have a dialogue, which unfortunately is lacking in today's society on both the left and right. I respect that he has an opinion, he shared it, he suggested changes and he actually seemed to be trying to reach the same goal that diversity programs are trying to reach but offered a critique. I'm quite upset about how he was treated, and I wish that he took the lawsuit to it's natural conclusion in court rather than settling. I think we can all agree, the main issue today is in our effort to create safe spaces and make the public forums safe for all, we've completely removed our ability to rationally think and listen to others viewpoints. What is offensive to the sensibilities of one person maybe completely rational and sane to another. One of the reasons the legal system (supposedly) works is because it attempts to remove emotion from the process to provide a fair trial. I may not like the individual and think that they are guilty, but that doesn't matter. We need overwhelming evidence to determine that they are. We need to learn to put our differences aside and listen to the perspective of the other side and empathize. There is usually at least a grain of truth to what is being said. Without this, it's a pointless shouting match.

Google did it to James Damore. People celebrated it, as it opposes their beliefs even though many psychologist publicly said that the gender difference identified in the memo are science backed.

raxxorrax 6y ago

I think it was wrong to fire him and that he genuinely had no ill intend. More detrimental are voices that attest pervasive sexism in the industry and that women are oppressed by computer nerds, but it is no competition. It was in conflict with the goals of management to get more women into tech. I also think such a memo (haven't read it) can put women under more scrutiny, even if it describes general trends that might not be applicable to individuals. I think he is someone who can easily make the distinction in contrast to his accusers and everyone who studied computer science knows the demographics. Discrimination can be ruled out as a main factor easily. But even if the opinion of his accusers is dead wrong on all levels, management has decided that employment is not beneficial anymore. Science or not.

Mangalor 6y ago

Damore wrote an essay basically arguing women and minorities should be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics. The effect of which would silence both their work rights and free speech rights. Google, a private corporation, not a government, decided to stop contracting with him, as they have women and minorities on staff whose employment output likely outweighs his personal need to write long, politically charged, essays at work. To me that sounds like no one's essential rights were violated at all.

kgwgk 6y ago
> Damore wrote an essay basically arguing ... Q.E.D.
high_derivative 6y ago
'should be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics' He absolutely did no such thing and this is an incredibly disingenuous representation. You can still argue he should be fired without this.
- worik 6y ago
  I have just reread the first few pages of his memo. I had forgotten, it has been a few years. It is naive, pompous, and offensive to people who have been fighting against the currents of prejudice and bigotry for generations. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideo... Perhaps he should not have been fired, but what a prick!
  - humanrebar 6y ago
    I don't know Damore personally, so this concern might not apply, but I wonder if neuro-atypical folks aren't the hardest hit folks in the current reenactment of The Crucible. EDIT: And The Scarlet Letter seems relevant as well.
zarkov99 6y ago
> Damore wrote an essay basically arguing women and minorities should be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics. That is completely false and you should be ashamed if yourself for spreading such blatant lies. I urge anyone reading your comment to check for themselves and read Damore's essay, which was well researched, rational and compassionate, the exact opposite of the kind of libel that has been used to slander him. Damore will be a case study at some point when reason returns and people look back and try to understand how it came to be that fools and liars became the arbitrers of what others were allowed to say and think.
- worik 6y ago
  Not completely false. "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." Which could be interpreted, honestly, as saying... "women and minorities could be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics"
  - kgwgk 6y ago
    That seems an acceptable interpretation only if it also means that "men and majorities could be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics." Because both are encompassed by the more general "people could be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics." And that's of course not the only interpretation possible, but the one you choose. You say it's because of "capability" but you could look at it in terms of "inclination", "interest", "comparative advantages" or other angles.
  - lr4444lr 6y ago
    "Differences in traits" doesn't mean "incapable". You know what happens if you take a whole population and deprive them of adequate calcium and protein in their early years? You get a "difference in traits" as to their height. Damore made no Essentialist claims about race or gender. He was just trying to be helpful in explaining an observed phenomenon at one causal level back.
  - 6y ago
Chris2048 6y ago
> decided to stop contracting with him Not sure how this differs from a firing unless you are suggesting it was unrelated to the memo. > his personal need to write long, politically charged, essays at work You don't know the context. He didn't force the memo on people - he was actively encouraged to provide feedback to a forum on this exact, politically-charged, topic; then that memo was leaked, without his permission, (to unfriendly, politically-charged outside recipients) when someone found issue with it. The insinuation "write long, politically charged, essays at work" that he abused company resources to do his own thing, versus being encouraged to engage with politics (which google does) and then finding himself on the wrong side of opinion is exactly the kind of abusive framing that hit-pieces used. > women and minorities on staff Who saw the memo because someone tried to offend them with it - not Damore. I don't disagree that sensitive topics might not be appropriate for wider audiences, but Damore is not responsible for that. No one was fired for leaking the memo, nor are media outlets being sued for propagating a false, offensive representation of the memo. To be clear "women and minorities should be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics" is not something Damore said, it is something the media said, attributing it to him. It is the media therefore that owns these words and the offence they (and their distribution) caused. Not only did they slander Damore, but they also caused the offense Damore was fired for.

lazyjones 6y ago

> People celebrated it No, some people celebrated it. A noisy minority.

Chris2048 6y ago
Backed by much of the media, and many spineless corps. It was a convenient mistruth (for corps not wanting to threaten their bottom line with unwinnable controversy) that Damore is just a rabble-rouser; You shouldn't pay too much attention to him, or read his actual memo, (or supporting links for context) - but if you are interested, we vox-plain the important stuff for you right here!..

rafiki6 6y ago

I re-read his memo. I think it was wrong that he was fired, despite the fact that I can't actually agree that his memo was correct. He cherry picked much of his research and actually made a few over arching claims that are not well supported such as biological differences being represented in women vs men across cultures. He reached in a few places. That being said, I don't know him personally, but I respect that he actually RESEARCHED and tried to have a dialogue, which unfortunately is lacking in today's society on both the left and right. I respect that he has an opinion, he shared it, he suggested changes and he actually seemed to be trying to reach the same goal that diversity programs are trying to reach but offered a critique. I'm quite upset about how he was treated, and I wish that he took the lawsuit to it's natural conclusion in court rather than settling. I think we can all agree, the main issue today is in our effort to create safe spaces and make the public forums safe for all, we've completely removed our ability to rationally think and listen to others viewpoints. What is offensive to the sensibilities of one person maybe completely rational and sane to another. One of the reasons the legal system (supposedly) works is because it attempts to remove emotion from the process to provide a fair trial. I may not like the individual and think that they are guilty, but that doesn't matter. We need overwhelming evidence to determine that they are. We need to learn to put our differences aside and listen to the perspective of the other side and empathize. There is usually at least a grain of truth to what is being said. Without this, it's a pointless shouting match.