10 ms·
'After Google employee James Damore circulated his memo that included many sexist statements about the "natural abilities" of female vs. male engineers...' Rea
by cauliflower99 5y ago
'After Google employee James Damore circulated his memo that included many sexist statements about the "natural abilities" of female vs. male engineers...'
Really? Do people (who actually read the study) really think it was sexist? It stated the obvious - that there are differences in interests in men compared to women by aggregate.
- elzbardico 5y agoWe are not supposed to discuss this. Please just accept it as a taboo topic, not only here on HN but elsewhere too. Probably even Damore would like to be forgotten
- sanity31415 5y agoI read his study at the time and it said no such thing, he was vilifed for questioning an orthodoxy that said any difference in representation must necessarily be caused by discrimination. Respected psychologists like Steven Pinker agreed with Damore. This guy either didn't read it or he's easily influenced by cancel mobs.
- mStreamTeam 5y agoHe left Google to go to Twitter, the HQ of cancel mobs
- strangecyan 5y agoYes, both the tone and the words on paper were sexist. I would give it another look and try and read it in the most empathic light you can, you might reflect on it.
- sanity31415 5y agoI assume you don't mean empathy for its author. Can you quote the sexist part? Please be specific. Here is the original memo for your convenience: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...
- thinkingemote 5y agoIt's important to read the stated reason from the company for his firing. He was fired for spreading "unhelpful stereotypes". These differences might be obvious and natural to most of the world but they are unhelpful and not welcome in that company. The company wanted to fight against the stereotypes as they considered those a barrier. It's important to realise that the company in that episode never fought to properly and logically argue against the stereotypes and why they were factually false versus others arguing why they were true because that would have been much more troublesome. Much discussions on HN seem to get stuck around the logic and truth nature of the issue - where the actual stated reasons is all about what's "helpful" or not. In other words, if enough people feel something is sexist then it's in a company's best interest to agree with them.
- Chris2048 5y agoMy old accountant maintained that $1+$1=$2, which was very harmful to my finances. I fired them immediately for such unhelpful stereotypes. My new accountant agrees that $1+$1=$3, creating a much less hostile work environment. S/He even practises intersectionality wrt profit vs debt - me and my employees have never been happier!
- textgel 5y agoThat...changes nothing? It just demonstrates a collective insanity at the organisation in question. They're welcome to put their heads in the sand and claim whatever irrational bs they desire is "unhelpful" and "sexist" but that doesn't make it so.
- flavius29663 5y agoThat was the whole point of the debacle, though. IIRC Google noticed that what they were currently doing was not bringing more women onboard, so they asked some of their employees for opinions. Damore wrote his, which circulated internally for a while with no issues. Then it was leaked and the cancel mob got to him. Only then Google fired him. It wasn't like he was trying to promote these opinions like a googler Alex Jones, at least not from what I know. I think firing Damore for an opinion shows what cowards they are and everything that is wrong with the current woke movement: don't talk about new ideas or possible solutions, don't open up uncomfortable discussions, only bow to mob led slogans otherwise you're burned at the stake.
- UncleMeat 5y agoNow we use the word “study” for it? The text preemptively claims that people will reject it because they are too politically correct. It was never presented as a neutral scientific analysis. From the beginning it was a slanted criticism of Google’s hiring practices.
- CRConrad 5y ago> The text preemptively claims that people will reject it because they are too politically correct. Yeah, so? You say that as if the fact that a lot of people did exactly that for exactly that reason somehow shows some flaw with the text.
- textgel 5y agoI don't really get what you're arguing? This seems to be just semantics on a 3rd party comment on a forum. > The text preemptively claims that people will reject it because they are too politically correct. The text was right. > From the beginning it was a slanted criticism of Google’s hiring practices. Yes, how does this relate to the original point?
- UncleMeat 5y ago> The text was right. Weird how a lot of academics don't agree.
- textgel 5y agoQuite probably. They're welcome to disagree about the reality we are literally discussing right now, just as there were no doubt members that disagreed with the realities outlined in the letter, and in taking part helped cause the situation (that according to you they are denying) in the first place.
- Chris2048 5y agoA lot more journalist don't agree too, which is perhaps why those academics got so much airtime. Even in the legal system "expert testimony" can be a dubious process - in the court of press-media there is no bar to cherry-picking.
- eloisant 5y agoplease don't start this again
- sanity31415 5y agoFalse narratives should be challenged.
- textgel 5y agoNo, we aren't going to just politely allow you to enable slander.
- ausbah 5y agoI personally viewed the statement as verging-on-sexism because the I think the extent to which gender disparities are explained by "biological differences" is still much smaller than plain old discrimination I don't think he's evil or sexist for writing what he did, but I strongly disagree with what he wrote and even more disappointed he went on to become a poster child for Fox News
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- derangedHorse 5y agoYeah but he was pretty liberal with his conclusions he claimed were derived from data. It's pretty easy to see flaws in his arguments like how he inflated the behavioral differences between genders, and his inability to thoroughly consider differences being caused by societal factors (nature vs. nurture). I think the main issue with his memo is the implication that diversity efforts were, at the time, problematic. The truth is, with such low diversity numbers even with the diversity programs, it's likely that any subpar candidates admitted probably equaled the subpar candidates admitted into Google at large. The numbers for gender diversity are even more skewed when viewed through the lens of the engineering department (which is the one relevant to the memo), which is unfortunately not available from the google diversity site like it used to be. You can see the diversity breakdown for yourself here: https://diversity.google/annual-report/representation/ https://diversity.google/annual-report/representation/ You can also see a longer analysis Damore's liberal assumptions here: https://www.wired.com/story/the-pernicious-science-of-james-damores-google-memo/ https://www.wired.com/story/the-pernicious-science-of-james-...
- Izkata 5y ago> and his inability to thoroughly consider differences being caused by societal factors (nature vs. nurture). The goal was to find how to make the job more attractive to female developers. If the difference exists, then in this context the distinction does not matter.
- CRConrad 5y ago> The goal was to find how to make the job more attractive to female developers. But why should that be a goal? Is there any inherent value in having all jobs be equally attractive to everybody? If so, where are all the efforts to make jobs like garbage collection less male-dominated?
- textgel 5y agoLooks like the wired analysis and your own views can be summarised as "we don't understand everything about psychology", and that "biological differences barely matter, it largely comes down to nurture instead of nature." One is worthless noise, the other demonstrably false. Whats more, this has had progressives crawling all over it with arguments including "Just allow the slander to go on unanswered", "its someone else's definition of sexist so he's sexist", "I heard he does other evil things" and attempts to distract from the point. At this stage vaguery without clear examples can be dismissed as nothing at best or marked as evidence of bad faith debate driven by religious compulsion at worst.
- rendall 5y agoI have come to the conclusion that we humans have a very difficult time perceiving reality once our tribe has decided something. I'm sure it saved our ancestors from ostracism and exile. I have no doubt that some people read that memo thoroughly and are sincerely convinced it is sexist while being unable to point to anything sexist in the memo. Scary. Humans are scary apes.
- Chris2048 5y agoBut it isn't "our tribe" - it's specifically the "blue church" pushing a very intentional narrative against an easy target. That's to say: This isn't just the chaotic whisperings of twitter, but many complicit media outlets repeating this.
- rendall 5y agoLol, yes. I agree. It's not "our tribe" that has bias. It's "their tribe". "Our tribe" is noble, generous and infallible. "Their tribe" is misinformed at best, but probably crazy if not outright evil.
- Chris2048 5y agoI didn't say anything about "our tribe" being right/biased. I said "our tribe" isn't saying this, where "our tribe" is a quote of the original comment. This is consistent with any of these statements: - our tribe say the opposite - our tribe say something different entirely - our tribe have no consensus on the issue / there is no "our tribe"
- rendall 5y agoOk. But still, Damore's situation as part of a general human trend, from which the pro-Damore faction is not immune. There are no doubt pro-Damore people who are pro-Damore just because their tribe* is pro-Damore, and not because of the actual content of the memo. This is the identical error as the antis. It's difficult not to make such errors because those of our tribal ancestors who did not immediately and unconditionally support the tribe died. Those who did, lived. If you want to help, pointing out which faction is making the error is not as helpful as insisting on the principled truth no matter which faction is correct. It's a dangerous road, because humans are scary, genocidal apes. * > - our tribe have no consensus on the issue / there is no "our tribe" Agreed. If one can lift one's perceptions out of partisanship, there is only a unified group of people who all (with a few psychopathic exceptions) want the best for themselves, their families, and society as a whole, whose only disagreement is as to method of getting there. And nevertheless, these small disagreements can easily magnify and become physically violent, because humans are scary apes who will elevate tribal affiliation even above literal perception. So, for some people, they absolutely have a tribe, and if you disagree with it, you are them.
- fareesh 5y agoCame here and CTRL+F Damore, glad I wasn't the only one disappointed with that framing. We are now living in an age where it is simply not possible to discuss some topics without someone twisting the discussion into one of the various deadly sins, and everyone who engages becomes guilty of it by association. For example, in the USA if you are in favor of less immigration, the assumption is that you are operating from a place of xenophobia and racism, because there is no other possible explanation in the universe from having those views. If you state your views coherently, demonstrated that the concerns are rooted in other factors entirely - then the bogeymen of subconscious and unconscious biases and inability to confront deeply rooted bigotry and revealed as the causes, much like the spirits of evil who possessed you when you said things to criticize orthodoxy in the past. Likewise if one wants to discuss topics like representation across groups, one is inevitably branded a heretic for a heterodox view, regardless of the reasoning. It's really terrible that this kind of attitude is so widespread in the west.
- cauliflower99 5y agoEDIT: Someone rightfully pointed out that it was a memo, not a study.
- ashtonkem 5y agoOh god, not this bullshit again. How many times are we going to rehash the Damore thing to no fruitful end?
- jeffbee 5y agoForever, because HN constantly argues the content of his stupid document while ignoring the fact that he wasn't fired for writing it, he was fired for going all around the company harassing people and waving it in their faces, for months.
- textgel 5y agoAny proof of this claim?
- bcrosby95 5y agoI highly doubt it, considering the CEO's memo on the subject: https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/diversity/note-employees-ceo-sundar-pichai/ https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/diversity/note-empl... If he were literally harassing people I'm pretty sure that would have been mentioned. What usually happens in these cases is people that object to the material wave it in everyone's face.
- jeffbee 5y agoThere is no usual pattern of these things. Damore had been shopping his thing around for a long time. I first saw it on the libertarians mailing list, where the members of that group told him in no vague terms to fuck right off with that noise. Then he crashed the "women in engineering" conference to whine about its existence. Finally they got rid of him.
- textgel 5y agoNow do we believe the word of a progressive who claims they saw these things given how much lying that crowd has been doing in this very comment section alone.
- ggggtez 5y ago"study" It wasn't a study, it was basically a MGTOW chain letter. Anyone who has experience in science knows that the arguments it purported to show were cherry picked nonsense. A conclusion looking for evidence. And yes, obviously people read it that way. He was fired because he wouldn't stop arguing about it, remember? People acting like sharing a "study" that [minorities] are intellectually inferior is just normal behavior for an engineer. Who the hell does that?
- textgel 5y ago> And yes, obviously people read it that way. He was fired because he wouldn't stop arguing about it, remember? Various people keep claiming that but there doesn't appear to be any proof of it. > People acting like sharing a "study" that [minorities] are intellectually inferior is just normal behavior for an engineer. Quote the part where he says this.
- ggggtez 5y ago> quote I don't need to read it for you. If you walked away from that and didn't notice that the entire thesis is that [minorities] are worse engineers than [majority] then you just didn't read it And beyond that, it's a moot point, because even if you don't see it, plenty of other people read it that way. Enough people read it that way that he was fired for it. It doesn't matter which citation I make. It's been dissected by hundreds of people in excruciating detail. Go read one of those ready analyses for the gory details and citations. It will be more intellectually fulfilling than rehashing it here again
- textgel 5y agoOh isn't that convenient. The definitely racist memo full of racism has so much in it that it is somehow completely impossible to quote any section at all that contains it. > And beyond that, it's a moot point, because even if you don't see it, plenty of other people read it that way. Enough people read it that way that he was fired for it. Well you personally are absolutely certain that a document definitely contains racist statements despite being completely incapable of quoting even one. Seems this is an affliction that can affect quite a few people. Well seeing as that's the "logic" you can muster perhaps we should put some sort of protections in place to the shipping industry. After all quite a few people are adamant the world is flat and we don't want to see cruise liners falling off the edge of the world now do we.