Google done' goofed - fires employee for "opinions"

[agent00f]

Yup. Some fields have seen major shifts as well. For example my wife is a veterinarian. Thirty years ago it was a field overwhelmingly dominated by men. The year my wife was accepted there were four men out of a hundred admissions. There are hard numbers on this as well, but I am going to be lazy. Human medicine has also seen an appreciable rise in female physicians since the 'good old' 50s

Women are too dumb/neurotic for medicine.

 

[pmv]

I'm not necessarily saying the core data is wrong. What I am saying is that it presents a wildly incomplete picture, and that Damore is making numerous leaps of logic to shoehorn it into his view of the world. For example, the argument that women are more neurotic. The study everyone points to on that doesn't actually say whether or not that's some inherent trait or inflicted by years of conditioning. Women are far more likely to be targets of abuse, harassment, sexual assault and body shaming. How much does that play into the findings?

This is what's frustrating about how people use data in arguments, and it's not exclusively a conservative problem: that tendency to infer far more from a set of figures than what they actually say, and that refusal to question something the moment it looks even vaguely plausible. Look at the OP: effectively, he's saying "see, Damore has a doctorate from Harvard! Therefore we can assume everything he says is always true!" Only it turns out that Damore doesn't have a doctorate, and merely having a vaguely related degree doesn't make you either qualified to speak on a subject or immune to political bias.

Yeah, there seem to be two general phenomena that are illustrated in this.

One thing is how impressed some people seem to be by 'references' and 'citations', to the point that they don't look too closely to see whether the impressive-looking lists of such things do, in fact, properly support the argument being made. I think that happens in many different contexts (I guess the Sokal hoax was an extreme example).

The other thing is how people (sometimes even real scientists in real science papers) will confidently tack on what are really just speculative 'explanations' of a finding, with no acknowledgement of the other equally (or more) plausible possible explanations ('evolutionary psychology' papers seem to do this particularly often).

Also, for the 'neuroticism' study (which I haven't read, so this is just a passing thought), I'd also wonder what they define as neuroticism and if that definition is itself a gender-neutral one. I believe it is now thought that autism in females is more common than previously thought, and the underdiagnosis was due to women/girls with autism manifesting it differently, and the defintion and indicators were not picking them up. So I wonder if that doesn't apply to other traits?

(Speaking as someone who probably brings up the average neuroticism score of males up quite a bit, single-handedly)

 

[Starbuck1975]

Yep. It's not conducted in the style of honest inquiry, it's a lot like The Bell Curve in that it brings up figures, mentions one explanation and doesn't even admit the possibility that his explanation isn't involved. Does he even mention the possibility that women have a greater aptitude for software engineering and that the bias he acknowledges but doesn't really incorporate into his mental model might simply be greater than that difference in aptitude? Does he entertain the possibility that what he considers to be female-oriented changes to the workflow might actually work better than what currently exists? He doesn't try to address why there's such a huge disparity in female participation in software between different regions because frankly, he hasn't even looked. He's decided that what he's seen is the natural order of things.

He's trying to make a blanket proclamation where the grounds for it doesn't exist. He might be on firmer ground if he were more willing to entertain alternate hypotheses, but it's terribly done and worse, incorporates prejudice into the assumptions, which means that people interacting with him cannot be sure that he's evaluating others fairly as individuals.



Umm, you don't hang out with the right people if you don't hear calls to destigmatize being a male nurse and to get more nurses whoever they are.



He's directly expressing that he can't be trusted to evaluate his co-workers fairly, and worse, has gone on the record as having preconceived notions about them and their suitability for work.

Let me put it to you really bluntly. A workplace where you're expected to be continually defending yourself both as an individual and as a member of a group against ideas that you might not even get voiced but still have real ramifications on your life and career is exhausting.

If bias isn't unacceptable in a company, it becomes toxic for the victims of that bias. That requires that prejudiced views and those who express them be handled in a way that isn't tacit approval or you end up wondering why you're not getting talent like the places that create a welcoming environment are.

I never said bias is acceptable. I said there is merit to the employee's criticisms of the effectiveness of the diversity programs at Google, and as a biologist, he attempted (and failed) to make an argument grounded in biology. He unfortunately also triggered the diversity cult, which demanded its blood sacrifice and received it.

Also, we are talking about Google. The cream of the crop. The 1%. The most brilliant minds in the world. If they cannot handle what the author wrote, it says more about them than him.

It doesn't matter. I've enjoyed reading the articles that address both sides of the political divide, and neither side is wrong. It's a healthy conversation to have. Google surrendered the opportunity to lead the conversation by firing him.

 

[agent00f]

I never said bias is acceptable. I said there is merit to the employee's criticisms of the effectiveness of the diversity programs at Google, and as a biologist, he attempted (and failed) to make an argument grounded in biology. He unfortunately also triggered the diversity cult, which demanded its blood sacrifice and received it.

Also, we are talking about Google. The cream of the crop. The 1%. The most brilliant minds in the world. If they cannot handle what the author wrote, it says more about them than him.

It doesn't matter. I've enjoyed reading the articles that address both sides of the political divide, and neither side is wrong. It's a healthy conversation to have. Google surrendered the opportunity to lead the conversation by firing him.

So unfairly persecuted just like their race realist buddies.

 

[interchange]

Regarding STEM professions which require interface with patients, I believe the future will be completely dominated by women (dentists and doctors). I prefer women in these professions because they exude empathy for me rather than fake it like the men do. If you have visited a female doctor or dentist, you will notice the difference and you will like it.

Oh? Was this irony intentional?

 

[agent00f]

Oh? Was this irony intentional?

I'm sure you're aware they can learn to fake it too.

 

[Svnla]

Seems mocking your insecurities had its intended effect.

I am secured enough not to worry about anyone dicks but you are the one that love to ponder about penises.

Let see. I called you out multiple times, you folded like a bitch. Every. Single. Time.

SNC called you out, you folded like a bitch.

Interchange called you out and asked you to accept his challenge, you folded like a bitch.

Dear the readers, do y'all see that pattern here, folks?

Keep telling lies and boasting about how smart you are. Like I how I called you out and shamed and humiliated you in public - https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/high-chance-of-china-taiwan-war.2499383/#post-38743019

You folded like a bitch, of course.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I am secured enough not to worry about anyone dicks but you are the one that love to ponder about penises.

Let see. I called you out multiple times, you folded like a bitch. Every. Single. Time.

SNC called you out, you folded like a bitch.

Interchange called you out and asked you to accept his challenge, you folded like a bitch.

Dear the readers, do y'all see that pattern here, folks?

Keep telling lies and boasting about how smart you are. Like I how I called you out and shamed and humiliated you in public - https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/high-chance-of-china-taiwan-war.2499383/#post-38743019

You folded like a bitch, of course.

Yes. You seem to have a thing about female dogs. Did one bite you?

 

[Jaskalas]

Well... here's a better formatted version with all sorts of references.
https://diversitymemo.com/

Yeah, med boards consisting of mainly men that have hired men over more qualified women will change their minds soon, I'm sure.

Don't kid yourself, things don't change without anyone changing them and every time someone does people whine about lost privelige, it's been the same for as long as I can remember and I'm really old.

If we presume that equal outcome today leads to equal opportunity tomorrow, would the ends justify the means?

There it is, reasoning behind why the end justifies the means. We have to discriminate to overcome discrimination. Do two wrongs make a right? You two have a compelling reason at least, haven't seen anyone else state it quite like that. I sense a conviction here, that it's moral to apply bias in meeting a quota. To balance the scales of an injustice.

Do women have equal opportunity in a board room full of men? Probably not. I'd like to think if I were sitting on a seat I'd give them an equal chance to join, but maybe I'd be biased in ways I don't even realize. So bias could only be minimized by ensuring a near 50/50 split? In what other ways must we diversify to remove bias? There's gender, race, ethnicity, orientation, identity. If a quota is necessary for gender, is it also necessary for all the others protected by anti discrimination laws?

Of course that'd be tricky. Gender is at least split 50/50. Easy to find a meaningful balance for a "fair" Democratic majority vote. But a 15% minority on a board will still, easily, face bias from the majority vote. Even equal representation does nothing to solve discrimination against a smaller group. Is it really a solution then? Is equal representation the end we're looking for, and so... by mandating a quota have we solved, or at least addressed, the underlying problem?

To pivot back to the original premise... Women may not have shattered a preexisting patriarchy, of sorts, with board rooms and the 1%, but haven't they been steadily making gains throughout the past century? Wouldn't we expect those gains to continue without quotas and affirmative action? Maybe the end does not justify the means if the end is already our destination. Especially if the method is to inject new discrimination into a society that was already rife with discrimination in the first place. Is this not the equivalent of favoring vigilantism over law and order? Over a blind justice?

It's just that... we cannot pride ourselves on being a merit based society if all we're doing is filling quotas.

 

[theeedude]

Conservatives are, on average, less predisposed to intellectual labor, and more neurotic. So I think Google made the right call here.

 

[agent00f]

Yes. You seem to have a thing about female dogs. Did one bite you?

Arguably a radioactive one made him into what he is today.

Conservatives are, on average, less predisposed to intellectual labor, and more neurotic. So I think Google made the right call here.

Exquisite case in point:

I am secured enough not to worry about anyone dicks but you are the one that love to ponder about penises.

Let see. I called you out multiple times, you folded like a bitch. Every. Single. Time.

SNC called you out, you folded like a bitch.

Interchange called you out and asked you to accept his challenge, you folded like a bitch.

Dear the readers, do y'all see that pattern here, folks?

Keep telling lies and boasting about how smart you are. Like I how I called you out and shamed and humiliated you in public - https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/high-chance-of-china-taiwan-war.2499383/#post-38743019

You folded like a bitch, of course.

The degens might have a point about liberal males propping up these supposed averages, impossible a task as it might appear.

 

[Vic]

Preach your views and opinions all you want, just not on the company letterhead. This guy's an idiot. Google McGuire.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I never said bias is acceptable. I said there is merit to the employee's criticisms of the effectiveness of the diversity programs at Google, and as a biologist, he attempted (and failed) to make an argument grounded in biology. He unfortunately also triggered the diversity cult, which demanded its blood sacrifice and received it.

Also, we are talking about Google. The cream of the crop. The 1%. The most brilliant minds in the world. If they cannot handle what the author wrote, it says more about them than him.

It doesn't matter. I've enjoyed reading the articles that address both sides of the political divide, and neither side is wrong. It's a healthy conversation to have. Google surrendered the opportunity to lead the conversation by firing him.

Because why address problems when you can simply avoid answering them amirite?

 

[pmv]

Conservatives are, on average, less predisposed to intellectual labor, and more neurotic. So I think Google made the right call here.

I think there's a lot of data to support your first point. On both sides of the Atlantic, conservatives have a strong tradition of anti-intellectualism (for different reasons on each side, now I come to think of it - the 'know nothing' xenophobic tendency in the US having a different origin to the "huntin' and fishin' " elite landowner types in the UK).

But in fairness, the memo-writer described himself as a 'classical liberal'. But I still have trouble seeing liberals as anything other than a subtype of conservative, so I'm fine with that.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Because why address problems when you can simply avoid answering them amirite?

You're right, firing the employee allowed Google to avoid answering the problems in its diversity program.

 

[bshole]

Preach your views and opinions all you want, just not on the company letterhead. This guy's an idiot. Google McGuire.

And that sums it up the best.

 

[bshole]

You're right, firing the employee allowed Google to avoid answering the problems in its diversity program.

Your job as an employee is to provide a service to your company not spout out your political ideology.. This jackass has embarrassed the company on an international scale. Now he wants to sue?! WTF?

 

[Paratus]

Your job as an employee is to provide a service to your company not spout out your political ideology.. This jackass has embarrassed the company on an international scale. Now he wants to sue?! WTF?

Well lucky for him as a "classical liberal and individualist" California is a right to work state. So he can quit and Google can fire him basically for any or no reason whatsoever!

Also, techbro, by making himself public, now have people checking into his history. Apparently while not finishing his Phd at Harvard, (he left for Google before that happened), he offended a bunch of folks during a skit traditionally put on by students, by doing some poorly received masturbation jokes.

https://www.wired.com/story/james-damore-google-memo-harvard/

According to accounts of the event from three people who attended and one person familiar with the skit, Damore performed as professor Timothy Mitchison, who discovered a concept initially called “Microtubule Jerking." Damore, portraying Mitchison, used suggestive phrases to thank women who had helped with the "jerking" discovery.

“The delivery was just awful,” the student tells WIRED. “It’s a room full of scientists so there’s a lot of awkwardness, but this was especially awkward. Maybe told in a different way it would have been received as a joke.” A second person who attended the event does not remember the specifics involving Mitchison. But the second student recalls that Damore’s performance “crossed the line. It seemed inappropriate and I remembered a portion of the community asking him to apologize.” The third classmate, a female, tells WIRED that jokes in the skits usually roast colleagues, but typically the focus is on professors, not students. “He was a kind person whose misguided attempt to be funny failed,” she says. “I think that he wanted the skit to be a chance for him to be funny and cool, but overdid it.”

A couple of profs had to formally apologize for it. TechBro seems to have a problem with over sharing and reading his audience.

 

[Ichinisan]

agent00fucktard strikes yet again.

How this mongrel of a troll is not banned I do not know, he ruins almost every thread with ongoing discussions with no substance what so ever and never ever lets anything go even after being shown to be wrong.

He is quite frankly the example that some people are exactly like the fascist alt-right while not belonging to that group. He'd vote for Stalin over Sanders or Lenin over both, his idea is as extreme as the trumpistas but he will never realize that through hatred he has become exactly what he despises.

100% this.

 

[Ichinisan]

agent00fucktard strikes yet again.

How this mongrel of a troll is not banned I do not know, he ruins almost every thread with ongoing discussions with no substance what so ever and never ever lets anything go even after being shown to be wrong.

He is quite frankly the example that some people are exactly like the fascist alt-right while not belonging to that group. He'd vote for Stalin over Sanders or Lenin over both, his idea is as extreme as the trumpistas but he will never realize that through hatred he has become exactly what he despises.

Degen level butthurt.

I'm no longer surprised that your posts are 100% without substance. You get called out for that and just keep right on doing it.

 

[Ichinisan]

Your job as an employee is to provide a service to your company not spout out your political ideology.. This jackass has embarrassed the company on an international scale. Now he wants to sue?! WTF?

He pointed out that those programs were pushing a political ideology and not science. You're deluding yourself.

 

[pmv]

He pointed out that those programs were pushing a political ideology and not science. You're deluding yourself.

Using the phrase 'pointed out' means you are sneaking in an assertion without supporting it. You 'point out' something that is unequivocally a fact. He didn't 'point out' anything, he claimed something. And his argument for it was not very well grounded.

Also - since when are any corporate policies entirely free of 'political ideology' and based only on 'science'?

The very existence of corporations is a consequence of politics.

 

[Grooveriding]

My opinion of this guy is shifted to that he is a just a drama queen grandstanding. He's a young guy, hence not much life experience would be my guess, perhaps not much with the opposite sex as well. He could be that stereotypical bitter guy who blames women for not having been interested in him.

Mostly it's because instead of talking to anyone in the media, who all want to talk to him, he chooses to go with two alt-right degenerates with a youtube channel. So he just goes out to find a safe space echo chamber. Shows no courage in the conviction he has for his ideology.

 

[bshole]

He pointed out that those programs were pushing a political ideology and not science. You're deluding yourself.

Was that part of his job description? Did google hire him to investigate and point that out? If not, most people know that engaging in speech involving religion/politics while on the job is not generally looked on favorably by management. This kid just learned the hard way..... or perhaps not as he is suing...

Wait a second, are you some kind of communist that doesn't believe the capitalists running the country have the right to fire their employees for any reason they want? You are aren't you.... red bastard....

 

[realibrad]

Yup. Some fields have seen major shifts as well. For example my wife is a veterinarian. Thirty years ago it was a field overwhelmingly dominated by men. The year my wife was accepted there were four men out of a hundred admissions. There are hard numbers on this as well, but I am going to be lazy. Human medicine has also seen an appreciable rise in female physicians since the 'good old' 50s

Do you have numbers?

Yep, but I'm not going to show you.

Lol.