Google done' goofed - fires employee for "opinions"

[fskimospy]

Of course it's possible. Do you have evidence that such a thing is happening? What is the rate of females discouraged from pursuing a STEM field that they would otherwise be interested in, and what's a logical method to combat that?

I had a conversation with my GF about this last night, aside from completely agreeing with the premise, that females are not biologically predisposed to STEM fields in general, she also found it rather hilarious that what we're seeing is essentially is a bunch of men attempting to come up with a logical and reasoned fix for a perceived problem, which at its core is attempting to get women to do something they don't want to do. She stated that has never and will never work, and I can concur with that via experience.

Are you seriously attempting to argue that the disparities that exist in STEM fields are solely biological in origin? If so, the empirical research disagrees with you. As already linked by Paratus:

http://www.nber.org/papers/w20909

Our results suggest that teachers’ biases favoring boys have an asymmetric effect by gender— positive effect on boys’ achievements and negative effect on girls’. Such gender biases also impact students’ enrollment in advanced level math courses in high school—boys positively and girls negatively. These results suggest that teachers’ biased behavior at early stage of schooling have long run implications for occupational choices and earnings at adulthood, because enrollment in advanced courses in math and science in high school is a prerequisite for post-secondary schooling in engineering, computer science and so on.

If you don't agree that these effects are solely biological then coming up with a logical and reasoned fix for elements that are not biological in origin makes perfect sense. It seems your girlfriend might want to revisit why she thinks women don't want to do these things.

 

[realibrad]

My problem: even if we assume it's true, he's making the assumption that these negative differences are large enough that Google would need to significantly alter its hiring and organizational practices to accommodate them. Saying "hey, your gender is inherently broken, but we can change things to accommodate you" is not how you get more women into the company.

Where did he qualify the magnitude of biology. He did say that biology and society play a role, but he never qualified ratios. He did say that we see traits that are generally true for men and women. Once you accept that there are general traits, and that your business is inherently promoting men over women, then how is it wrong to say Google should shift to better fit the traits of women so they are not excluded?

And it's not a matter of believing that men and women are equal in all factors. It's whether or not any gaps (in either direction) are large enough and widespread enough that they would make a major difference in technical work. That's where Damore's argument falls apart: he takes gender difference studies and warps them to assume not only that the gaps are cavernous enough to seriously affect work, but that so many women are 'affected' this way that it's fruitless to maintain diversity hiring efforts. But the studies don't prove that; they just suggest a certain leaning that maybe, possibly, kinda might influence things, but we don't know how to what degree.

He never said women are not as good at working. He said the environment for women may be tougher because the structure was benefiting male traits more than female traits. So working alone would be better for men, so he suggested that more group work be done. That is only sexist if you believe that there are no differences in the way that men and women work.

 

[Grooveriding]

From wiki....



note, this is HYPOTHESIZED only...

These examples of seeing 'rape' in other species are weak points. They ignore the unique qualifier of humans being self-aware and having the ability to empathize with others, a capacity for empathy so large in fact that it extends beyond not just our immediate family and friends, but has an extent that reaches to other humans and even other species. Using our still present, albeit governed, primal instincts or the instinctual behaviours of other species is not an honest equivalency because of our species' unique trait of having a large primate brain and the abilities it has endowed us with. Behaviours formed of instinct are not like those formed consciously. When another mammal forces its self on a female, do you think it's doing so for pleasure or due to a mental issue, or just because it's driven to mate? Conversely when a human rapes another, do you think that is an instinctual choice, or a conscious psychological one? Are we to believe murderers and rapists are just 'in tune' with their base nature and the majority who don't commit those acts are just restraining themelves?

We have found that our species thrives and performs best when we curtail many of our primal behaviours. It's why we have the rule of law, which in many respects is a tool to repress our primitive still present instincts, as well as to promote self-preservation. Unless my memory is failing me we have only observed a number of species that have sex for pleasure able to be counted with one hand. The rest of the species have sex from developed instinct in order for their species to propagate. That there are instances where the females of other species are not receptive really doesn't mean much when put in the context of that unique difference in our sexuality. Overwhelmingly most species reside in the moment, there is no past/present/future sense anywhere near the level we comprehend. When a cheetah is gang-raped she is not mentally traumatized and hobbled the way a woman who is raped is. Other species do not have the capacity we do for psychological trauma to the extent that we can experience it.

Most men are not out there forcing themselves on women, because even a women we don't know personally is still deserving of basic human respect and we have no interest in attacking her. At least I hope this is true and there is not an army of men out there controlling themselves merely because of the threat of prison. Very unlikely as I believe many of our laws, particularly ones that protect us from the violence of others, are there because they reflect a common value most of us share and that maintaining that order is beneficial to our species. So we promote laws to remove from our ranks the minority that would harm us. Also, we don't need to run around raping females for our species to sustain its self. There is no shortage of willing parties on both sides to keep us going via consensual means. In fact there is a strong argument that there are far too many of us on this planet as is, plus our numbers continue to grow beyond what our current means can even sustain. We don't need rape to sustain our species, whereas other species do.

For monogamy, I agree it is a social construct, but again I would argue it is one that we have found is more beneficial in those instances where we choose to settle in with another person. Back to our psychology again, as it makes it a negative experience for many of us for our wife/husband to be banging whoever happens to look good that day. Beyond those that fetishize it, who finds the idea of their spouse sleeping with someone else to be a positive thing they want present in their day to day? I also think if there are men who believe that we are more prone to sleeping around than women, they are probably kidding themselves into a false sense of safety. Or they have not had much experience out there...

I think humans are unique in that you can make an argument our continually developing social constructs are an extension of our evolution, as we adapt our psychologies to promote better living together. We are a tribal species that congregates, so living together peaceably and functionally is important to promote our continued survival. The reality is where we are going as a species is a cerebral path. We no longer need physical prowess to survive as a species. While the other species use their physicality to survive, we use our minds.

 

[brandonbull]

Forgive me if I except your opinions from my understanding of the external perceptions of my intelligence or character.

It's too bad. I want to be open minded and challenge my own biases and perceptions, but your rigidity and self assuredness has thus far prevented me from learning from anything you have to say.

Don't worry too much about agent00f. He prescribes to the Hillary Clinton school of communication,"Me good, you bad". 404 on an actual message.

 

[realibrad]

Show me scientific evidence that biological factors are the overwhelming cause of the discrepancy. Not that there are biological differences between men and women but that those biological differences are the reason for most or all of the gap.

He hasn't. Nor have you.

Until then I've got studies showing how biases in school push, girls away from math and science, studies showing biases in assessing women's performance, and evolutionary biology and neuroscience to explain those unconscious biases.

Come on man, he did not say overwhelming and neither did I. He did say that somethings are driven by inherent biology and some are not, but that to dismiss differences between men and women is flawed. Please, understand that I have never made the argument about magnitude so I can't understand why you keep claiming I have. Did I misspeak at some point, or maybe you are mixing something else with something you think I said?

Show me systemic blatant cases or other scientific evidence of more qualified male candidates being dropped for less qualified female candidates.



Link me study that shows it's true and makes women less compatible for STEM.



Yes I've noticed a pattern of you questioning sexism.

Study's have shown that for those who do not suffer from racism/sexism generally have a difficult time perceiving it in others unless it is blatant.



He completely failed to show that any biological difference in traits affects their ability to do the tasks they were hired to do.

He did prove he did not have the traits necessary to perform his duties.

I dont know how productive this is going to be. Something is getting lost somewhere and I cannot figure out where.

Biology is a factor in populations traits. Biology is not the only factor in traits. Traits can benefit those doing some jobs. Men and women have different innate strengths but nothing mutually exclusive to the other. I fail to see where he said anything different.

 

[bshole]

These examples of seeing 'rape' in other species are weak points. They ignore the unique qualifier of humans being self-aware and having the ability to empathize with others, a capacity for empathy so large in fact that it extends beyond not just our immediate family and friends, but has an extent that reaches to other humans and even other species. Using our still present, albeit governed, primal instincts or the instinctual behaviours of other species is not an honest equivalency because of our species' unique trait of having this big primate brain and the abilities it has endowed us with. Behaviours formed of instinct are nothing like those formed consciously. When another mammal forces its self on a female, do you think it's doing so for pleasure or due to a mental issue, or just because its driven to mate? Conversely when a human rapes another, do you think that is an instinctual choice, or a conscious psychological one? Are we to believe murderers and rapists are just 'in tune' with their base nature and the majority who don't commit those acts are just restraining ourselves?

We have found that our species thrives and performs best when we curtail many of our base primal behaviours. It's why we have the rule of law, which in many respects is a tool to repress our primitive still present instincts, as well as to promote self-preservation. Unless my memory is failing me we have only observed a number of species that have sex for pleasure able to be counted with one hand. The rest of the species have sex from developed instinct in order for their species to propagate. That there are instances where the females of other species are not receptive really doesn't mean much when put in the context of that unique difference in our sexuality. Overwhelmingly most species reside in the moment, there is no past/present/future sense anywhere near the level we comprehend. When a cheetah is gang-raped she is not mentally traumatized and hobbled the way a woman who is raped is. Other species do not have the capacity we do for psychological trauma to the extent that we can experience it.
:
:
I think humans are unique in that you can make an argument our continually developing social constructs are an extension of our evolution, as we adapt our psychologies to promote better living together. We are a tribal species that congregates, so living together peaceably and functionally is important to promote our continued survival.

How do you explain God approved conquest rape in the holy books of Judaism, Islam and Christianity? How do you explain Pepys journal where he described rape as an ordinary event of no real consequence (that was just a few hundred years ago in a "civilized" country)?

Intellectually I can see your argument. My whole point though was the need for sex (by force if necessary) is a primal evolved instinct in men and it has not gone away. Intellect/morality/empathy/laws can be used to recognize rape as bad for society and attempt to eliminate it. That really doesn't address the question of whether male rapists are biological anomalies or the result of the evolutionary process though.

 

[OutHouse]

Exactly. It's not that he has an opinion, it's that he shares a 10 page opinion internally.

Share on your own time, outside the workplace.

This.

A career student millennial thinks the job is a place to post a idiotic opinion psy/soc "memo" about women working in IT..... lol slam dunk fast way to the unemployment line.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Are you seriously attempting to argue that the disparities that exist in STEM fields are solely biological in origin? If so, the empirical research disagrees with you. As already linked by Paratus:

http://www.nber.org/papers/w20909



If you don't agree that these effects are solely biological then coming up with a logical and reasoned fix for elements that are not biological in origin makes perfect sense. It seems your girlfriend might want to revisit why she thinks women don't want to do these things.

From your paper:

What explains these gender disparities in cognitive performance and in math scores in particular is still an open question. Some emphasize the role of biological gender differences in determining gender cognitive differences (5) while others emphasize the social, psychological and environmental factors that might influence this gap. For example, some argue that gender role attitudes and stereotypes influence the gender gap by shaping the way parents raise their children ; by affecting educational environment at school and teachers’ attitudes; and by determining social and cultural norms. This debate is based on limited credible scientific evidence because it is difficult to disentangle the impact of biological gender dissimilarities from environmental conditions and also because it is difficult to measure stereotypes and prejudices and test their causal implications.

5 This approach suggests that the difference in chromosomal determinants (Vandenberg (1968)), hormone levels (Benbow (1988) and Collaer and Hines (1995)) and brain structure (Witelson (1976), Lansdell (1962), Waber (1976)) can explain the evidence that men perform better in spatial tests, whereas women do better in verbal tests.

Of course if a certain group of people is generally more discouraged from doing a_thing they're going to be less likely to continue doing that. But what is the propensity for that happening vs potential biological differences which may make a person disinclined to actually doing a_thing? I don't have a specific interest in being a social worker, in general. I don't particularly like hearing people's personal problems and I'm not super good at being sensitive to those issues and helping them through it. I don't know if that's biological, upbringing, experience, or whatever, I just know I'm disinclined to do it. Is there a crisis in other fields where there's a lack of $group which people are pulling their hair out/getting fired over for asking questions about?

It seems your girlfriend might want to revisit why she thinks women don't want to do these things.

I'll be sure and let her know that a guy on the internet said she's wrong, and that there's very sound and reasoned arguments why, and that if she were to just listen to them, she'd understand and come around.

 

[Zorba]

Is it possible that women do what is expected of them because if they don't they will inevitably have a harder time? Is it possible that if more girls saw adult women in a field and that it was not a problem for them to go into that field at all that they would pursue an education/career in that field?

Let's say that you KNEW you would be a lot less likely to get hired as a programmer, do you think your parents would ever encourage you to become one? Do you think your guidance counsellor would tell you to get into that field? Do you think you would ever pursue that career?

Where are the massive numbers of unemployed women in STEM? I've never known a woman engineer that had a hard time finding a job.

Although relatively new, there are also a ton of events and programs to encourage girls to go into STEM. Many of which I've participated in (when invited).

There are definitely biases that push women away from STEM. There are also likely biological reasons. But I really don't think a lack of hiring of female STEM professionals is a major driving factor.

I know my mother who graduated HS in the early 70s, was pushed heavily to be an engineer by her parents and some of her teachers. Instead she chose to go into Training/HR because she wanted to work with/help people. Yes, there may have been biases leading to that decision, but it was her decision and it has only been in the last year or so that she started questioning it.

 

[fskimospy]

From your paper:

Of course if a certain group of people is generally more discouraged from doing a_thing they're going to be less likely to continue doing that. But what is the propensity for that happening vs potential biological differences which may make a person disinclined to actually doing a_thing? I don't have a specific interest in being a social worker, in general. I don't particularly like hearing people's personal problems and I'm not super good at being sensitive to those issues and helping them through it. I don't know if that's biological, upbringing, experience, or whatever, I just know I'm disinclined to do it. Is there a crisis in other fields where there's a lack of $group which people are pulling their hair out/getting fired over for asking questions about?

I don't understand what your quote or this statement have to do with what I said? The paper shows evidence that actions by teachers artificially lower participation in STEM by women. While there are lots of things that might affect women's participation rate, this is one that is not inherent and therefore it's illogical to continue doing it. You were looking for answers, this seems like a pretty good one to me!

I'll be sure and let her know that a guy on the internet said she's wrong, and that there's very sound and reasoned arguments why, and that if she were to just listen to them, she'd understand and come around.

I would hope that's true for anyone! If someone points you to empirical evidence that contradicts what you think then it's usually a good idea to reconsider. I'm sure you agree!

 

[Grooveriding]

How do you explain God approved conquest rape in the holy books of Judaism, Islam and Christianity? How do you explain Pepys journal where he described rape as an ordinary event of no real consequence (that was just a few hundred years ago in a "civilized" country)?

Well first I will take out the God bit and replace it with whoever the men were that wrote those books and created those ideologies. So the question is accurately; why do men rape and why was rape more acceptable in the past? This sort of leads to where I ended my post with. Because there were those who back then did, and those today who still do, want to rape women? I don't believe I denied there was a desire to rape among some men. My post was adding the qualifier that we are more than instinct unlike the other species where you see forced sex.

For brevity's sake, ignoring any psychological influence, sex is fundamentally for procreation of species and our species does not require rape for enough breeding to be taking place to sustain ourselves.

Anything else I covered in my first reply.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I don't understand what your quote or this statement have to do with what I said? The paper shows evidence that actions by teachers artificially lower participation in STEM by women. While there are lots of things that might affect women's participation rate, this is one that is not inherent and therefore it's illogical to continue doing it. You were looking for answers, this seems like a pretty good one to me!

It shows evidence that if you actively express bias on students, they react accordingly. I don't know that anyone is going to refute that claim. What it does not establish is how common this is, how systemic this is, and how often this happens. This study took place in one municipality, Tel-Aviv, Isreal. That might be a fine datapoint for establishing the purpose of the paper (to confirm that teachers expressing bias does indeed affect future actions and desires), but it's not enough to establish that this is a systemic problem.

I don't think anyone would argue that if this behavior is happening, we should do what we can to discourage it, and encourage females the same way (or at least with the same gusto) that we encourage males. That still doesn't mean we'll arrive at a 50/50 split in STEM, however.

I would hope that's true for anyone! If someone points you to empirical evidence that contradicts what you think then it's usually a good idea to reconsider. I'm sure you agree!

Haha, have you ever actually had a discussion with a woman that disagreed with you? Generally speaking (again, not true for all women!), a reasoned, impassioned argument about why she's wrong will fail with a 130% success rate, minimum.

To any male wondering why we're having such a problem logic-crafting our way through this, I recommend you go read Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus twice, then think it over again.

 

[woolfe9998]

Sociobiology is dead and buried, the last remnants of it died in the late 80's.

You can't compare social behaviour between chimps and humans, we split off our common ancestor millions of years ago and human evolution has been ongoing ever since.

You do realize that humans have pretty much always been monogamous, always lived in societies of some sort, that the fit women and men have always hunted and gathered while the elderly and sick/injured stayed at home? Your ideas of what the stone age was like seem to come from some caricature and not reality.

Rape is not sex and sex is not rape, the two are vastly different and the former usually has to do with establishing dominance in a social species rather than sex. Desire to have sex is not the same as a desire to rape.

You do realize that the "leftist academia" were proven right with epigenetics, right? That is, genes are turned on and off through behavioural instruction (among many other causes) which is the definition of nurture.

Humans aren't strictly monogymous. We pair bond but we like to "sleep around." A lot. Society enforces a code of monogamy, somewhat weakly.

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...he_evolution_of_human_mating_strategies_.html

It's probably more accurate to say we're somewhere in between monogamy and polygamy.

 

[fskimospy]

It shows evidence that if you actively express bias on students, they react accordingly. I don't know that anyone is going to refute that claim. What it does not establish is how common this is, how systemic this is, and how often this happens. This study took place in one municipality, Tel-Aviv, Isreal. That might be a fine datapoint for establishing the purpose of the paper (to confirm that teachers expressing bias does indeed affect future actions and desires), but it's not enough to establish that this is a systemic problem.

Sure more research should be done to measure its effects but honestly do the results really surprise you?

I don't think anyone would argue that if this behavior is happening, we should do what we can to discourage it, and encourage females the same way (or at least with the same gusto) that we encourage males. That still doesn't mean we'll arrive at a 50/50 split in STEM, however.

I haven't actually seen anyone seriously argue that we should arrive at a 50/50 split. It's a straw man.

Haha, have you ever actually had a discussion with a woman that disagreed with you? Generally speaking (again, not true for all women!), a reasoned, impassioned argument about why she's wrong will fail with a 130% success rate, minimum.

To any male wondering why we're having such a problem logic-crafting our way through this, I recommend you go read Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus twice, then think it over again.

The reason why you might be having trouble with these conversations is that you're coming at them from a perspective that women are immune to reason. I guess I've dated too many lawyers in my life because they, like me, were always absolutely insistent on logically defining the parameters of what we were discussing. Sometimes very annoyingly so.

 

[interchange]

An interesting question is raised here: is something defined as sexist because a significant portion of a particular sex believes it to be? If so, would it be possible for something to be defined as sexist and be proven as true?

Certainly commonly held scientific beliefs with high amounts of evidence have subsequently been proven incorrect with significant resistance to accepting the new idea. Even very well established ideas can be wrong.

But I actually think above the definition of sexist is more or less correct. It is culturally defined and depends on no absolute way on accuracy. This merely highlights the need to allow our understanding to be challenged by even unsavory ideas.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Sure more research should be done to measure its effects but honestly do the results really surprise you?

Yes, it would surprise me if there's a systemic issue with women being actively discouraged from participating in STEM in first-world nations. I caveat the last part because, besides education being traditionally poor in general in second and third world nations (and as such, STEM participation may be lacking from there period), they also tend to have much more 'traditional' views of male/female roles, so yes those biases likely exist very harshly in those places. I do think that we're due for a good, solid study on to what extent different sexes, and even different races, are encourged/discouraged to participate in specific societal roles, and by what method that's happening, whether it's people, popular culture, etc.

I haven't actually seen anyone seriously argue that we should arrive at a 50/50 split. It's a straw man.

Arguably, that's exactly what silicon valley has been striving for. Considering anything less seems classified as failing, and any attempt to explain the disparity, apparently, gets you shitcanned.

The reason why you might be having trouble with these conversations is that you're coming at them from a perspective that women are immune to reason. I guess I've dated too many lawyers in my life because they, like me, were always absolutely insistent on logically defining the parameters of what we were discussing. Sometimes very annoyingly so.

So what you're saying is, something about how their mind operates lends them to focusing on logic reason over emotion. Do you think that might have had a factor into them becoming lawyers? Do you think they were disinclined to pursue other career fields as a result of this, dare I say it, biological factor?

And no, my GF is very much not immune to reason, and I don't treat her as such, but if she decides something is, especially wrt what she wants, or why she wants it that way, 'reason' and 'logic' aren't as much a factor anymore.

 

[woolfe9998]

Are you seriously attempting to argue that the disparities that exist in STEM fields are solely biological in origin? If so, the empirical research disagrees with you. As already linked by Paratus:

http://www.nber.org/papers/w20909



If you don't agree that these effects are solely biological then coming up with a logical and reasoned fix for elements that are not biological in origin makes perfect sense. It seems your girlfriend might want to revisit why she thinks women don't want to do these things.

Even if Osiris is incorrect and there is evidence of a systemic pattern of discouraging females from pursuit of STEM fields, the author of the memo which is the subject of this thread repeatedly acknowledges that bias is part of the reason for female under-representation in these fields. So the point of contention here isn't whether bias plays a role. It's whether biology plays any role at all. If it plays any role, then the guy who got fired from Google was correct.

 

[fskimospy]

Even if Osiris is incorrect and there is evidence of a systemic pattern of discouraging females from pursuit of STEM fields, the author of the memo which is the subject of this thread repeatedly acknowledges that bias is part of the reason for female under-representation in these fields. So the point of contention here isn't whether bias plays a role. It's whether biology plays any role at all. If it plays any role, then the guy who got fired from Google was correct.

No, he isn't. Things he describes as discrimination are in fact logical responses to an environment where the benefits of diversity are acknowledged but there are low female application/hire rates.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Even if Osiris is incorrect and there is evidence of a systemic pattern of discouraging females from pursuit of STEM fields, the author of the memo which is the subject of this thread repeatedly acknowledges that bias is part of the reason for female under-representation in these fields. So the point of contention here isn't whether bias plays a role. It's whether biology plays any role at all. If it plays any role, then the guy who got fired from Google was correct.

Nail on the head. Bias may/may not be a factor, but biological factors is what the memo was referencing, and what turned into a flaming tornado of social justice.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, it would surprise me if there's a systemic issue with women being actively discouraged from participating in STEM in first-world nations. I caveat the last part because, besides education being traditionally poor in general in second and third world nations (and as such, STEM participation may be lacking from there period), they also tend to have much more 'traditional' views of male/female roles, so yes those biases likely exist very harshly in those places. I do think that we're due for a good, solid study on to what extent different sexes, and even different races, are encourged/discouraged to participate in specific societal roles, and by what method that's happening, whether it's people, popular culture, etc.

The study isn't about active discouragement, it's about biases among teachers causing them to unconsciously treat students differently. As the son of a teacher and someone who currently works in the education field the fact that this happens is pretty uncontroversial.

Arguably, that's exactly what silicon valley has been striving for. Considering anything less seems classified as failing, and any attempt to explain the disparity, apparently, gets you shitcanned.

I think his main problem is that many of his conclusions were unsupported by evidence and that he deliberately circulated a poorly reasoned screed that would make working with women difficult. That sort of thing tends to get you fired, yes.

So what you're saying is, something about how their mind operates lends them to focusing on logic reason over emotion. Do you think that might have had a factor into them becoming lawyers? Do you think they were disinclined to pursue other career fields as a result of this, dare I say it, biological factor?

And no, my GF is very much not immune to reason, and I don't treat her as such, but if she decides something is, especially wrt what she wants, or why she wants it that way, 'reason' and 'logic' aren't as much a factor anymore.

I have no idea what the whole pantheon of reasons were that caused them to become lawyers but it would be a good indication that assuming women aren't interested in logic and reason might not be a good idea.

 

[Paratus]

Come on man, he did not say overwhelming and neither did I. He did say that somethings are driven by inherent biology and some are not, but that to dismiss differences between men and women is flawed. Please, understand that I have never made the argument about magnitude so I can't understand why you keep claiming I have. Did I misspeak at some point, or maybe you are mixing something else with something you think I said?





I dont know how productive this is going to be. Something is getting lost somewhere and I cannot figure out where.

Biology is a factor in populations traits. Biology is not the only factor in traits. Traits can benefit those doing some jobs. Men and women have different innate strengths but nothing mutually exclusive to the other. I fail to see where he said anything different.

Brad what I see here is you trying to present this guys case as well supported and not a big deal.

The conclusions the author comes to and the manner in which he distributed it shows that he does think the magnitude of the biological differences between men and women are large.

• He wrote a 10 page document about his companies HR practices when he was not in HR
• His conclusion is that Googles diversity program was "discriminatory and bad for business"
• He released it to as large a group as possible that it could not be swept under the rug.
• He accused his employer of stiffiling "legitimate" discussion

You say he never posited the magnitude of the effect biology plays in affecting gender in the work place. His actions did that.

He believes that magnitude was large enough and the efforts to mitigate it were so harmful to him to risk his career over.

Now maybe you don't believe that magnitude is large or has an impact but don't try to down play the authors actions and positions.

The last line he wrote in the TLDR section spells it out specifically.

"Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive and bad for business."

He considers equal representation at google between the sexes unfair because of the innate biological unsuitability of women to work there. Instead the "fair" ratio is one with more men.

Tell me, if the magnitude of the impact of biological differences between men and women were so small as to leave the ratio about 49/51 would you have done what he did?

 

[IronWing]

Nail on the head. Bias may/may not be a factor, but biological factors is what the memo was referencing, and what turned into a flaming tornado of social justice.

I think the guy's piece was shallow, sexist claptrap but I also wouldn't have even considered firing the guy for writing and posting it. I would consider disciplining the employee who forwarded it to the outside world. If that was the same guy, then I might consider firing him for sending it beyond Google's internal network.

Discussing ways that corporate policy might be improved is fine, within the company. Discussing them in a public space is not so good.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

The study isn't about active discouragement, it's about biases among teachers causing them to unconsciously treat students differently. As the son of a teacher and someone who currently works in the education field the fact that this happens is pretty uncontroversial.

And I'd like to know at what rate, and whether it has a substantial factor on the participation of women in STEM, that's all. I don't even know if it's a substantial factor, I just know that a whole lot of people seem to be assuming it is, and making policies to reflect, as you stated, 'logical responses', when they may or may not be relevant, required, or even sane.

I think his main problem is that many of his conclusions were unsupported by evidence and that he deliberately circulated a poorly reasoned screed that would make working with women difficult. That sort of thing tends to get you fired, yes.

Were the conclusions of those making decisions on hiring processes which are attempting to encourage female hiring more supported by evidence? Is there more evidence to the contrary of what he was stating in the memo than less? If his statements are refutable, should they be refuted rather than him being buried for bringing it up? I thought we were a species of reason, logic, and improvement, asking questions to better ourselves.

I have no idea what the whole pantheon of reasons were that caused them to become lawyers but it would be a good indication that assuming women aren't interested in logic and reason might not be a good idea.

Of course it'd be a bad idea, generally speaking assuming anything about anyone is a bad idea. But assuming a given person really, honestly, just as interested in a_thing as you are, they just haven't had the right opportunity/encouragement, is also a bad idea.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I think the guy's piece was shallow, sexist claptrap but I also wouldn't have even considered firing the guy for writing and posting it. I would consider disciplining the employee who forwarded it to the outside world. If that was the same guy, then I might consider firing him for sending it beyond Google's internal network.

Discussing ways that corporate policy might be improved is fine, within the company. Discussing them in a public space is not so good.

Agreed, if he wanted to express his personal opinion on a public forum without a Google letterhead, he should have done so. If he wanted to have a conversation with group-mates, that probably should have been done in a medium that couldn't end up on CNN or whatever. I personally think he shouldn't have been fired, but I don't run Google's HR, so that means little.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

He considers equal representation at google between the sexes unfair because of the innate biological unsuitability of women to work there.

I'd argue this point, and state that specifically discriminating against hiring males in order to reach an equivalency between male and female sexes is unfair, if (assuming evidence backs up the statement), women are simply less inclined to work in the field, and are not being 'kept out'. To be honest, I don't think there's enough evidence to state that last point either way.