Google in Deep Goo

[onthebottom]

He was responding to the prevailing google culture that the lack of women in tech was solely due to discrimination.

He made a very moderate and well thought out argument, doesn't mean he's right. He also said that he doesn't discount sexism just that the PC culture at Google prevented any other discussion.

What's next, short white guys playing basketball, Straight guys designing woman's clothes, a Canadian men's team making it the soccer World Cup ;-)

I think he's got a phd in psychology from Harvard.

 

[Smallcock]

Our universities used (past tense) to be the same way. An open discussion on matters of import. Now it seems that SJW have taken over and only their opinions count. The reason why professors have tenure is so they can talk openly and honestly and do research that don't always support popular opinion.

BTW: Apparently, the fired guy is getting job offers from competitors.

What do you call a math class full of SJWs?

Triggernometry

 

[Smallcock]

And the claim that you can connect what's in that study to the reality of a career at Google is pseudoscience.

He makes wild assumptions connecting those studies to actual careers and associated preferences.

It's garbage.

Go look at what was measured as "stress"in the original study and show me how that's plausibly connected to anything remotely related to a career in tech. He made up the connection with a bunch of crazy maybes.

Is it similar to your video game study?

 

[Smallcock]

I was giving some more thought to the notion of "women can't do tech" .

While Engineering may be male dominated (and BTW, I don't think of "software engineering" as Engineering because I always think of engineering as applied physics or applied math, or applied chemistry etc. Writing code is writing code or programming etc. (Which is not to take away from writing software, I just don't think it fits the traditional definition of engineering.)

But I digress.

Anyway, there are plenty of women studying and working in Natural Sciences. I would wager that the gender balance is roughly equal in chemistry and More women in the life sciences. These are all highly technical fields.

In addition, medicine (which is hugely technical, far far more than computer programming) is female dominated .

In addition, if you look at Europe, especially Eastern Europe, there are many more female Engineers in civil, mechanical, chemical, materials, etc. than you will see in Canada or North America, probably owing to Europe being more progressive and enlightened than North America which tends to me more traditional.

So I'm not buying the "girls can't do math angle" . Not one bit.

I observed this first hand from the people I went to with in high school. I can think of about 7 females I knew all of whom became physicians (and a couple of them specialists). I can't think of any males that did. Anecdotal but seems borne out in the wider societal trends.

 

[fuji]

Is it similar to your video game study?

The game study, at least, was actual science.

 

[fuji]

He was responding to the prevailing google culture that the lack of women in tech was solely due to discrimination.

He made a very moderate and well thought out argument, doesn't mean he's right. He also said that he doesn't discount sexism just that the PC culture at Google prevented any other discussion.

What's next, short white guys playing basketball, Straight guys designing woman's clothes, a Canadian men's team making it the soccer World Cup ;-)

I think he's got a phd in psychology from Harvard.

You think he's got a PhD because he lied about that -- he had that on his Linked In profile, until somebody actually checked. He was lying about it, and removed the PhD claim from his LinkedIn. (Another grounds for Google to fire him.)

Did you read his memo? Its was poorly written crap that alternated between citing some actual study, and tortured logic based on assumptions trying to link those studies to his sexist claims about women. There's no way you email all the women in Google a manifesto telling them that they are biologically inferior to men (and yes it DID say that) and then expect to keep your job.

 

[SkyRider]

This ain't going away.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/11/fired-google-engineer-damore-says-company-is-like-a-cult.html

https://www.wired.com/story/google-manifesto-author-just-might-have-a-legal-case/

 

[rhuarc29]

There's no way you email all the women in Google a manifesto telling them that they are biologically inferior to men (and yes it DID say that) and then expect to keep your job.

He also said men are biologically inferior to women in other regards. The way you can pick and choose only the bits that support your philosophy, while dismissing the rest, is legendary! A classic case of not being able to see the forest for the trees.

Let's look again at what he actually said:
•He makes sweeping generalizations, both good and bad, about both men and women, though notes that these generalizations do not apply to all men and women.
•He says the underrepresentation of women in some fields, and men in others, is due, at least in part, to biological preferences, and not solely the "rampant sexism" that is claimed by many.
•He then says we should dismiss these generalizations anyway, both good and bad, even if they are generally true, and instead focus on individual merit.
•He also says there's an ideological echo chamber that silences dissenting views, which has obviously been proven by Google.


As far as I can tell, his main two gripes are (1) that Google is unfairly propping up underrepresented groups, rather than treating everyone as equals and (2) that Google is closed off to any opinions outside their own.

 

[fuji]

He also said men are biologically inferior to women in other regards. The way you can pick and choose only the bits that support your philosophy, while dismissing the rest, is legendary! A classic case of not being able to see the forest for the trees.

Let's look again at what he actually said:
•He makes sweeping generalizations, both good and bad, about both men and women, though notes that these generalizations do not apply to all men and women.
•He says the underrepresentation of women in some fields, and men in others, is due, at least in part, to biological preferences, and not solely the "rampant sexism" that is claimed by many.
•He then says we should dismiss these generalizations anyway, both good and bad, even if they are generally true, and instead focus on individual merit.
•He also says there's an ideological echo chamber that silences dissenting views, which has obviously been proven by Google.


As far as I can tell, his main two gripes are (1) that Google is unfairly propping up underrepresented groups, rather than treating everyone as equals and (2) that Google is closed off to any opinions outside their own.

All that matters is the negative stereotypes and prejudice in his essay. We can agree there might be some parts that aren't. But some parts clearly are and that means he needed to be terminated.

His claims that women are under represented due to biological reasons are pseudoscience based on prejudice.

He cited a study then makes ASSUMPTIONS based on prejudice to connect those studies to actual workplace elements. Effectively assuming that whenever men and women do things differently that the way women do it doesn't fit tech.

I gave you the specific example of the prejudiced ASSUMPTIONS he made relating to stress. Assumption isn't science and prejudice isn't acceptable.

 

[SkyRider]

The Google brain trust should have talked to him. Convince him that his theory is all bullshit. Send him to sensitivity training. Did Google do this this?

 

[fuji]

The Google brain trust should have talked to him. Convince him that his theory is all bullshit. Send him to sensitivity training. Did Google do this this?

Sensitivity training doesn't fix the harm he did, a very public response was needed to avoid the class action lawsuit that was coming from every woman at Google

 

[rhuarc29]

Assumption isn't science....

Science has always been assumption, Fuji. A culmination of hypotheses, testing, and conclusions that may get us closer to the whole truth, but never actually reaching it. We only find greater and deeper meaning.
Theories have always been hated and suppressed, but especially in modern times. Just take climate change as an example. The internet and social media are the biggest ideological echo chambers of them all.
As it relates to this guy, we live in a world where people assume 100% of stereotypes are the result of social biases, rather than based in fact. Yet, stereotyping is part of the human brain. And we have no problem applying stereotyping to certain groups (ie men paying more for insurance because they are more aggressive drivers). I feel pretty confident saying that Damore would agree that men are more aggressive drivers. But he'd also agree that it doesn't matter, and that all should be treated as individuals.

Again, I say you can't see the forest for the trees. You saw a man stereotyping women (and men, though you didn't feel that worth mentioning), and dismissed every other thing he had to say. You saw him say something that many would be hurt by, and said that's where the buck stops. I imagine flat-Earthers do the same. Seems to me you're an ideological echo chamber all to yourself.

 

[fuji]

Science has always been assumption, Fuji. A culmination of hypotheses, testing, and conclusions that may get us closer to the whole truth, but never actually reaching it. We only find greater and deeper meaning.
Theories have always been hated and suppressed, but especially in modern times. Just take climate change as an example. The internet and social media are the biggest ideological echo chambers of them all.
As it relates to this guy, we live in a world where people assume 100% of stereotypes are the result of social biases, rather than based in fact. Yet, stereotyping is part of the human brain. And we have no problem applying stereotyping to certain groups (ie men paying more for insurance because they are more aggressive drivers). I feel pretty confident saying that Damore would agree that men are more aggressive drivers. But he'd also agree that it doesn't matter, and that all should be treated as individuals.

Again, I say you can't see the forest for the trees. You saw a man stereotyping women (and men, though you didn't feel that worth mentioning), and dismissed every other thing he had to say. You saw him say something that many would be hurt by, and said that's where the buck stops. I imagine flat-Earthers do the same. Seems to me you're an ideological echo chamber all to yourself.

No, science is testing hypothesis and gathering data. Making an argument based on a load of dubious assumptions is pseudoscience.

Data: women complain more about stress
Assumption: women avoid stressful jobs

There's data for the first point but NONE for the second, yet he emailed that prejudiced, stereotypical assumption out to his whole company.

When your assumptions are prejudiced against women and you email them to all the women in your company don't expect to keep your job.

(Note the alternate and more probable hypothesis: women cope with stress by talking, which may be more effective than the male coping mechanisms and make women less likely to avoid stress, particularly stress where talking is an effective behavior, like a corporate job).

 

[fuji]

Here is a systemic takedown of the false claims in the Google memo by actual researchers:

https://www.recode.net/2017/8/11/16...earch-science-women-biology-tech-james-damore

 

[frankcastle]

moron..... freedom of speech has limits and when it comes to the workplace even moreso.

i am leery of anyone who casts generalizations on over 3 billion women.

female engineers are a subset of a larger group and likely behave differently than your "average" female.

 

[fuji]

moron..... freedom of speech has limits and when it comes to the workplace even moreso.

i am leery of anyone who casts generalizations on over 3 billion women.

female engineers are a subset of a larger group and likely behave differently than your "average" female.

That's an excellent point. The tech industry is populated by nerds. Male and female. It's unlikely these nerds are representative of the population.

The average woman probably isn't cut out for tech, just like the average man also isn't cut out for it.