Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-16/google-firing-of-damore-was-legal-u-s-labor-panel-lawyer-said
836 コメント
> But to the extent that it attempted to organize around changes to Google management that might (might) themselves violate EEO laws (for instance, any kind of official recognition that men are better suited to software development at Google than women), they were not.
Was he trying to do that, though? As I understand it, he was protesting policies that sought to actively promote diversity. EEO laws require no such active promotion, afaik. He fell all over himself to be clear that he was not saying that Google should prefer hiring men, or that they should restrict women to specific roles within the company. He was questioning Google's active efforts to specifically recruit women above the background level that would otherwise apply. Whether or not this is a good idea is certainly up for debate, but it does not, to my knowledge, violate EEO laws to merely not actively and specifically target women for recruitment.
> who believes strongly in the absolute innate equivalence in aptitude for our profession between men and women
Curious, why do you believe in that? Have you evaluated the evidence and come to that conclusion, or is it a priori for you?
Was he trying to do that, though? As I understand it, he was protesting policies that sought to actively promote diversity. EEO laws require no such active promotion, afaik. He fell all over himself to be clear that he was not saying that Google should prefer hiring men, or that they should restrict women to specific roles within the company. He was questioning Google's active efforts to specifically recruit women above the background level that would otherwise apply. Whether or not this is a good idea is certainly up for debate, but it does not, to my knowledge, violate EEO laws to merely not actively and specifically target women for recruitment.
> who believes strongly in the absolute innate equivalence in aptitude for our profession between men and women
Curious, why do you believe in that? Have you evaluated the evidence and come to that conclusion, or is it a priori for you?
He was terminated at Google's discretion under at-will employment, the same standard that might allow you to be fired for coming to work with blue hair. He sought relief under an exception to at-will, the NLRA, which protects concerted action to improve working conditions. The NLRB determined that because the substance of his action involved requests that Google might reasonably determine would be problematic under EEO law, that whether or not Damore's actions were unlawful, Google was within its rights as a US employer to terminate him.
It might help to pivot away from EEO law and to some other regulatory regime we work under. For instance, you could attempt to organize around reworking the way your company complies with the HITECH laws. What you'd be doing would certainly not be unlawful! Nevertheless, despite that fact and the fact that the NLRA generally protects employee organization, the fact that your employer has a legal obligation to comply with HITECH would mean that the NLRB gives them substantial extra deference in whether or not they can fire you for doing that.
On the other hand, if you were to organize around, I don't know, closed-door offices instead of open-offices, no such extra deference would apply.
(Re: my beliefs: I provided them as a cards-on-the-table disclaimer, not an invitation to litigate them; they're the least interesting part of this story).
It might help to pivot away from EEO law and to some other regulatory regime we work under. For instance, you could attempt to organize around reworking the way your company complies with the HITECH laws. What you'd be doing would certainly not be unlawful! Nevertheless, despite that fact and the fact that the NLRA generally protects employee organization, the fact that your employer has a legal obligation to comply with HITECH would mean that the NLRB gives them substantial extra deference in whether or not they can fire you for doing that.
On the other hand, if you were to organize around, I don't know, closed-door offices instead of open-offices, no such extra deference would apply.
(Re: my beliefs: I provided them as a cards-on-the-table disclaimer, not an invitation to litigate them; they're the least interesting part of this story).
IMHO, the Advice Memo's conclusion is summarized by this sentence:
> Damore's statements about immutable traits linked to sex — such as women’s heightened neuroticism and men’s prevalence at the top of the IQ distribution — were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, notwithstanding his effort to cloak his comments with “scientific” references and analysis and notwithstanding “not all women” disclaimers.
I find this disturbing.
I don't know whether Damore's assertions are scientifically accurate, but the NLRB appears to be saying that it doesn't matter. Stating an unpleasant truth would constitute discrimination "notwithstanding scientific references and analysis".
> Damore's statements about immutable traits linked to sex — such as women’s heightened neuroticism and men’s prevalence at the top of the IQ distribution — were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, notwithstanding his effort to cloak his comments with “scientific” references and analysis and notwithstanding “not all women” disclaimers.
I find this disturbing.
I don't know whether Damore's assertions are scientifically accurate, but the NLRB appears to be saying that it doesn't matter. Stating an unpleasant truth would constitute discrimination "notwithstanding scientific references and analysis".
> > were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, notwithstanding his effort to cloak his comments with “scientific” references and analysis and notwithstanding “not all women” disclaimers.
> I find this disturbing.
I find this very disturbing as well. The only way that even the most ardent opponents of Damore's memo can come to a "discriminatory" and "harassment" interpretation, is to disregard a literal, face-value reading of the memo and impute motivations to him. So basically, any employee commentary on an employer's policies with regards to the EEO's goals can be held to be "discriminatory" and "harassment" because it "sounds bad" and "sounds like" it's against EEO's goals, even if that can't be demonstrated on a factual basis.
You will fall in line, and you don't even dare sound like you're secretly against us. How is that not "thought-crime?"
> I find this disturbing.
I find this very disturbing as well. The only way that even the most ardent opponents of Damore's memo can come to a "discriminatory" and "harassment" interpretation, is to disregard a literal, face-value reading of the memo and impute motivations to him. So basically, any employee commentary on an employer's policies with regards to the EEO's goals can be held to be "discriminatory" and "harassment" because it "sounds bad" and "sounds like" it's against EEO's goals, even if that can't be demonstrated on a factual basis.
You will fall in line, and you don't even dare sound like you're secretly against us. How is that not "thought-crime?"
You can call it that if you want; then, in the US, you can be fired for "thought crime". The only thing at issue here is that you can't be fired in retaliation for workplace organizing --- but that protection doesn't apply if what you're organizing about pertains to an area where the NLRB gives deference to employers.
There's a case history in the Advice Memo. They didn't make this up just for Google.
There's a case history in the Advice Memo. They didn't make this up just for Google.
that protection doesn't apply if what you're organizing about pertains to an area where the NLRB gives deference to employers.
Those precedents exist to prevent employees from organizing active resistance to the NLRB's goals. If you read Damore's memo at face value, he's proposing modifying the way in which Google pursues those goals, taking differences in preferences into account. Strangely enough, Google and YouTube executives have spoken in public and have basically taken James Damore's memo's position and advocated the same kind of action he proposes in the memo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrOp8ewzJDc
Given the broad power possessed by the NLRB, how can this situation not result in a moral hazard?
Those precedents exist to prevent employees from organizing active resistance to the NLRB's goals. If you read Damore's memo at face value, he's proposing modifying the way in which Google pursues those goals, taking differences in preferences into account. Strangely enough, Google and YouTube executives have spoken in public and have basically taken James Damore's memo's position and advocated the same kind of action he proposes in the memo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrOp8ewzJDc
Given the broad power possessed by the NLRB, how can this situation not result in a moral hazard?
What broad power are you referring to? Without the NLRB, Damore would have no recourse under "protected concerted action". He was an at-will employee.
It's Google, it seems to me, that has the broad power --- and that's a situation conservatives brought about.
It's Google, it seems to me, that has the broad power --- and that's a situation conservatives brought about.
What broad power are you referring to?
It seems like HR and "diversity officers" have effectively become the "political officers" of the 21st century left of collectivist grievance politics. Employers are required to have certain policies, and the NLRB can conveniently "defer" to them when they are effectively supporting the NLRB's power. The problem is that many of the nouns involved in this kind of regulation are fairly nebulous. This situation shows that such accusations can be made on the basis of "feels" and it doesn't even matter if it comes down to factual readings of communication or interpretations of science.
Effectively, an "everyone is exactly equal" ideological nonsense science has now been instantiated into de-facto law in the US through regulatory action, and the NLRB has furthermore supported the notion that you can be fired for disagreeing with it.
It seems like HR and "diversity officers" have effectively become the "political officers" of the 21st century left of collectivist grievance politics. Employers are required to have certain policies, and the NLRB can conveniently "defer" to them when they are effectively supporting the NLRB's power. The problem is that many of the nouns involved in this kind of regulation are fairly nebulous. This situation shows that such accusations can be made on the basis of "feels" and it doesn't even matter if it comes down to factual readings of communication or interpretations of science.
Effectively, an "everyone is exactly equal" ideological nonsense science has now been instantiated into de-facto law in the US through regulatory action, and the NLRB has furthermore supported the notion that you can be fired for disagreeing with it.
>> It seems like HR and "diversity officers" have effectively become the "political officers" of the 21st century left of collectivist grievance politics.
That's contradicted by the reported behaviour of HR in cases of sexual harassment of women engineers by their male colleagues, as for example in the case of Susan Fowler, the Uber engineer who left the company because of harassment and a discriminatory culture. I quote from the relevant post on her website:
When I reported the situation, I was told by both HR and upper management that even though this was clearly sexual harassment and he was propositioning me, it was this man's first offense, and that they wouldn't feel comfortable giving him anything other than a warning and a stern talking-to.
One HR rep even explicitly told me that it wouldn't be retaliation if I received a negative review later because I had been "given an option".
The HR rep began the meeting by asking me if I had noticed that I was the common theme in all of the reports I had been making, and that if I had ever considered that I might be the problem.
Less than a week after this absurd meeting, my manager scheduled a 1:1 with me, and told me we needed to have a difficult conversation. He told me I was on very thin ice for reporting his manager to HR. California is an at-will employment state, he said, which means we can fire you if you ever do this again.
etc etc.
https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2017/2/19/reflecting-on-on...
That's contradicted by the reported behaviour of HR in cases of sexual harassment of women engineers by their male colleagues, as for example in the case of Susan Fowler, the Uber engineer who left the company because of harassment and a discriminatory culture. I quote from the relevant post on her website:
When I reported the situation, I was told by both HR and upper management that even though this was clearly sexual harassment and he was propositioning me, it was this man's first offense, and that they wouldn't feel comfortable giving him anything other than a warning and a stern talking-to.
One HR rep even explicitly told me that it wouldn't be retaliation if I received a negative review later because I had been "given an option".
The HR rep began the meeting by asking me if I had noticed that I was the common theme in all of the reports I had been making, and that if I had ever considered that I might be the problem.
Less than a week after this absurd meeting, my manager scheduled a 1:1 with me, and told me we needed to have a difficult conversation. He told me I was on very thin ice for reporting his manager to HR. California is an at-will employment state, he said, which means we can fire you if you ever do this again.
etc etc.
https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2017/2/19/reflecting-on-on...
> Employers are required to have certain policies
there are no anti discrimination policies required by the NRLB. you're probably thinking of the EEOC.
> the NLRB can conveniently "defer" to them when they are effectively supporting the NLRB's power
what power are you talking about?
there are no anti discrimination policies required by the NRLB. you're probably thinking of the EEOC.
> the NLRB can conveniently "defer" to them when they are effectively supporting the NLRB's power
what power are you talking about?
> There's a case history in the Advice Memo. They didn't make this up just for Google.
There is indeed a case history, and it is very informative with regards to, as you put it, the Board's deference to employers. The Advice memo states "Where an employee's conduct significantly disrupts work processes, creates a hostile work environment, or constitutes racial or sexual discrimination or harassment, the Board has found it unprotected even if it involves concerted activities regarding working conditions. For example, in /Avondale Industries/, the Board held that the employer lawfully discharged a union activist for insubordination based on her unfounded assertion that her foreman was a Klansman; the employer was justifiably concerned about the disruption her remark would cause in the workplace among her fellow African-American employees."
Said case acknowledges that "Foreman Toledo has numerous tattoos on his body, including a swastika on his forearm"! Nonetheless, the Board found in that case that it was the employee's remark that would cause disruption in the workplace, apparently because she accused her foreman of being a Klansman (which she claims he told a group of employees) instead of a Nazi.
There is indeed a case history, and it is very informative with regards to, as you put it, the Board's deference to employers. The Advice memo states "Where an employee's conduct significantly disrupts work processes, creates a hostile work environment, or constitutes racial or sexual discrimination or harassment, the Board has found it unprotected even if it involves concerted activities regarding working conditions. For example, in /Avondale Industries/, the Board held that the employer lawfully discharged a union activist for insubordination based on her unfounded assertion that her foreman was a Klansman; the employer was justifiably concerned about the disruption her remark would cause in the workplace among her fellow African-American employees."
Said case acknowledges that "Foreman Toledo has numerous tattoos on his body, including a swastika on his forearm"! Nonetheless, the Board found in that case that it was the employee's remark that would cause disruption in the workplace, apparently because she accused her foreman of being a Klansman (which she claims he told a group of employees) instead of a Nazi.
I find it bizarre that you basically concede the ground that it is similar to a thought crime and feel no need to defend your stance that his memo should be classified as "anti-diversity." Or is saying "you can call it a thought crime if you want" authorizing his use of this language, from a position of moral authority?
This amorphous right commenters on this thread seem to think Damore had not to be fired, he didn't have. That's what employment at will means.
You don't even know whether I think his termination was reasonable. All you know is that I believe --- and so does the NLRB in this instance --- he did not enjoy special protections against unreasonable termination.
What I find especially funny about this is that Damore is a conservative, lobbying for more protections for conservatives in the workplace. But employment at will isn't just a conservative value --- it's a signpost conservative value, one of the basic principles on which we organize our market economy. It is, in conservative thought circles, one of the pillars on which American entrepreneurship rests, and a reason that the US excels over Europe in commercial dynamism.
Damore is in this instance a conservative the same way the nihilists in The Big Lebowski were nihilistic. But he gave up his toe! He expected a million dollars!
You don't even know whether I think his termination was reasonable. All you know is that I believe --- and so does the NLRB in this instance --- he did not enjoy special protections against unreasonable termination.
What I find especially funny about this is that Damore is a conservative, lobbying for more protections for conservatives in the workplace. But employment at will isn't just a conservative value --- it's a signpost conservative value, one of the basic principles on which we organize our market economy. It is, in conservative thought circles, one of the pillars on which American entrepreneurship rests, and a reason that the US excels over Europe in commercial dynamism.
Damore is in this instance a conservative the same way the nihilists in The Big Lebowski were nihilistic. But he gave up his toe! He expected a million dollars!
But employment at will isn't just a conservative value --- it's a signpost conservative value, one of the basic principles on which we organize our market economy.
What went on with James Damore has nothing to do with the "good workings" of the employment marketplace. Rather, it's the abuse of at-will employment by groups to push political agendas through coercion.
Damore is in this instance a conservative the same way the nihilists in The Big Lebowski were nihilistic.
Before the precipitating events, James Damore counted himself a "Classical Liberal." From what I can tell, he may have leaned Libertarian. Honestly, if you were in his shoes, would you think you were treated fairly? I think your answer would be that you wouldn't have been in his shoes. You would have advised James Damore to keep his head down and his mouth shut. The necessity of such a stance is a sign that there's some form of at least mild oppression.
Given a chance, would you stick to your nihilist guns and turn down a billion dollars?
What went on with James Damore has nothing to do with the "good workings" of the employment marketplace. Rather, it's the abuse of at-will employment by groups to push political agendas through coercion.
Damore is in this instance a conservative the same way the nihilists in The Big Lebowski were nihilistic.
Before the precipitating events, James Damore counted himself a "Classical Liberal." From what I can tell, he may have leaned Libertarian. Honestly, if you were in his shoes, would you think you were treated fairly? I think your answer would be that you wouldn't have been in his shoes. You would have advised James Damore to keep his head down and his mouth shut. The necessity of such a stance is a sign that there's some form of at least mild oppression.
Given a chance, would you stick to your nihilist guns and turn down a billion dollars?
Damore was fired only after the memo went public. Afterwards, there was no way that Damore could do his job as a Google software engineer. No team would take him: the optics would be terrible.
If you can't do your job, you don't get to keep it.
If you can't do your job, you don't get to keep it.
Rather, it's the abuse of at-will employment by groups to push political agendas through coercion. [...] a sign that there's some form of at least mild oppression.
Never mind funny movie nihilism, a few more iterations in this thread and you'll type yourself into espousing what are starting to sound like some of the core tenets of Marxism. And they say internet forum discussions never changed anyone's position!
Never mind funny movie nihilism, a few more iterations in this thread and you'll type yourself into espousing what are starting to sound like some of the core tenets of Marxism. And they say internet forum discussions never changed anyone's position!
I'm not conceding to be on your "amorphous right," but the amorphous left seems to put words in everyone's mouth. I haven't seen anyone in this thread say that they are certain that Google broke the law in this case - since they are a private organization. What I have seen a lot of is people reframing and mischaracterizing the memo as "anti-diversity," "sexual harassment," "pseudoscience," etc. I don't need to know if you think his termination was reasonable because I'm not arguing that you were. However, you were arguing that he was cloaking hate speech as science - as you stated, "...were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, notwithstanding his effort to cloak his comments with “scientific” references..." This part is very worthy of debate!
He was referring to Damore's supposed right not to be fired as "amorphous".
Thanks - it seems so, but the rest of my comment still applies. Correction noted.
> The only way that even the most ardent opponents of Damore's memo can come to a "discriminatory" and "harassment" interpretation, is to disregard a literal, face-value reading of the memo and impute motivations to him.
Motivation isn't what defines harassment; effect on others is what is relevant to harassment; not only is imputing a motive not necessary to finding harassment in the act of presenting the memo as he did, it isn't relevant to that conclusion.
Motivation isn't what defines harassment; effect on others is what is relevant to harassment; not only is imputing a motive not necessary to finding harassment in the act of presenting the memo as he did, it isn't relevant to that conclusion.
Motivation isn't what defines harassment; effect on others is what is relevant to harassment
So this is why hysterical ideologues have latched onto "harassment." It basically short-circuits due process and the necessity of proof. It also scores huge emotional points. It's the perfect vehicle for moral panics and witch-hunts and mob behaviors. Is it any wonder, then, that it is now exploited for political gain?
So this is why hysterical ideologues have latched onto "harassment." It basically short-circuits due process and the necessity of proof. It also scores huge emotional points. It's the perfect vehicle for moral panics and witch-hunts and mob behaviors. Is it any wonder, then, that it is now exploited for political gain?
> So this is why hysterical ideologues have latched onto "harassment."
Another reason: because the effect you have on other people is hugely relevant in how people come together as a culture or society (or don’t!), and trying to ignore it leads to pathological behavior.
Another reason: because the effect you have on other people is hugely relevant in how people come together as a culture or society (or don’t!), and trying to ignore it leads to pathological behavior.
> It basically short-circuits due process and the necessity of proof.
No, it doesn't. Like many torts (and a few crimes) the things that have to be proven for harassment may not (there are several different patterns that qualify as harassment) include any particular mental state on the part of the alleged harrasser, but it still requires probing the elements of the offense and isn't any differently situated than other civil wrongs when it comes to due process.
No, it doesn't. Like many torts (and a few crimes) the things that have to be proven for harassment may not (there are several different patterns that qualify as harassment) include any particular mental state on the part of the alleged harrasser, but it still requires probing the elements of the offense and isn't any differently situated than other civil wrongs when it comes to due process.
Is there legal backing to your assertion, or is that just your opinion? Clearly that can’t be true either. Otherwise, I can claim that socks and sandals are offending me, and it becomes your problem to modify your attire, not my problem to tolerate it.
I'll correct what I said above; either purpose or effect can be a decisive component of harassment; effect is more commonly used because it is easier to demonstrate, and the chararcterization of Damore’s memo as harassment has consistently been based on the claimed effect of contributing to an “intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment”, not a characterization of purpose.
The regulatory definition is at 29 CFR § 1604.11(a), reading, in relevant part: “(a) Harassment on the basis of sex is a violation of section 703 of title VII. Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when [...] such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.” (Note that while the first sentence refers to harassment on the basis of sex, the second only directly refers to sexual harassment; the same principles, though, are consistently applied to sex/gender-based harassment—and to harassment based on any other characteristic protected against discrimination by Title VII.)
> Otherwise, I can claim that socks and sandals are offending me, and it becomes your problem to modify your attire, not my problem to tolerate it.
That's not the case because the standard applied for job as tile environment harassment is a hybrid objective/subjective standard in which it must be shown both that the victim was actually offended and that a reasonable person in their position would be offended.
The regulatory definition is at 29 CFR § 1604.11(a), reading, in relevant part: “(a) Harassment on the basis of sex is a violation of section 703 of title VII. Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when [...] such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.” (Note that while the first sentence refers to harassment on the basis of sex, the second only directly refers to sexual harassment; the same principles, though, are consistently applied to sex/gender-based harassment—and to harassment based on any other characteristic protected against discrimination by Title VII.)
> Otherwise, I can claim that socks and sandals are offending me, and it becomes your problem to modify your attire, not my problem to tolerate it.
That's not the case because the standard applied for job as tile environment harassment is a hybrid objective/subjective standard in which it must be shown both that the victim was actually offended and that a reasonable person in their position would be offended.
Yes plenty of case law precedent for this
> How is that not "thought-crime?"
Given that there's nothing criminal in any of the allegations, I don't see how _crime_ is even applicable in your label.
Maybe a better question might be how is that not "thought-firing?"
Your questions and concerns would be alarming and frightening to me if Damore had received a criminal indictment. He didn't, so I'm much less concerned about the case.
Given that there's nothing criminal in any of the allegations, I don't see how _crime_ is even applicable in your label.
Maybe a better question might be how is that not "thought-firing?"
Your questions and concerns would be alarming and frightening to me if Damore had received a criminal indictment. He didn't, so I'm much less concerned about the case.
> Maybe a better question might be how is that not "thought-firing?"
thought firings are legitimate in the united states. under at will employment, you can be fired for almost anything (except a few specific things).
if you like cats better than dogs, you can be fired for that in the united states.
thought firings are legitimate in the united states. under at will employment, you can be fired for almost anything (except a few specific things).
if you like cats better than dogs, you can be fired for that in the united states.
Your questions and concerns would be alarming and frightening to me if Damore had received a criminal indictment. He didn't, so I'm much less concerned about the case.
That's the old canard about how, "it isn't the government." Google isn't the government, but they have incredibly broad power over modern media. Speech isn't free if it becomes open season on you by powerful entities for exercising it. The fact that Google and YouTube are such extreme ideological echo chambers calls to question their stewardship of so much power in our society.
That's the old canard about how, "it isn't the government." Google isn't the government, but they have incredibly broad power over modern media. Speech isn't free if it becomes open season on you by powerful entities for exercising it. The fact that Google and YouTube are such extreme ideological echo chambers calls to question their stewardship of so much power in our society.
Google (at least in this case) wasn't acting in their capacity as a power-broker over wider internet speech and discourse.
They were acting in their capacity as an employer. Their power over society as an employer is much more limited and doesn't concern me.
If you want to have a conversation over whether twitter and Google as companies have enough power that their actions should be judged in a 1A context that's fine. We can have that conversation. But it's not the one that's being had in this thread or this discussion.
They were acting in their capacity as an employer. Their power over society as an employer is much more limited and doesn't concern me.
If you want to have a conversation over whether twitter and Google as companies have enough power that their actions should be judged in a 1A context that's fine. We can have that conversation. But it's not the one that's being had in this thread or this discussion.
The fact that so many of Google's employees could demonstrate the degree of ideological hysteria which they demonstrated greatly concerns me, and has a direct bearing on the 1A context.
What 1A context? 1A says absolutely nothing whatsoever about your right to work for Google, or for Hobby Lobby.
It does not, because there's no 1A issue as the first amendment does not grant you any protections from your employer.
Now, as I said before, if you want to have a discussion about whether Twitter and Google and other modern media companies should have some 1A responsibilities in their role as gatekeepers to online speech, that's a discussion that's entirely separate† from Twitter and Google's responsibilities to their employees.
†I would still argue that, despite their relative power over online discussions, Twitter and Google as private entities are not bound by the first amendment in any capacity—nor should they be.
Privates entities aren't required to provide you a soapbox.
Now, as I said before, if you want to have a discussion about whether Twitter and Google and other modern media companies should have some 1A responsibilities in their role as gatekeepers to online speech, that's a discussion that's entirely separate† from Twitter and Google's responsibilities to their employees.
†I would still argue that, despite their relative power over online discussions, Twitter and Google as private entities are not bound by the first amendment in any capacity—nor should they be.
Privates entities aren't required to provide you a soapbox.
It does not, because there's no 1A issue as the first amendment does not grant you any protections from your employer.
I was clearly referring to the greater issue with regards to Google's general power in our culture and what the attitude within Google which was revealed in this event might mean. Not only did you state that you did not want to have that discussion, but then you just tried to shove words in my mouth as if I were trying to have your different discussion and advocating an unsupportable point.
Privates entities aren't required to provide you a soapbox.
Private entities shouldn't be allowed to knock down everyone else's soapbox, which is precisely what Google's market power allows them to more or less do.
I was clearly referring to the greater issue with regards to Google's general power in our culture and what the attitude within Google which was revealed in this event might mean. Not only did you state that you did not want to have that discussion, but then you just tried to shove words in my mouth as if I were trying to have your different discussion and advocating an unsupportable point.
Privates entities aren't required to provide you a soapbox.
Private entities shouldn't be allowed to knock down everyone else's soapbox, which is precisely what Google's market power allows them to more or less do.
Then aren't you confusing your argument (and your readers) by referring to the First Amendment, which has literally no bearing on this situation?
> The fact that Google and YouTube are such extreme ideological echo chambers calls to question their stewardship of so much power in our society
Ridiculous nonsense.
Google and YouTube happily allow conservative, alt-right, fringe-right, pretty much any content on their platform. Fox News, Breitbart, Alex Jones, Milo etc all have channels on YouTube.
And there is zero evidence that Google is deliberately prioritising "left wing" content over other types.
Ridiculous nonsense.
Google and YouTube happily allow conservative, alt-right, fringe-right, pretty much any content on their platform. Fox News, Breitbart, Alex Jones, Milo etc all have channels on YouTube.
And there is zero evidence that Google is deliberately prioritising "left wing" content over other types.
>> You will fall in line, and you don't even dare sound like you're secretly against us. How is that not "thought-crime?"
Well, to begin with because nobody said it's a crime, rather a valid reason for his employment to fire him.
Second, "thought-crime" refers to the rules of a society with a certain type of government (an imaginary one, in Orwell's book). Google is not a society, it's a private company and you can't really think of its internal rules as defining crime, or being laws etc.
Well, to begin with because nobody said it's a crime, rather a valid reason for his employment to fire him.
Second, "thought-crime" refers to the rules of a society with a certain type of government (an imaginary one, in Orwell's book). Google is not a society, it's a private company and you can't really think of its internal rules as defining crime, or being laws etc.
Second, "thought-crime" refers to the rules of a society with a certain type of government (an imaginary one, in Orwell's book)
You know full well that it has come to mean a certain form of deliberately suppressing dissent through coercive means.
Google is not a society, it's a private company and you can't really think of its internal rules as defining crime, or being laws etc.
But our society is a society. Apparently, Google is full of ideologues who I wouldn't expect to have any qualms about unnerving forms of social engineering society, to make it fit their particular political agenda.
You know full well that it has come to mean a certain form of deliberately suppressing dissent through coercive means.
Google is not a society, it's a private company and you can't really think of its internal rules as defining crime, or being laws etc.
But our society is a society. Apparently, Google is full of ideologues who I wouldn't expect to have any qualms about unnerving forms of social engineering society, to make it fit their particular political agenda.
It doesn't matter not because the NLRB is settling the science for itself, but because the NLRB doesn't want to intervene in cases where employers enforce anti-harassment policies. There's a case history about this, cited in the memo.
Remember, the presumption at law is that Google has the right to fire employees for virtually no reason (conservatives should find this congenial). Damore was attempting to avail himself of an exception to that rule.
Remember, the presumption at law is that Google has the right to fire employees for virtually no reason (conservatives should find this congenial). Damore was attempting to avail himself of an exception to that rule.
You're right, the NLRB isn't settling the science. It's saying that discussion of the science renders otherwise protected speech unprotected ("so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be
unprotected"), and effectively removing workers' legal right to engage in science-based discussion of whether a 50/50 gender ratio is the appropriate goal.
Damore has basically 3 points in his memo, in increasing order of disputability:
1) Conservatives are discriminated against at Google, which is a problem for working conditions
2) Google pushes an aggressive voluntary affirmative action policy which aims to hire women and underrepresented minorities at rates much higher than they appear in the relevant sector of the workforce, and the way this is pushed internally is a problem for working conditions
3) The reason women are underrepresented in the tech job market is biology
Notice that 3) has nothing to do with working conditions, it's just an elaboration on why 2) upsets Damore so much; it could have been left out and he would have been covered under the exemption, while still making his point about working conditions and hiring policies.
People within Google are totally free to disagree about whether a 50/50 gender ratio is an appropriate goal, and they are protected under this law as far as protesting those goals as they relate to working conditions. But the ruling says that the specific arguments you bring into play may still be in violation of company policy, and such arguments are not automatically protected by virtue of being connected to a working conditions complaint. Especially when they could be construed as hurting a company's ability to abide by laws regarding hostile work environments.
There's probably room for disagreement about the correct interpretation of the law, but I don't see it as a matter of removing the right to discuss freely, it's merely a tight technical interpretation of where the at-will exemption ends.
1) Conservatives are discriminated against at Google, which is a problem for working conditions
2) Google pushes an aggressive voluntary affirmative action policy which aims to hire women and underrepresented minorities at rates much higher than they appear in the relevant sector of the workforce, and the way this is pushed internally is a problem for working conditions
3) The reason women are underrepresented in the tech job market is biology
Notice that 3) has nothing to do with working conditions, it's just an elaboration on why 2) upsets Damore so much; it could have been left out and he would have been covered under the exemption, while still making his point about working conditions and hiring policies.
People within Google are totally free to disagree about whether a 50/50 gender ratio is an appropriate goal, and they are protected under this law as far as protesting those goals as they relate to working conditions. But the ruling says that the specific arguments you bring into play may still be in violation of company policy, and such arguments are not automatically protected by virtue of being connected to a working conditions complaint. Especially when they could be construed as hurting a company's ability to abide by laws regarding hostile work environments.
There's probably room for disagreement about the correct interpretation of the law, but I don't see it as a matter of removing the right to discuss freely, it's merely a tight technical interpretation of where the at-will exemption ends.
Why do you separate 2 and 3? Point 3 is Damore's detailed criticism of point 2. He's arguing (clumsily) that the goals of the policies in point 2 conflict with certain scientific research.
Because in the course of making point 3, he violated Google's anti-harassment policies, and the NLRB defers to companies as to the reasonableness of their anti-harassment policies, because a different federal law that NLRB does not manage requires companies to have anti-harassment policies.
If he'd been arguing for better office furniture and Google claimed to fire him over violations of an anti-harassment policy, the NLRB would almost certainly not defer to Google. But he wasn't arguing for better office furniture; he was arguing about biological differences between men and women and how they might impact the distribution of male and female engineers at Google.
If he'd been arguing for better office furniture and Google claimed to fire him over violations of an anti-harassment policy, the NLRB would almost certainly not defer to Google. But he wasn't arguing for better office furniture; he was arguing about biological differences between men and women and how they might impact the distribution of male and female engineers at Google.
he violated Google's anti-harassment policies
For just asking a question? If even entertaining a thought with regards to science, if it doesn't "seem nice" through some narrow ideological lens, has become a crime, then we're already at the level of Lysenkoism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
he was arguing about biological differences between men and women and how they might impact the distribution of male and female engineers at Google.
And why in the world should that be a "thought crime?" There are biological differences that make the population of Asian NBA pros much smaller than otherwise, and the population of high level Kenyan marathon competitors higher than otherwise.
For just asking a question? If even entertaining a thought with regards to science, if it doesn't "seem nice" through some narrow ideological lens, has become a crime, then we're already at the level of Lysenkoism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
he was arguing about biological differences between men and women and how they might impact the distribution of male and female engineers at Google.
And why in the world should that be a "thought crime?" There are biological differences that make the population of Asian NBA pros much smaller than otherwise, and the population of high level Kenyan marathon competitors higher than otherwise.
Keep in mind that this ruling doesn't say it's a crime. It merely says, it's not covered by an exemption to the at-will employment rules that let a company fire you for any reason.
If my boss doesn't like the fact that I put horseradish on my nachos, they can fire me for that. It's only exceptional cases where I'm protected from arbitrary and nasty and capricious actions.
Also, put horseradish on your nachos, it's a good thing.
If my boss doesn't like the fact that I put horseradish on my nachos, they can fire me for that. It's only exceptional cases where I'm protected from arbitrary and nasty and capricious actions.
Also, put horseradish on your nachos, it's a good thing.
Also, put horseradish on your nachos, it's a good thing.
Ew, jordan! (jk. I love horseradish with almost anything with beef in it.)
Ew, jordan! (jk. I love horseradish with almost anything with beef in it.)
>There are biological differences that make the population of Asian NBA pros much smaller than otherwise, and the population of high level Kenyan marathon competitors higher than otherwise.
Those are great examples because nobody is totally sure of those things either.
Those are great examples because nobody is totally sure of those things either.
Those are great examples because nobody is totally sure of those things either.
As an Asian man let me say this: Stop pandering! It's quite obvious that height is a huge advantage in the NBA. (Also note that biological differences are not necessarily genetic, because I have a guess that you are going to cite diet next.)
As an Asian man let me say this: Stop pandering! It's quite obvious that height is a huge advantage in the NBA. (Also note that biological differences are not necessarily genetic, because I have a guess that you are going to cite diet next.)
[deleted]
I have sympathy for what you're saying here; I think it would be a totally valid interpretation of the law to say that point 3), however clumsy it may have been, was made in support of point 2), and therefore under protection.
But the way this played out, the board ruled the other way, and I think this is a clear warning to future employees seeking protection under this rule: the NLRB will interpret things as tightly as possible, and be very deferential to employer's internal policies even if they hinder the ability to back up a labor conditions complaint with arguments.
Whether that's okay or not is a political fight, and I see how there's a slippery slope here that could theoretically be used to squash many legitimate labor complaints - if a company imposed rules against making people feel politically uncomfortable, would they be able to fire people for wanting to unionize and backing that up with political arguments that might offend capitalists? I'd be surprised if the board didn't act in that case.
But let's be honest. Damore was trying to score a backdoor win through a legal exception that pretty clearly was not in spirit carved out to protect people in situations like his. That's why I also expect him to fail in any CA civil suit, though I'm less certain about that one, political views are more protected in CA than elsewhere.
Just to be clear, I'm not personally in favor of Damore's firing over this memo, it sounds like Google tends to encourage vigorous internal debate about this sort of thing except when it goes public (as witnessed by the inaction until the memo was leaked and the outcry began). Despite his poor sense of what the response would be, I think he was engaging in good-faith argument, at first, at least, pre-Goolag and that nonsense. From what I hear, people on the left are pretty offensive and vitriolic on internal boards at Google without being disciplined [0], so I'd have loved to see management manage the situation and internally broker some peace between the offended parties rather than turn the thing into a classic alt-right recruiting talk-point by firing him. But I'm very much in favor of a company's right to fire anyone, for almost any reason, and I'm glad that was not interfered with here.
[0] Edit: from the memorandum, a Google employee was reprimanded for responding harshly to Damore over email: '“You’re a misogynist and a terrible human. I will keep hounding you until one of us is fired. F[*] you.” The employee was issued a final warning for sending this email. '
But the way this played out, the board ruled the other way, and I think this is a clear warning to future employees seeking protection under this rule: the NLRB will interpret things as tightly as possible, and be very deferential to employer's internal policies even if they hinder the ability to back up a labor conditions complaint with arguments.
Whether that's okay or not is a political fight, and I see how there's a slippery slope here that could theoretically be used to squash many legitimate labor complaints - if a company imposed rules against making people feel politically uncomfortable, would they be able to fire people for wanting to unionize and backing that up with political arguments that might offend capitalists? I'd be surprised if the board didn't act in that case.
But let's be honest. Damore was trying to score a backdoor win through a legal exception that pretty clearly was not in spirit carved out to protect people in situations like his. That's why I also expect him to fail in any CA civil suit, though I'm less certain about that one, political views are more protected in CA than elsewhere.
Just to be clear, I'm not personally in favor of Damore's firing over this memo, it sounds like Google tends to encourage vigorous internal debate about this sort of thing except when it goes public (as witnessed by the inaction until the memo was leaked and the outcry began). Despite his poor sense of what the response would be, I think he was engaging in good-faith argument, at first, at least, pre-Goolag and that nonsense. From what I hear, people on the left are pretty offensive and vitriolic on internal boards at Google without being disciplined [0], so I'd have loved to see management manage the situation and internally broker some peace between the offended parties rather than turn the thing into a classic alt-right recruiting talk-point by firing him. But I'm very much in favor of a company's right to fire anyone, for almost any reason, and I'm glad that was not interfered with here.
[0] Edit: from the memorandum, a Google employee was reprimanded for responding harshly to Damore over email: '“You’re a misogynist and a terrible human. I will keep hounding you until one of us is fired. F[*] you.” The employee was issued a final warning for sending this email. '
But the ruling says that the specific arguments you bring into play may still be in violation of company policy, and such arguments are not automatically protected by virtue of being connected to a working conditions complaint.
In effect, the ruling ratifies a particular squishy, ideological interpretation of science.
In effect, the ruling ratifies a particular squishy, ideological interpretation of science.
Actually, it flags Damore's interpretation of science as squishy and ideological. Which, let's be fair, it totally is, because he's no scientist and he has a very limited understanding of the sources he quotes in support of his views.
Scientific debate doesn't take place in Google forums through Google memos, any more than it happens in HN comments, so what was Damore's point of providing references to back his position, other than a misguided attempt to appear "scientifick"?
Scientific debate doesn't take place in Google forums through Google memos, any more than it happens in HN comments, so what was Damore's point of providing references to back his position, other than a misguided attempt to appear "scientifick"?
Actually, it flags Damore's interpretation of science as squishy and ideological.
The 55-country study he cited has effectively one of the highest P-values in social science of recent years. It's widely considered in psychology to be an important result. Denying this is basically parroting intellectual dishonesty on the level of Global Warming denialism. The Big-5 personality traits he cited are the strongest results in psychology outside of the effect of General Intelligence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKmyO3hbOz8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Ge...
The NLRB is basically saying that it's now open season on anyone who cites scientific studies, based on whether anyone on the internet finds it offensive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGSQWajPxH8
The 55-country study he cited has effectively one of the highest P-values in social science of recent years. It's widely considered in psychology to be an important result. Denying this is basically parroting intellectual dishonesty on the level of Global Warming denialism. The Big-5 personality traits he cited are the strongest results in psychology outside of the effect of General Intelligence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKmyO3hbOz8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Ge...
The NLRB is basically saying that it's now open season on anyone who cites scientific studies, based on whether anyone on the internet finds it offensive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGSQWajPxH8
>> The 55-country study he cited has effectively one of the highest P-values in
social science of recent years. It's widely considered in psychology to be an
important result. Denying this is basically parroting intellectual dishonesty
on the level of Global Warming denialism.
Of course it is not and I take umbrage at the offensive undertone of your comment ("parroting"? Really?). Psychology is not climate science, it's currently going through a widely publicised reproducibility crisis and in any case, the reliance on p-values has been criticised widely by experts in fields as varied as economics, medicine and of course the humanities. The big-5 model itself has been the subject of much criticism, from inside the field (and the wikipedia article you reference has a big section devoted to that criticism).
More improtantly however, Damore did a lot more than name-drop the big-5 in his memo. The memo is peppered with references to sources from varied fields, from psychology and sociology, to biology, evolutionary psychology, anthropology, economics, statistics and so on.
The problem of course is that Damore is not an expert in any of those fields- much less an expert in all of them. Which tells us that, most of the time, when he says that some paper he's referencing is backing his views, he simply hasn't got a clue what he's talking about and the paper may very well be claiming exactly the opposite than what Damore is saying.
Damore's memo is indulging in cargo-cult science. He references stuff he half-understands in the hopes to do what scientists do. Except he doesn't even understand what scientists do and why they reference others' work: which is to say, not to win a debate and show you're right on the internets, but to contribute new knowledge by building on the knowledge already contributed by others.
To have any respect for science and consider Damore's memo anything else than pseudo-scientific claptrap is a contradiction. To call that garbage "science" is offensive to the work of scientists. That is an even bigger reason to be angry at an idiot like that, without even going to what he was trying to say with his "sai-ent-tifickal" way.
Of course it is not and I take umbrage at the offensive undertone of your comment ("parroting"? Really?). Psychology is not climate science, it's currently going through a widely publicised reproducibility crisis and in any case, the reliance on p-values has been criticised widely by experts in fields as varied as economics, medicine and of course the humanities. The big-5 model itself has been the subject of much criticism, from inside the field (and the wikipedia article you reference has a big section devoted to that criticism).
More improtantly however, Damore did a lot more than name-drop the big-5 in his memo. The memo is peppered with references to sources from varied fields, from psychology and sociology, to biology, evolutionary psychology, anthropology, economics, statistics and so on.
The problem of course is that Damore is not an expert in any of those fields- much less an expert in all of them. Which tells us that, most of the time, when he says that some paper he's referencing is backing his views, he simply hasn't got a clue what he's talking about and the paper may very well be claiming exactly the opposite than what Damore is saying.
Damore's memo is indulging in cargo-cult science. He references stuff he half-understands in the hopes to do what scientists do. Except he doesn't even understand what scientists do and why they reference others' work: which is to say, not to win a debate and show you're right on the internets, but to contribute new knowledge by building on the knowledge already contributed by others.
To have any respect for science and consider Damore's memo anything else than pseudo-scientific claptrap is a contradiction. To call that garbage "science" is offensive to the work of scientists. That is an even bigger reason to be angry at an idiot like that, without even going to what he was trying to say with his "sai-ent-tifickal" way.
Of course it is not and I take umbrage at the offensive undertone of your comment ("parroting"? Really?). Psychology is not climate science, it's currently going through a widely publicised reproducibility crisis and in any case, the reliance on p-values has been criticised widely by experts in fields as varied as economics, medicine and of course the humanities. The big-5 model itself has been the subject of much criticism, from inside the field (and the wikipedia article you reference has a big section devoted to that criticism).
So you're admitting that James Damore is referencing legitimate scientific sources. It's just that you're claiming the whole field isn't valid. Then you go on to make unsubstantiated claims that his interpretations are wrong, but you produce no specifics. That sounds a lot like what climate science deniers do.
So you're admitting that James Damore is referencing legitimate scientific sources. It's just that you're claiming the whole field isn't valid. Then you go on to make unsubstantiated claims that his interpretations are wrong, but you produce no specifics. That sounds a lot like what climate science deniers do.
It's open season on everyone in virtually every American workplace. Why won't you acknowledge this? You're a reasonable guy. We've had dinner together!
What's happening here isn't a shift. What you're demanding is a new special protection for "people who can defend their position scientifically".
What's happening here isn't a shift. What you're demanding is a new special protection for "people who can defend their position scientifically".
It's open season on everyone in virtually every American workplace. Why won't you acknowledge this?
Oh, but I do acknowledge this. I would like to call attention to it. I thank you for your support.
What's happening here isn't a shift.
In the old days, one could cite such studies. The reactions and the consequences are indeed a shift in society. An outrageously authoritarian shift.
What you're demanding is a new special protection for "people who can defend their position scientifically".
Funny, but the NLRB was once a new special protection. The witch-hunts back then had took a different direction. I would grant that your interpretation of what's been discussed and apparently needed as a special protection. It does seem to me that our current society apparently needs special protection for things that used to be ok and which are still vital to the workings of our democratic society. Things like:
Peacefully donating to political PACs.
Peacefully having a mainstream political opinion. (Like being a Republican or a Libertarian)
Civilly stating an opinion.
Peacefully gathering to express political views.
At-will employment is now being used as a political tool against the category of people who are "Classical Liberals" and everyone to the right of that. It is different yet very similar in many regards to at-will employment being used against labor organizers in decades past.
Oh, but I do acknowledge this. I would like to call attention to it. I thank you for your support.
What's happening here isn't a shift.
In the old days, one could cite such studies. The reactions and the consequences are indeed a shift in society. An outrageously authoritarian shift.
What you're demanding is a new special protection for "people who can defend their position scientifically".
Funny, but the NLRB was once a new special protection. The witch-hunts back then had took a different direction. I would grant that your interpretation of what's been discussed and apparently needed as a special protection. It does seem to me that our current society apparently needs special protection for things that used to be ok and which are still vital to the workings of our democratic society. Things like:
Peacefully donating to political PACs.
Peacefully having a mainstream political opinion. (Like being a Republican or a Libertarian)
Civilly stating an opinion.
Peacefully gathering to express political views.
At-will employment is now being used as a political tool against the category of people who are "Classical Liberals" and everyone to the right of that. It is different yet very similar in many regards to at-will employment being used against labor organizers in decades past.
Same could be said of internal trainings that reference, e.g writings about implicit bias.
> In effect, the ruling ratifies a particular squishy, ideological interpretation of science.
No, it just says that you can't wave a “labor organizing” flag to immunize yourself for consequences of violation of your employers facially-reasonable anti-harassment policy, thereby avoiding a situation in which employers could be put in the position of having to choose between violating the NLRA and violating the Civil Rights Act.
No, it just says that you can't wave a “labor organizing” flag to immunize yourself for consequences of violation of your employers facially-reasonable anti-harassment policy, thereby avoiding a situation in which employers could be put in the position of having to choose between violating the NLRA and violating the Civil Rights Act.
You don't have a legal right to engage in science-based discussion of anything at your workplace!
Damore's claim is subtly different. He relies on the fact that you do, under the NLRA, have the right to organize to change workplace conditions. But your right to do that is enforceable only through the NLRB, is an exception to at-will employment, and is trumped by federal and state EEO laws. When employee organizing conflicts with employer legal compliance, the employer's low burden to justify a termination is even lower.
Damore's claim is subtly different. He relies on the fact that you do, under the NLRA, have the right to organize to change workplace conditions. But your right to do that is enforceable only through the NLRB, is an exception to at-will employment, and is trumped by federal and state EEO laws. When employee organizing conflicts with employer legal compliance, the employer's low burden to justify a termination is even lower.
> You don't have a legal right to engage in science-based discussion of anything at your workplace!
This is the point that I think most people aren't getting. It seems like people are starting from the position that one should be able to have free and open conversations in the workplace. That a company shouldn't be able to fire an employee for dissent.
But this is _absolutely_ not the case with at will employment. If you say just about _anything_ in the workplace (or not at the workplace!) that your employer doesn't like they can terminate you.
I think the quoted sentence is the key to understanding this all. Your 1A rights only protect you from the government. Your employer may not—and does not have to—tolerate a "marketplace of ideas"
This is the point that I think most people aren't getting. It seems like people are starting from the position that one should be able to have free and open conversations in the workplace. That a company shouldn't be able to fire an employee for dissent.
But this is _absolutely_ not the case with at will employment. If you say just about _anything_ in the workplace (or not at the workplace!) that your employer doesn't like they can terminate you.
I think the quoted sentence is the key to understanding this all. Your 1A rights only protect you from the government. Your employer may not—and does not have to—tolerate a "marketplace of ideas"
This is probably worth repeating:
According to the NLRB, the National Labor Relations Act grants workers the legal right to discuss work-related issues with each other.
https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/employee-rights
This comes from Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act: "Employees shall have the right to...engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection."
In this specific case, the Advice Memo refers to protection for "expressing a dissenting view on matters affecting working conditions or offering critical feedback of its policies and programs".
According to the NLRB, the National Labor Relations Act grants workers the legal right to discuss work-related issues with each other.
https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/employee-rights
This comes from Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act: "Employees shall have the right to...engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection."
In this specific case, the Advice Memo refers to protection for "expressing a dissenting view on matters affecting working conditions or offering critical feedback of its policies and programs".
Yes, and the specific details of this case are not protected by the NLRA. Also according to the NLRB.
Yes, we all agree that's what the NLRB said. We're discussing how they came to this conclusion.
The lawyer who wrote this memo argued that Damore's statements would normally be deserving of protection, if they weren't so offensive.
The lawyer who wrote this memo argued that Damore's statements would normally be deserving of protection, if they weren't so offensive.
They didn't say that. The lawyer who wrote this memo argued that Google had wide latitude in determining what qualified as sexual-harassment.
They had a policy that pre-dated this incident such that those statements qualified. The NLRB didn't determine that the statements were offensive. They determined that Google was operating in a reasonable manner when Google decided that those statements were offensive.
They had a policy that pre-dated this incident such that those statements qualified. The NLRB didn't determine that the statements were offensive. They determined that Google was operating in a reasonable manner when Google decided that those statements were offensive.
> The lawyer who wrote this memo argued that Damore's statements would normally be deserving of protection, if they weren't so offensive.
Incorrect; the memo assumed (did not conclude) [0] that Damore’s memo was entirely within the protected purpose, and concluded that even given that assumption, the particular elements within it, for which Google claimed to have fired him, were within the bounds of what Google could fire him for, given their legitimate, pre-existing policy.
A legal decision memo (or a court decision) will often assume a point not because it finds it well supported, but because a dispositive answer to the legal question can be reached without resolving the point on which the assumption is made, and courts and lawyers often prefer to avoid resolving subissues that are unnecessary to resolve in order to resolve the actual question they are posed with.
So it did not argue that Damore’s memo would have been protected but for the identified problematic elements.
[0] key language: “Assuming, arguendo, that the Charging Party’s conduct was concerted and for mutual aid and protection, [...]” (p.3)
Incorrect; the memo assumed (did not conclude) [0] that Damore’s memo was entirely within the protected purpose, and concluded that even given that assumption, the particular elements within it, for which Google claimed to have fired him, were within the bounds of what Google could fire him for, given their legitimate, pre-existing policy.
A legal decision memo (or a court decision) will often assume a point not because it finds it well supported, but because a dispositive answer to the legal question can be reached without resolving the point on which the assumption is made, and courts and lawyers often prefer to avoid resolving subissues that are unnecessary to resolve in order to resolve the actual question they are posed with.
So it did not argue that Damore’s memo would have been protected but for the identified problematic elements.
[0] key language: “Assuming, arguendo, that the Charging Party’s conduct was concerted and for mutual aid and protection, [...]” (p.3)
The Advice Memo clearly implies skepticism at Damore's intent and the sources own which he relied. It sets the precedent for successful EEO claims against any venue where the content contravenes similar social justice based codes of conduct and employment agreements.
Damore's top line argument was that these diversity programs are causing reverse discrimination, workplace hostility, and monoculture. The rest of what he wrote was descriptive and prescriptive. And bear in mind, EEOC also has a mandate to protect employees who file their concerns over discrimination. I believe the active class action discrimination lawsuit against Google could be a stepping stone to break up this kind of EEOC precedent.
Damore's top line argument was that these diversity programs are causing reverse discrimination, workplace hostility, and monoculture. The rest of what he wrote was descriptive and prescriptive. And bear in mind, EEOC also has a mandate to protect employees who file their concerns over discrimination. I believe the active class action discrimination lawsuit against Google could be a stepping stone to break up this kind of EEOC precedent.
And I may be reading a bit too much into the "ruling", but I expect that their decision would have held even if employees did have a right to engage in "science based discussion" as GP posits. That's why they cite the Honda ruling. Essentially even if the content is not a-priori problematic, the way it is presented was.
Once again I'm not positing a right to "science-based discussion".
I'm saying the right to discuss workplace issues, granted by the NLRA, should include science-based discussion of these issues.
I'm saying the right to discuss workplace issues, granted by the NLRA, should include science-based discussion of these issues.
It does. So far, about 4 people have explained this across many threads, and you still don't seem to acknowledge it.
Edit because rate limited:
The problem is not what was said, necessarily, but the way in which it was said. Hence citing the Honda ruling.
This is at least my, not-a-lawyer interpretation. That is, just because you are saying something to discuss workplace issues does not give you the right to say literally anything. Sufficiently disruptive discussion of workplace issues is still disruptive enough to merit a response, not because of the content, but because it is disruptive.
Apparently the NLRB draws the line for sufficiently disruptive somewhere before "results in the demonstrated loss of multiple perspective candidates".
Edit because rate limited:
The problem is not what was said, necessarily, but the way in which it was said. Hence citing the Honda ruling.
This is at least my, not-a-lawyer interpretation. That is, just because you are saying something to discuss workplace issues does not give you the right to say literally anything. Sufficiently disruptive discussion of workplace issues is still disruptive enough to merit a response, not because of the content, but because it is disruptive.
Apparently the NLRB draws the line for sufficiently disruptive somewhere before "results in the demonstrated loss of multiple perspective candidates".
Several people have claimed that. I dispute that claim because that's not what I see in the memo.
> the statements regarding biological differences between the sexes were so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be unprotected.
Notice the reason the NLRB gave in this statement for why they are unprotected: not because they are unrelated to the discussion of workplace issues, but because they are offensive.
> the statements regarding biological differences between the sexes were so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be unprotected.
Notice the reason the NLRB gave in this statement for why they are unprotected: not because they are unrelated to the discussion of workplace issues, but because they are offensive.
> Several people have claimed that. I dispute that claim because that's not what I see in the memo.
It matters little what you see in the memo. Google and the NLRB saw enough to terminate his employment, and to uphold that termination. This is generally how at-will employment works.
It matters little what you see in the memo. Google and the NLRB saw enough to terminate his employment, and to uphold that termination. This is generally how at-will employment works.
If we have a legal right to discuss something at work, we should also have a legal right to a science-based discussion of that topic.
The Advice Memo seems to agree that discussion of Google's diversity program was protected speech, until it strayed into scientific findings that some people found offensive.
The Advice Memo seems to agree that discussion of Google's diversity program was protected speech, until it strayed into scientific findings that some people found offensive.
I think you're still not getting it. You don't have the legal right to discuss things at work without termination. Blanket federal employment law says that there is a powerful presumption in favor of the employer when terminating employees. They can fire you for what you say. They can fire you for dying your hair the wrong hair color. They don't need a good reason. You need a good reason if you're going to contest a termination.
The NLRB referred to some things employees do have a legal right to discuss without termination:
> expressing a dissenting view on matters affecting working conditions or offering critical feedback of its policies and programs, which were likely protected
Damore's memo was critical feedback about Google's diversity policy. The inclusion of certain controversial scientific findings is perfectly reasonable in this context.
> expressing a dissenting view on matters affecting working conditions or offering critical feedback of its policies and programs, which were likely protected
Damore's memo was critical feedback about Google's diversity policy. The inclusion of certain controversial scientific findings is perfectly reasonable in this context.
The Advice Memo was signed and attributed to a 30-year veteran of the NLRB, and the content of the memo was signed off on by the NLRB's GC, who is a Trump appointee. They disagree with you.
There is no such “legal right” to discuss things in the workplace. Where do you get that from? Maybe there should be one, but there isn’t.
According to the NLRB, the National Labor Relations Act grants workers the legal right to discuss work-related issues with each other.
https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/employee-rights
This comes from Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act: "Employees shall have the right to...engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection."
In this specific case, the Advice Memo refers to protection for "expressing a dissenting view on matters affecting working conditions or offering critical feedback of its policies and programs".
https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/employee-rights
This comes from Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act: "Employees shall have the right to...engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection."
In this specific case, the Advice Memo refers to protection for "expressing a dissenting view on matters affecting working conditions or offering critical feedback of its policies and programs".
Have you considered the reason you keep getting the same response to all of your posts in this thread is perhaps because you keep making the same assertions in slightly different ways?
Calm down dude; we get it. You don't have to post the same comment over and over again to make your point.
You'll have a make more meaningful conversation if you stick to one thread and actually engage rather than just copy/paste your reply.
Calm down dude; we get it. You don't have to post the same comment over and over again to make your point.
You'll have a make more meaningful conversation if you stick to one thread and actually engage rather than just copy/paste your reply.
When more than one person makes the same provably false claim, such as "There is no such “legal right” to discuss things in the workplace", isn't it worth correcting more than once?
Unfortunately posting more or less the same comment in many threads just makes other people do exactly the same thing in frustration and destroys the entire comment thread with copy-paste wars.
It's bad forum etiquette everywhere, not just on HN, and it ruins the conversation for everyone.
> When more than one person makes the same provably false claim
/shrug
Right or wrong regarding the content, you're not a one-person-army out there to single handedly defeat all the wrong-doers on HN.
If you're just here to tell people they're flat out wrong, rather than actually have a conversation, you're just spamming the thread.
It's bad forum etiquette everywhere, not just on HN, and it ruins the conversation for everyone.
> When more than one person makes the same provably false claim
/shrug
Right or wrong regarding the content, you're not a one-person-army out there to single handedly defeat all the wrong-doers on HN.
If you're just here to tell people they're flat out wrong, rather than actually have a conversation, you're just spamming the thread.
I think that it's helpful to provide accurate information.
And that a conversation inspired by false statements should be derailed before it strays even further into fantasyland.
And that a conversation inspired by false statements should be derailed before it strays even further into fantasyland.
> You're right, the NLRB isn't settling the science. It's saying that discussion of the science renders otherwise protected speech unprotected
No, its saying that the specific manner in which Damore discussed the matter, in the context in which he did (including the specific provisions of Google's pre-existing anti-harassment policy), and the actual effects it had in the workplace, meant that even if the purpose of the speech was the kind protected under the NLRA, the actual actions were not.
> and effectively removing workers' legal right to engage in science-based discussion of whether a 50/50 gender ratio is the appropriate goal
While there is a protected right to labor organizing, it is not an unrestricted right to workplace debate over employer policy goals, even before the kind of conflict with unrelated (to labor organizing) policy at issue here. The NLRB memo did not address the question if whether Damore was otherwise within the bounds of protected labor organizing, it merely found that even assuming his speech met the purpose requirements for labor organizing, Google was within it's rights to fire him based on the specific grounds they cited.
No, its saying that the specific manner in which Damore discussed the matter, in the context in which he did (including the specific provisions of Google's pre-existing anti-harassment policy), and the actual effects it had in the workplace, meant that even if the purpose of the speech was the kind protected under the NLRA, the actual actions were not.
> and effectively removing workers' legal right to engage in science-based discussion of whether a 50/50 gender ratio is the appropriate goal
While there is a protected right to labor organizing, it is not an unrestricted right to workplace debate over employer policy goals, even before the kind of conflict with unrelated (to labor organizing) policy at issue here. The NLRB memo did not address the question if whether Damore was otherwise within the bounds of protected labor organizing, it merely found that even assuming his speech met the purpose requirements for labor organizing, Google was within it's rights to fire him based on the specific grounds they cited.
The great fear around this topic. What would be the consequence if it were scientifically proven that men had a slight biological advantage over women in software engineering?
I sense the mob puts a noise layer because the mob has an opinion of what to do in that case that it doesnt want to accept.
I sense the mob puts a noise layer because the mob has an opinion of what to do in that case that it doesnt want to accept.
> What would be the consequence if it were scientifically proven that men had a slight biological advantage over women in software engineering?
They're already hedged against that. They would claim that only means that the software engineering process / profession was designed to cater to masculine traits, and as a result, is sexist. It's yet another tool of the patriarchy.
That software engineering has worked out as it has so far isn't indicative of success because we don't have the alternative profession to compare it to. One that puts more value in diversity, empathy, avoiding conflict, and working cooperatively. If only we valued those things more, men wouldn't have such a leg up.
That's the fun part of these views: they can't ever be proven wrong. There's always another level of underlying oppression for any perceivable sleight.
They're already hedged against that. They would claim that only means that the software engineering process / profession was designed to cater to masculine traits, and as a result, is sexist. It's yet another tool of the patriarchy.
That software engineering has worked out as it has so far isn't indicative of success because we don't have the alternative profession to compare it to. One that puts more value in diversity, empathy, avoiding conflict, and working cooperatively. If only we valued those things more, men wouldn't have such a leg up.
That's the fun part of these views: they can't ever be proven wrong. There's always another level of underlying oppression for any perceivable sleight.
Why is this chilling?
There are many much-less-disputed things which are obviously factually true but which, nonetheless, could put you on the hook for harassment depending on how, why, and how often you say them.
For example, suppose I have a co-worker who is an ardent believer in the cause of the southern states during the US Civil War. It is factually and indisputably true that the southern states lost that war, and were subjected to a humiliating period of military occupation afterward. If I were to, say, constantly bring it up and rub it in my co-worker's face, my co-worker could certainly go to HR and claim I was committing harassment.
There are many much-less-disputed things which are obviously factually true but which, nonetheless, could put you on the hook for harassment depending on how, why, and how often you say them.
For example, suppose I have a co-worker who is an ardent believer in the cause of the southern states during the US Civil War. It is factually and indisputably true that the southern states lost that war, and were subjected to a humiliating period of military occupation afterward. If I were to, say, constantly bring it up and rub it in my co-worker's face, my co-worker could certainly go to HR and claim I was committing harassment.
Why is this chilling?
Because he wasn't actually saying anything particularly bad. Instead, he was terminated on the emotional reaction to what others imputed he was saying. This reveals a breathtaking level of authoritarian ideological adherence within Google.
Because he wasn't actually saying anything particularly bad. Instead, he was terminated on the emotional reaction to what others imputed he was saying. This reveals a breathtaking level of authoritarian ideological adherence within Google.
Because he wasn't actually saying anything particularly bad.
Careful there. What you mean is he wasn't saying anything you personally consider particularly bad. This is not the same thing as "objectively not bad". This is not the same thing as "something no reasonable person could object to".
And jumping from your personal opinion that it wasn't bad straight to "a breathtaking level of authoritarian ideological adherence" is, well, quite a leap.
Finally:
he was terminated on the emotional reaction to what others imputed he was saying
The issue with the original "diversity memo" was that there was absolutely no way to read it with the principle of charity in mind and also end up with the interpretation of it his supporters wanted (in order to support the "he didn't say that" narrative). So much of the "he didn't really say that" boils down to ambiguity in the text, but if we assume he had some purpose in mind that he thought was important, and that he was making what he believed was a rational evidence-based argument, and then try to figure out "what important thing is he arguing in support of here", well, there aren't a lot of possible conclusions to end up at.
Careful there. What you mean is he wasn't saying anything you personally consider particularly bad. This is not the same thing as "objectively not bad". This is not the same thing as "something no reasonable person could object to".
And jumping from your personal opinion that it wasn't bad straight to "a breathtaking level of authoritarian ideological adherence" is, well, quite a leap.
Finally:
he was terminated on the emotional reaction to what others imputed he was saying
The issue with the original "diversity memo" was that there was absolutely no way to read it with the principle of charity in mind and also end up with the interpretation of it his supporters wanted (in order to support the "he didn't say that" narrative). So much of the "he didn't really say that" boils down to ambiguity in the text, but if we assume he had some purpose in mind that he thought was important, and that he was making what he believed was a rational evidence-based argument, and then try to figure out "what important thing is he arguing in support of here", well, there aren't a lot of possible conclusions to end up at.
This is not the same thing as "objectively not bad".
Anything that requires an imputational and emotional interpretation (which can't be supported by particular facts) to be "bad" is "objectively not bad."
if we assume he had some purpose in mind that he thought was important
Here, you're basically admitting that the reading required to support your position is an imputational and emotional interpretation which can't be supported by particular facts.
then try to figure out "what important thing is he arguing in support of here", well, there aren't a lot of possible conclusions to end up at.
There are lots of possible alternative conclusions. Here's one: https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=16398682 (Overwhelming persistent effects of human cultural capital.)
It's entirely possible that a best-effort fair society with perfect equality of opportunity would still result in other than a 50-50 distribution in a given field for any number of complex, ever changing reasons, in much the same way that it would be impossible to have a vast liquid ocean with no waves. Or are you effectively making the questioning the validity of "equality of outcome" a thought-crime in and of itself? There are plenty of reasons to question "equality of outcome" without ever having to invoke the superiority of anyone.
Anything that requires an imputational and emotional interpretation (which can't be supported by particular facts) to be "bad" is "objectively not bad."
if we assume he had some purpose in mind that he thought was important
Here, you're basically admitting that the reading required to support your position is an imputational and emotional interpretation which can't be supported by particular facts.
then try to figure out "what important thing is he arguing in support of here", well, there aren't a lot of possible conclusions to end up at.
There are lots of possible alternative conclusions. Here's one: https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=16398682 (Overwhelming persistent effects of human cultural capital.)
It's entirely possible that a best-effort fair society with perfect equality of opportunity would still result in other than a 50-50 distribution in a given field for any number of complex, ever changing reasons, in much the same way that it would be impossible to have a vast liquid ocean with no waves. Or are you effectively making the questioning the validity of "equality of outcome" a thought-crime in and of itself? There are plenty of reasons to question "equality of outcome" without ever having to invoke the superiority of anyone.
So let's play with this a bit.
We're at a point where we've got actual empirical data showing that in a bunch of other fields of human endeavor which have:
1. Seen a huge observed gender gap, and
2. Comforted themselves with "rational" and "objective" and "scientific" explanations to prove it wasn't their fault, and
3. Eventually been persuaded to try even simple measures to test whether bias on the part of people in that field played a part, it's been discovered that
4. Outcomes drastically changed once those simple measures were adopted, in a way which clearly and beyond reasonable doubt put the lie to the explanations claimed in (2).
To buy Damore's arguments we must either ignore this evidence, or somehow buy into a completely unsupported assumption that computer programming -- for reasons nobody knows -- is completely and utterly unique, and as a result that the solutions used in other fields are inapplicable and off-limits to programming. Even worse: we have to believe that about a field which previously did not have such a huge gap, and acquired it only relatively recently.
To anyone who does a bit of actual research on this stuff, Damore is practically a cliché. He's the person who ends up in the history book under "wow, people actually used to believe that stuff".
Meanwhile, you want to have your knee-jerk reflexes checked, judging by the kinds of catchphrases you immediately jump to when confronted with even mild disagreement.
We're at a point where we've got actual empirical data showing that in a bunch of other fields of human endeavor which have:
1. Seen a huge observed gender gap, and
2. Comforted themselves with "rational" and "objective" and "scientific" explanations to prove it wasn't their fault, and
3. Eventually been persuaded to try even simple measures to test whether bias on the part of people in that field played a part, it's been discovered that
4. Outcomes drastically changed once those simple measures were adopted, in a way which clearly and beyond reasonable doubt put the lie to the explanations claimed in (2).
To buy Damore's arguments we must either ignore this evidence, or somehow buy into a completely unsupported assumption that computer programming -- for reasons nobody knows -- is completely and utterly unique, and as a result that the solutions used in other fields are inapplicable and off-limits to programming. Even worse: we have to believe that about a field which previously did not have such a huge gap, and acquired it only relatively recently.
To anyone who does a bit of actual research on this stuff, Damore is practically a cliché. He's the person who ends up in the history book under "wow, people actually used to believe that stuff".
Meanwhile, you want to have your knee-jerk reflexes checked, judging by the kinds of catchphrases you immediately jump to when confronted with even mild disagreement.
1. Seen a huge observed gender gap
Like the ones favoring women in medicine in some countries? Like nursing?
4. Outcomes drastically changed once those simple measures were adopted, in a way which clearly and beyond reasonable doubt put the lie to the explanations claimed in (2).
But only up to a point. Google and YouTube execs are on the record saying that they basically got to parity with the available candidate pool.
To buy Damore's arguments we must either ignore this evidence, or somehow buy into a completely unsupported assumption that computer programming -- for reasons nobody knows -- is completely and utterly unique
Not at all. We could just suppose there's something skewing the preferences of people in school.
Even worse: we have to believe that about a field which previously did not have such a huge gap, and acquired it only relatively recently.
Actually, for a time "programmer" was skewed towards women. That could also lend credence to the idea that something is skewing preferences.
To anyone who does a bit of actual research on this stuff, Damore is practically a cliché. He's the person who ends up in the history book under "wow, people actually used to believe that stuff".
No, the Big 5 results he cites are actually quite important in psychology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Ge...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKmyO3hbOz8
Like the ones favoring women in medicine in some countries? Like nursing?
4. Outcomes drastically changed once those simple measures were adopted, in a way which clearly and beyond reasonable doubt put the lie to the explanations claimed in (2).
But only up to a point. Google and YouTube execs are on the record saying that they basically got to parity with the available candidate pool.
To buy Damore's arguments we must either ignore this evidence, or somehow buy into a completely unsupported assumption that computer programming -- for reasons nobody knows -- is completely and utterly unique
Not at all. We could just suppose there's something skewing the preferences of people in school.
Even worse: we have to believe that about a field which previously did not have such a huge gap, and acquired it only relatively recently.
Actually, for a time "programmer" was skewed towards women. That could also lend credence to the idea that something is skewing preferences.
To anyone who does a bit of actual research on this stuff, Damore is practically a cliché. He's the person who ends up in the history book under "wow, people actually used to believe that stuff".
No, the Big 5 results he cites are actually quite important in psychology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Ge...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKmyO3hbOz8
Like nursing?
So do something about it, if it bothers you. Each person is free to choose how to prioritize their time and efforts, and is not required to solve every other problem (or even every other similar problem) in every other field in every other country on earth as a prerequisite. But we both know that, and we both know that you're running off a script of sound bites.
Actually, for a time "programmer" was skewed towards women.
Yes, that's exactly my point. The types of "scientific" "biological" "truths" people like Damore tend to cite don't change in the time frame of that observed change. It's almost like there was some social factor involved. Perhaps some social factor having something to do with the large number of men who suddenly showed interest. Though of course we have literally zero cases in all of recorded human history of men rigging a system to favor themselves over women, so we don't have to worry that such a thing could have happened. We'd only worry if, say, we had many, many examples of it from many fields of endeavor in many societies across a huge percentage of recorded history.
Oh. Wait.
So do something about it, if it bothers you. Each person is free to choose how to prioritize their time and efforts, and is not required to solve every other problem (or even every other similar problem) in every other field in every other country on earth as a prerequisite. But we both know that, and we both know that you're running off a script of sound bites.
Actually, for a time "programmer" was skewed towards women.
Yes, that's exactly my point. The types of "scientific" "biological" "truths" people like Damore tend to cite don't change in the time frame of that observed change. It's almost like there was some social factor involved. Perhaps some social factor having something to do with the large number of men who suddenly showed interest. Though of course we have literally zero cases in all of recorded human history of men rigging a system to favor themselves over women, so we don't have to worry that such a thing could have happened. We'd only worry if, say, we had many, many examples of it from many fields of endeavor in many societies across a huge percentage of recorded history.
Oh. Wait.
So do something about it, if it bothers you.
I've personally engaged in education programs for high school women in tech.
Though of course we have literally zero cases in all of recorded human history of men rigging a system to favor themselves over women...Oh. Wait.
But the typical intellectual dishonesty here comes in the form of citing this history, then asserting that the current day must be the same, with zero proof. That is exactly what you just did.
According to the Google and YouTube execs, there are factors in the job which may skew employment according to preference, and perhaps the job should be changed to take preferences into account. This is exactly what James Damore proposed in his memo, and furthermore what Google and Youtube execs said in public:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrOp8ewzJDc
Furthermore, they also state that employment at Google is at parity with the STEM/tech education pipeline -- about 2 in 5 women. Where is your evidence of "rigging" given the existing anti-discrimination laws and Google's extraordinary efforts to work against that? Or are you just pointing to it having happened in the past, then point to a non 50/50 distribution as "proof." Sorry, but that's circular logic. Can you justify the 50/50 distribution with other than circular logic? Aren't you just taking that as an unexamined axiom?
I've personally engaged in education programs for high school women in tech.
Though of course we have literally zero cases in all of recorded human history of men rigging a system to favor themselves over women...Oh. Wait.
But the typical intellectual dishonesty here comes in the form of citing this history, then asserting that the current day must be the same, with zero proof. That is exactly what you just did.
According to the Google and YouTube execs, there are factors in the job which may skew employment according to preference, and perhaps the job should be changed to take preferences into account. This is exactly what James Damore proposed in his memo, and furthermore what Google and Youtube execs said in public:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrOp8ewzJDc
Furthermore, they also state that employment at Google is at parity with the STEM/tech education pipeline -- about 2 in 5 women. Where is your evidence of "rigging" given the existing anti-discrimination laws and Google's extraordinary efforts to work against that? Or are you just pointing to it having happened in the past, then point to a non 50/50 distribution as "proof." Sorry, but that's circular logic. Can you justify the 50/50 distribution with other than circular logic? Aren't you just taking that as an unexamined axiom?
> Damore is practically a cliché. He's the person who ends up in the history book under "wow, people actually used to believe that stuff".
You know, that can be applied to you as well.
> Meanwhile, you want to have your knee-jerk reflexes checked, judging by the kinds of catchphrases you immediately jump to when confronted with even mild disagreement.
Oh the irony. It's funny to see oneself in such mirror (I was using the "I will be proven right and I know it" shitargument too).
You know, that can be applied to you as well.
> Meanwhile, you want to have your knee-jerk reflexes checked, judging by the kinds of catchphrases you immediately jump to when confronted with even mild disagreement.
Oh the irony. It's funny to see oneself in such mirror (I was using the "I will be proven right and I know it" shitargument too).
A more accurate analogy might be a memo claiming that southerners are poorer than northerners because they lost the Civil War. Would you consider such a memo harassment?
Maybe? Most of the challenges on this thread seem to be premised on the idea that Google needs ironclad justification to terminate an employee. The opposite is true. We have, as conservatives vigorously argued for, at-will employment in pretty much the whole country.
The NLRA will protect your right to improve workplace conditions. The NLRB will not enforce that right if what you're doing isn't really about workplace conditions, or is about a desire to change those conditions to something that might conflict with your employer's requirements under the law.
The NLRA will protect your right to improve workplace conditions. The NLRB will not enforce that right if what you're doing isn't really about workplace conditions, or is about a desire to change those conditions to something that might conflict with your employer's requirements under the law.
My challenge to the NLRB's opinion is premised on the idea that Google employees have a right to discuss Google's diversity policy. The NLRB seems to agree, repeatedly saying that Damore's memo contained protected speech.
But when that discussion brings up unpleasant scientific findings, the NLRB and I diverge; IMO a scientific explanation should not render otherwise protected speech unprotected.
But when that discussion brings up unpleasant scientific findings, the NLRB and I diverge; IMO a scientific explanation should not render otherwise protected speech unprotected.
The issue isn't that the science is unpleasant. It's that state and federal law compel companies like Google to maintain anti-harassment policies, and the NLRB defers to the company on how they're enforced.
If you want to complain about Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, that's a different discussion; it's not really fair to take the NLRB to task for that.
If you want to complain about Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, that's a different discussion; it's not really fair to take the NLRB to task for that.
The issue is that referring to these scientific results is "harassment" because they are unpleasant.
> The issue is that referring to these scientific results is "harassment" because they are unpleasant.
That the manner and context in which Damore referred to them is a violation of Google's reasonable anti-harassment policy does not mean that either that act, and even less referring to them more generally, is harassment.
Necessarily, any anti-harasssment policy that will successfully prevent harassment liability seeks to, through means up to and including termination, prevent liability by dealing with acts before they reach the level at which legal harassment—a violation of the law by the employer—occurs.
An anti-harassment policy that only addressed acts after the threshold for legal harassment was reached would be a very expensive failure.
That the manner and context in which Damore referred to them is a violation of Google's reasonable anti-harassment policy does not mean that either that act, and even less referring to them more generally, is harassment.
Necessarily, any anti-harasssment policy that will successfully prevent harassment liability seeks to, through means up to and including termination, prevent liability by dealing with acts before they reach the level at which legal harassment—a violation of the law by the employer—occurs.
An anti-harassment policy that only addressed acts after the threshold for legal harassment was reached would be a very expensive failure.
Google employees do not have a right to discuss Google’s diversity policy. That does not fall within the “improving workplace conditions” exception. Google is within its rights to simply fire all conservatives if it wants to.
I think labor law should be different, but it’s not.
I think labor law should be different, but it’s not.
> Google employees do not have a right to discuss Google’s diversity policy.
Yes, they do; that right however does not extend to violating Google's anti-harassment policy (which id, itself, a key means by which Google avoids liability under anti-discrimination law.)
This is sensible; the alternative would be the NLRA forcing Google to engage in acts and/or omissions which would result in liability under the Civil Rights Act, which is clearly not a tenable state of affairs.
Yes, they do; that right however does not extend to violating Google's anti-harassment policy (which id, itself, a key means by which Google avoids liability under anti-discrimination law.)
This is sensible; the alternative would be the NLRA forcing Google to engage in acts and/or omissions which would result in liability under the Civil Rights Act, which is clearly not a tenable state of affairs.
None of the groups involved being a protected class under Title VII, and harassment being a means of discrimination against such a class, no, it wouldn't be harassment in the relevant legal sense, and would probably not be within the scope of an anti-harassment policy.
Also this memo would be in the context of an official company policy of preferentially hiring southerners despite them making up a small portion of the applicant pool.
[deleted]
If you want to read it benevolently (benevolent to the NLRB), you could also take it as a claim that his references aren't scientific, but pseudo-scientific[0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
using the quotes "scientific" is the polite lawyer way of saying its total bolocks
spinlock(1)
The text you quote has scare quotes around "scientific", so it probably means that Damore's opinion was not backed by the science. That doesn't say the NLRB think that science doesn't matter, quite the opposite.
> He was terminated at Google's discretion under at-will employment, the same standard that might allow you to be fired for coming to work with blue hair.
Exactly. Google had the right to fire him. Which is why he should have published his memo anonymously. Unless, like Snowden, he felt that authentication was important, and was willing to face the consequences.
Exactly. Google had the right to fire him. Which is why he should have published his memo anonymously. Unless, like Snowden, he felt that authentication was important, and was willing to face the consequences.
I think there is something pernicious about Google saying "tell me your opinion", "This is my opinion", "You are fired". In moral or practical sense, that can be a breach of contract.
As far as I know, this memo was published within a space where controversial topics are debated, and was made public by someone else. The person that leaked the memo did actual measurable damage to Google's reputation and PR efforts: were efforts expended to find and fire that person?
Lets not kid ourselves: damore was fired because of public outrage, not because of google policies, or the law, or "because no team would take him".
As far as I know, this memo was published within a space where controversial topics are debated, and was made public by someone else. The person that leaked the memo did actual measurable damage to Google's reputation and PR efforts: were efforts expended to find and fire that person?
Lets not kid ourselves: damore was fired because of public outrage, not because of google policies, or the law, or "because no team would take him".
yeah, the discussion keeps neglecting this point. They fired him for doing what they asked. With respect to "at will employment", he didn't do it the way they wanted. What a funhouse. This action points out there is a set of rules which override what the employer tells you are the working conditions. The employer can reference those rules retrospectively to justify why your firing was not unlawful under the NRLA. I feel like this is beneficial to Damore's case though, because it shows that he can't seek relief from this catch-22 situation under the NRLA, and it's truly about the difference between what Google promised and what actually happened. It seems like this misrepresentation was deliberate.
> He was terminated at Google's discretion under at-will employment, the same standard that might allow you to be fired for coming to work with blue hair. He sought relief under an exception to at-will, the NLRA, which protects concerted action to improve working conditions. The NLRB determined that because the substance of his action involved requests that Google might reasonably determine would be problematic under EEO law, that whether or not Damore's actions were unlawful, Google was within its rights as a US employer to terminate him.
Ya, I understand that. I was objecting to the notion that his protests would have violated EEO law were they realized. That seems to me to be an uncareful reading of his opinions on the part of the NLRA board.
Ya, I understand that. I was objecting to the notion that his protests would have violated EEO law were they realized. That seems to me to be an uncareful reading of his opinions on the part of the NLRA board.
Wait, hold on, because the point still isn't clear. The NLRB is not saying that Damore's statements violate any EEO laws (they might, they might not; that argument isn't reached).
Rather, what they found was that Damore's efforts intersected with Google's anti-harassment policies. EEO law aside, NLRB gives deference to anti-harassment policies --- presumably for the same reason they'd give deference to ISO 27001 procedures done for regulatory reasons. Google gets to decide what the rules are for that specific set of issues. All Google has to show is that they have anti-harassment policies that Damore ran aground of. The NLRB generally isn't going to dig into the policies; that's what "deference" means.
It's important that people not come away from this with the idea that the NLRB is telling Damore what is and isn't OK for him to say in the workplace. Absent the organizing protections the NLRA provides, almost nothing Damore says in the workplace has any legal protection. It's not NLRB who fired Damore; it's Google. Reversing that decision is an extraordinary move; not doing the extraordinary is what NLRB decided.
Rather, what they found was that Damore's efforts intersected with Google's anti-harassment policies. EEO law aside, NLRB gives deference to anti-harassment policies --- presumably for the same reason they'd give deference to ISO 27001 procedures done for regulatory reasons. Google gets to decide what the rules are for that specific set of issues. All Google has to show is that they have anti-harassment policies that Damore ran aground of. The NLRB generally isn't going to dig into the policies; that's what "deference" means.
It's important that people not come away from this with the idea that the NLRB is telling Damore what is and isn't OK for him to say in the workplace. Absent the organizing protections the NLRA provides, almost nothing Damore says in the workplace has any legal protection. It's not NLRB who fired Damore; it's Google. Reversing that decision is an extraordinary move; not doing the extraordinary is what NLRB decided.
> Curious, why do you believe in that? Have you evaluated the evidence and come to that conclusion, or is it a priori for you?
Curious why you question his belief?
All of the half-way reputable studies I've ever heard of have either concluded that there is no difference in male/female intelligence or that there are small differences in certain silos, with men scoring slightly higher on average in visuospatial while women score slightly higher on average in verbal.
Even if you accept the latter as fact (which there is no clear cut evidence-based reason for doing so, if you look at the studies in aggregate) it says basically nothing about suitability to "our profession" as both of those skills are important.
Given the choice between someone with higher than average overall IQ and outstanding visuospatial skills and someone with higher than average overall IQ and outstanding verbal skills, I'd generally prefer the latter as a colleague.
Curious why you question his belief?
All of the half-way reputable studies I've ever heard of have either concluded that there is no difference in male/female intelligence or that there are small differences in certain silos, with men scoring slightly higher on average in visuospatial while women score slightly higher on average in verbal.
Even if you accept the latter as fact (which there is no clear cut evidence-based reason for doing so, if you look at the studies in aggregate) it says basically nothing about suitability to "our profession" as both of those skills are important.
Given the choice between someone with higher than average overall IQ and outstanding visuospatial skills and someone with higher than average overall IQ and outstanding verbal skills, I'd generally prefer the latter as a colleague.
The memo did not claim that women were less intelligent. It claimed that women _prefer_ to work in fields other than tech. This is a statement of women's choices, not their ability. It also claimed higher variance, but not overall differences. In other words that there are more men on both sides of the extreme.
>This is a statement of women's choices, not their ability.
Wrong. The memo is poorly worded, but it does make the leap from just preferences to abilities in this sentence, despite not having evidence for the latter:
>>I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.
Wrong. The memo is poorly worded, but it does make the leap from just preferences to abilities in this sentence, despite not having evidence for the latter:
>>I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.
This is exactly in line with what I wrote. This quote talks about distribution. Not averages, which was the parent comment's claim.
The quote talks about abilities, which you said the memo did not say anything about. Damore was positing that both women's preferences and abilities is why you see less women in tech and leadership positions.
From my original comment in this chain:
> ...also claimed higher variance, but not overall differences. In other words that there are more men on both sides of the extreme.
This is in reference to what the memo says about abilities. The memo does claim higher or lower overall averages, too, but those are in terms of preferences.
Let me lay this out point by point if I phrased this poorly before:
* The memo claims that women and men have different averages in preferences.
* That men and women have different distributions of abilities.
* The memo does not claim that there are different average of abilities.
Point #3 is what the parent comment claimed, among other things, and that is wrong.
> ...also claimed higher variance, but not overall differences. In other words that there are more men on both sides of the extreme.
This is in reference to what the memo says about abilities. The memo does claim higher or lower overall averages, too, but those are in terms of preferences.
Let me lay this out point by point if I phrased this poorly before:
* The memo claims that women and men have different averages in preferences.
* That men and women have different distributions of abilities.
* The memo does not claim that there are different average of abilities.
Point #3 is what the parent comment claimed, among other things, and that is wrong.
Also from your original comment:
>This is a statement of women's choices, not their ability.
Edit: Rather than reply, you now edited your comment to split hairs on distribution vs averages. That doesn't change the facts about Damore's argument about biological ability to be in tech is unfounded.
>This is a statement of women's choices, not their ability.
Edit: Rather than reply, you now edited your comment to split hairs on distribution vs averages. That doesn't change the facts about Damore's argument about biological ability to be in tech is unfounded.
Hacker news wasn't letting me reply, so I put the classification in an edit. It didn't change the content of what I wrote, just added a clearer (I hope) phrasing.
I have not once mentioned biology in this comment chain. I made my original comment to dispel the myth that Damore claimed that women have, on average, less intelligence than men.
Whether you agree or disagree with the other claims made about biology is orthogonal to this statement.
I have not once mentioned biology in this comment chain. I made my original comment to dispel the myth that Damore claimed that women have, on average, less intelligence than men.
Whether you agree or disagree with the other claims made about biology is orthogonal to this statement.
You're right, you tried to reclassify what Damore said with this:
>This is a statement of women's choices, not their ability.
When his argument was about biological ability. Damore's paper is orthogonal from you're claiming it to be.
>This is a statement of women's choices, not their ability.
When his argument was about biological ability. Damore's paper is orthogonal from you're claiming it to be.
The difference between distribution vs. averages is important. See the image linked to below. Damore is arguing the top half of the image. Many people mistakenly believe he is arguing the bottom half. Perhaps you believe the top half is unfounded too, but it's an important distinction.
https://heterodoxacademy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Damo...
https://heterodoxacademy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Damo...
Right. And what many have said is that there is not enough evidence in his to support the top half on his claim of biological abilities. Preferences, sure, but that can also be attributed to social constructs which he specifically tries to rule out.
It's splitting hairs to make it about distribution when there isn't sufficient evidence to support a distribution in the first place.
It's splitting hairs to make it about distribution when there isn't sufficient evidence to support a distribution in the first place.
Here is an article from Heterdox academy that attempted to do a metanalysis of studies to determine if Damore was correct in saying there are certain traits that men display a wider distribution on. They conclude he was.
I have not personally looked at any of this data, nor vouch for it or Damore's or their conclusion. It could be wrong, either because the current best science is wrong or because the summary is unfair or inaccurate. My only point is that it appears to be a statement with some scientific support, not something that can easily be dismissed as false.
http://heterodoxacademy.org/the-greater-male-variability-hyp...
I have not personally looked at any of this data, nor vouch for it or Damore's or their conclusion. It could be wrong, either because the current best science is wrong or because the summary is unfair or inaccurate. My only point is that it appears to be a statement with some scientific support, not something that can easily be dismissed as false.
http://heterodoxacademy.org/the-greater-male-variability-hyp...
Abilities follow from preferences at the level being discussed (potential hiring pool at Google).
I am not good at being a nurse because I chose to become a software developer. I chose to become a software developer because I prefer working with computers over people. My preference in adolescence resulted in my being more capable as a software developer for a company like Google.
That this one statement keeps getting taken out of context and misinterpreted shows how flimsy the claims against the memo are.
I am not good at being a nurse because I chose to become a software developer. I chose to become a software developer because I prefer working with computers over people. My preference in adolescence resulted in my being more capable as a software developer for a company like Google.
That this one statement keeps getting taken out of context and misinterpreted shows how flimsy the claims against the memo are.
>That this one statement keeps getting taken out of context and misinterpreted
Wrong again. When you look at the full context, Damore specifically says that it's not socially constructed like you're describing. Damore isn't arguing that women lack the ability for tech or leadership because they prefer to be nurses, his argument stems from biological differences:
>> On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:
>> ● They’re universal across human cultures
>> ● They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
>> ● Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males
>> ● The underlying traits are highly heritable
>> ● They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective
>> Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.
Wrong again. When you look at the full context, Damore specifically says that it's not socially constructed like you're describing. Damore isn't arguing that women lack the ability for tech or leadership because they prefer to be nurses, his argument stems from biological differences:
>> On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:
>> ● They’re universal across human cultures
>> ● They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
>> ● Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males
>> ● The underlying traits are highly heritable
>> ● They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective
>> Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.
Note that there are differences in certain abilities (most famously mental rotation) that are known to be affected by sex (male and female babies already perform differently). Now mental rotation isn't exactly relevant to software engineering, but there are other biological traits such as autism spectrum disorders that are anecdotally beneficial for software development. It wouldn't surprise me if there were a correlation between sex and programming ability.
However, the number of skills required for software development is quite large and any correlation is likely to be very small. Additionally, there is no a priori reason to assume that the average woman isn't better suited to it than the average man, since there are lots of other effects that could drown out an underlying difference in ability.
So Damore is technically correct, but that doesn't really matter in the end because he doesn't show that effect sizes are large enough to support his conclusions against the policies he opposes (whose evidence is also pretty weak).
However, the number of skills required for software development is quite large and any correlation is likely to be very small. Additionally, there is no a priori reason to assume that the average woman isn't better suited to it than the average man, since there are lots of other effects that could drown out an underlying difference in ability.
So Damore is technically correct, but that doesn't really matter in the end because he doesn't show that effect sizes are large enough to support his conclusions against the policies he opposes (whose evidence is also pretty weak).
I'm not sure we share the same definition of "technically correct", when the evidence doesn't support Damore's claim that biological causes are why there are less women in software engineering and leadership. It's true that there are observable differences in spatial reasoning and reaction time across the sexes, but as you say, those are hardly requisites for being a good programmer.
Is the correlation between mild autism and successful computer programming completely irrelevant coincidence?
That's not the full context, though.
The full context is that he's writing this memo in the first place to propose alternatives to a hiring policy. That is: the relevant group is the hiring pool for Google. By the time men and women reach the point where Google's hiring policy is relevant toward their outcomes, the distribution of their abilities is already quite different. That's not even really questionable: It's why there are so many fewer women in the hiring pool.
It's selective interpretation to read this outside the context of the hiring policy.
The full context is that he's writing this memo in the first place to propose alternatives to a hiring policy. That is: the relevant group is the hiring pool for Google. By the time men and women reach the point where Google's hiring policy is relevant toward their outcomes, the distribution of their abilities is already quite different. That's not even really questionable: It's why there are so many fewer women in the hiring pool.
It's selective interpretation to read this outside the context of the hiring policy.
Except what you said about social constructs in your comment isn't argued in the memo, hence you're now projecting about "selective interpretation."
Nobody is saying this isn't in context to hiring policies - that's your straw man. Damore was arguing that women were not in engineering and leadership positions because of preferences and biological abilities (in support of his memo's argument about hiring policies). The latter of which there is no evidence to support.
Nobody is saying this isn't in context to hiring policies - that's your straw man. Damore was arguing that women were not in engineering and leadership positions because of preferences and biological abilities (in support of his memo's argument about hiring policies). The latter of which there is no evidence to support.
> Nobody is saying this isn't in context to hiring policies - that's your straw man.
You're evaluating the statement that way. That's not a straw man--it's removal of original context.
> Damore was arguing that women were not in engineering and leadership positions because of preferences and biological abilities (in support of his memo's argument about hiring policies).
Yet another example of the suspiciously common inability of opponents to comprehend the statement.
The statement makes no mention of biological abilities, only distribution of abilities in general (and preferences), caused possibly in part by biological factors.
And once again: The relevant group is the hiring pool for leadership / tech at Google, which undoubtedly has an unequal distribution of qualified men and women as a result of differing distributions of the abilities of men and women at that stage of their careers.
Here's Damore's statement again, with the context from the purpose of the document added by me:
> I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women (by the time they can be affected by Google's hiring policies) differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.
Tah-dah! When it's not stripped of context, the meaning is more clear. I still don't suspect misinterpretations will stop, though.
You're evaluating the statement that way. That's not a straw man--it's removal of original context.
> Damore was arguing that women were not in engineering and leadership positions because of preferences and biological abilities (in support of his memo's argument about hiring policies).
Yet another example of the suspiciously common inability of opponents to comprehend the statement.
The statement makes no mention of biological abilities, only distribution of abilities in general (and preferences), caused possibly in part by biological factors.
And once again: The relevant group is the hiring pool for leadership / tech at Google, which undoubtedly has an unequal distribution of qualified men and women as a result of differing distributions of the abilities of men and women at that stage of their careers.
Here's Damore's statement again, with the context from the purpose of the document added by me:
> I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women (by the time they can be affected by Google's hiring policies) differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.
Tah-dah! When it's not stripped of context, the meaning is more clear. I still don't suspect misinterpretations will stop, though.
No evidence? The number of women who leave their career to become full-time childcare givers far out number men, even among women in high level career tracks.
You are arguing against your own claims. Damore claimed that women are not underrepresented at Google hiring, after considering the explanatory factors. You explained why the affirmative action diversity hiring policy is unnecessary.
>> Wrong again.
Ow. I agree with you, but can you please not preface your comments with "wrong", "false", "no" etc? You're going on to argue (pretty convincingly) that the parent is wrong anyway, what's the point of cranking up the disagreement volume a notch, like that?
Ow. I agree with you, but can you please not preface your comments with "wrong", "false", "no" etc? You're going on to argue (pretty convincingly) that the parent is wrong anyway, what's the point of cranking up the disagreement volume a notch, like that?
Good point. It's hard to get through confirmation bias, even when the person accuses you of being intellectually dishonest, but I agree the tone is a bit much.
> This is a statement of women's choices, not their ability
That's simply not true. The memo (as the other comment chain litigates) absolutely makes reference to both preference and ability.
That's simply not true. The memo (as the other comment chain litigates) absolutely makes reference to both preference and ability.
Please identify where the memo claims they women have lower average ability than men. As a hint:
> I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.
This statement references distributions, not averages. E.g men may be more prevalent at the top of the scale but also at the bottom. This is entirely in line with what I wrote about the memo referring to variance.
> I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.
This statement references distributions, not averages. E.g men may be more prevalent at the top of the scale but also at the bottom. This is entirely in line with what I wrote about the memo referring to variance.
> Please identify where the memo claims they women have lower average ability than men
The claims about their average tolerance for high-status jobs is a direct statement about average ability for certain job roles. You can perhaps argue that it accurately reflects the psychological research (which is a different discussion), but it absolutely is directly a statement about ability.
He also specifically says women generally have “a harder time...leading”, which is a direct statement of reduced average ability in all roles involving leadership.
The claims about their average tolerance for high-status jobs is a direct statement about average ability for certain job roles. You can perhaps argue that it accurately reflects the psychological research (which is a different discussion), but it absolutely is directly a statement about ability.
He also specifically says women generally have “a harder time...leading”, which is a direct statement of reduced average ability in all roles involving leadership.
He claims that women on average choose to work less stressful jobs. The exact terms he used are, "higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance". Perhaps others think "tolerance" is closer to "ability" than "preference", but that's not how I view it. For example, I have a pretty low tolerance for cold climates. I can tolerate them when I need to like when hiking on Alaskan glaciers, visiting relatives in cold places. On average I'm a pretty outdoorsy person so I think have have a good ability to hike in the cold, as I'm confident in my ability to layer clothing and whatnot. But usually I choose not to because that is my preference. Regardless, Damore even says that there are ways to mitigate this. He suggests that Google should,
> Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits.
For your second paragraph, here is the full quote.
> This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
This is in the context of how women prefer to channel extraversion. Again, preferences make it harder for them to end up in leadership roles. And yet again, Damore offers a way to mitigate this and achieve greater numbers of women in leadership roles:
> Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there's more we can do.
For both of your points, these aren't claims about ability but preferences from my reading. Even if you disagree with this interpretation, Damore still claims that these differences shouldn't exclude women from tech and advancing in tech careers and lists out ways to limit the impact these factors currently have.
> Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits.
For your second paragraph, here is the full quote.
> This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
This is in the context of how women prefer to channel extraversion. Again, preferences make it harder for them to end up in leadership roles. And yet again, Damore offers a way to mitigate this and achieve greater numbers of women in leadership roles:
> Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there's more we can do.
For both of your points, these aren't claims about ability but preferences from my reading. Even if you disagree with this interpretation, Damore still claims that these differences shouldn't exclude women from tech and advancing in tech careers and lists out ways to limit the impact these factors currently have.
Referencing a distribution of abilities is making a reference to abilities.
Your statement was categorical. "This is a statement of women's choices, not their ability". Yet it was a statement about distributions of ability.
That's a statement that references ability.
You didn't say "the memo refers to variance of abilities". You stated that it did not reference ability.
That statement is simply not true.
Your statement was categorical. "This is a statement of women's choices, not their ability". Yet it was a statement about distributions of ability.
That's a statement that references ability.
You didn't say "the memo refers to variance of abilities". You stated that it did not reference ability.
That statement is simply not true.
Damore NEVER said that women had lower IQ than men. That wasn't the point of his manifesto, it was saying that the reason why you can't get 50/50 representation the way that Google wants to, because the nature of software development as it's done today makes it less attractive, on average, to women. He even suggested ways to change how software development jobs are done to make it more attractive to women in general.
It is still unclear though, why a belief in lower or higher aptitude of a particular group (as a whole) for a some specific type of activity should lead to any kind of discrimination. I realize, it often does, but attempt to silence the research and potentially, the truth, for some political reason does not sound good.
Nobody is silencing any research, unless you think broadly circulating a memo at a tech company constitutes "research".
It is legal to research pornography, but try to view it at a lot of companies in the office.
Context is important. He sent it out at work, not to arxiv.org.
It is legal to research pornography, but try to view it at a lot of companies in the office.
Context is important. He sent it out at work, not to arxiv.org.
It's not silencing research, but silencing talking about research is a chilling effect. This research isn't off-topic pornography, it was research specifically on the topic of who works in the office.
But it wasn’t research. It was a sloppy regurgitation of some cherrypicked sources which made some sweeping claims, and oh by the way management was wrong and should let him tell them how to do it.
Consider the alternative: say his goal had actually been to learn what most scientists believe or to see how it applied to Google. That would be things like a representative literature survey, lots of questions about how you could measure effects, what the implications those effects would have, etc. Rather than just assuming current staffing was the optimal outcome, you’d ask how you’d even measure such a thing, etc.
Remember, before he joined Google he has experience working in a real research lab. There’s no way he doesn’t know what scientific discussion looks like – it just wasn’t as important as trying to portray his personal political beliefs as objective truth.
Consider the alternative: say his goal had actually been to learn what most scientists believe or to see how it applied to Google. That would be things like a representative literature survey, lots of questions about how you could measure effects, what the implications those effects would have, etc. Rather than just assuming current staffing was the optimal outcome, you’d ask how you’d even measure such a thing, etc.
Remember, before he joined Google he has experience working in a real research lab. There’s no way he doesn’t know what scientific discussion looks like – it just wasn’t as important as trying to portray his personal political beliefs as objective truth.
So management decisions don't need any scientific backing, but criticisms of management must be PhD quality or GTFO?
You’re mixing two separate questions. One is whether your boss has the freedom to hire and fire as they see fit, where the answer is yes except for certain protected classes. Their money, their rules…
If he’d sent out a memo saying any management initiative was wrong and they were stupid he could be fired for it in the state of California. He just wouldn’t have been able to turn it into cash from right wing causes.
The second question is whether this is science being squashed as his more emotional supporters frequently claim. I don’t think there’s any reason to conclude that since this was a really lousy attempt at scientific analysis remiscent of the creationists who try to sound science-y but are ideologically prevented from actually practicing science.
If he’d sent out a memo saying any management initiative was wrong and they were stupid he could be fired for it in the state of California. He just wouldn’t have been able to turn it into cash from right wing causes.
The second question is whether this is science being squashed as his more emotional supporters frequently claim. I don’t think there’s any reason to conclude that since this was a really lousy attempt at scientific analysis remiscent of the creationists who try to sound science-y but are ideologically prevented from actually practicing science.
Management decisions don't come with references to scientific papers, or any claim that they are backed by science. Damore's memo, on the other hand, did exactly that.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/01/gender-imbalances-are-m...
My views are in part informed by this essay. It mostly deals with issues of interest, rather than ability, but the cumulative effect of interest divergence culminates in aptitude divergence.
That being said, i'm open to hearing contrary evidence. To the extent that i've read about it, there are non-trivial difference and they are large enough to at least partially explain some of the discrepancy in jobs like software engineering.
My views are in part informed by this essay. It mostly deals with issues of interest, rather than ability, but the cumulative effect of interest divergence culminates in aptitude divergence.
That being said, i'm open to hearing contrary evidence. To the extent that i've read about it, there are non-trivial difference and they are large enough to at least partially explain some of the discrepancy in jobs like software engineering.
This is a perennial debate on HN. Since you asked specifically for me to expand on my own beliefs, my request to you would be to use the search bar at the bottom of the page and find one of the zillion threads I've stated at length my beliefs about this topic on. Wow, that was a bad sentence. Either way though: I'd rather keep on the topic of labor law here.
"... absolute innate equivalence ..."
As was already stated in this thread, this is the null hypothesis. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16397321
As was already stated in this thread, this is the null hypothesis. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16397321
It's one thing to assume the null hypothesis. Quite another to discard ANY experience or data because it violates the null hypothesis.
Damore certainly cited many studies, and while there's valid criticism of their validity, "they disagree with the null hypothesis, ergo they are false" is not right.
Nor is "I have not read them, therefore the null hypothesis is right".
Damore certainly cited many studies, and while there's valid criticism of their validity, "they disagree with the null hypothesis, ergo they are false" is not right.
Nor is "I have not read them, therefore the null hypothesis is right".
> Damore certainly cited many studies,
He did no such thing. Please stop spreading misinformation.
He linked to blogs and magazine articles then people started calling his footnotes “research”.
The one legit study he linked came to the opposite conclusion of what he claimed.
I suggest you go read his links for yourself and consider the sources. It might be illuminating, unless you are already biased in favor of the argument he made.
He did no such thing. Please stop spreading misinformation.
He linked to blogs and magazine articles then people started calling his footnotes “research”.
The one legit study he linked came to the opposite conclusion of what he claimed.
I suggest you go read his links for yourself and consider the sources. It might be illuminating, unless you are already biased in favor of the argument he made.
Just because you don't like his citations doesn't make you right in saying he didn't have them.
But first a side-note: Stop changing the subject. I was saying the null hypothesis is irrelevant here. I'm saying don't discard new evidence because it goes against the null hypothesis. A few comments up (and the answer to "why") was said "[I] strongly believe [in the null hypothesis]", which to me is very strange. How can you "strongly believe" in a null hypothesis?
I didn't like his references (and stop attacking me, and implying my position), in that you can't just cherry-pick a study you like and call it fact (though doesn't make it wrong. Just unproven). Everyone does this. It doesn't make it right, but stones and glass houses.
To understand what you consider legit studies, I randomly clicked on three of his links. At least two of them must not qualify as legit study, so could you explain why you say two or three of these are "blogs and magazines"? I guess you qualify the journal "Science" as unscientific and merely a magazine? So that's one.
Mind you, it'd be a real coincidence if the one supposedly legit study he referenced just happened to be in this list of three:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9004....
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/310/5749/819
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014976341...
But first a side-note: Stop changing the subject. I was saying the null hypothesis is irrelevant here. I'm saying don't discard new evidence because it goes against the null hypothesis. A few comments up (and the answer to "why") was said "[I] strongly believe [in the null hypothesis]", which to me is very strange. How can you "strongly believe" in a null hypothesis?
I didn't like his references (and stop attacking me, and implying my position), in that you can't just cherry-pick a study you like and call it fact (though doesn't make it wrong. Just unproven). Everyone does this. It doesn't make it right, but stones and glass houses.
To understand what you consider legit studies, I randomly clicked on three of his links. At least two of them must not qualify as legit study, so could you explain why you say two or three of these are "blogs and magazines"? I guess you qualify the journal "Science" as unscientific and merely a magazine? So that's one.
Mind you, it'd be a real coincidence if the one supposedly legit study he referenced just happened to be in this list of three:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9004....
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/310/5749/819
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014976341...
[deleted]
This is a reasonable assessment, but you still misrepresent Damore's memo - as virtually all who disagree with him have done since the controversy started.
> [...] that men are better suited to software development at Google than women
When you use generic "men" and "women", you imply he talked about a categorical difference. Damore explicitly talked about population distributions, even illustrated with a Bell curve. He said for example "Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions."
More importantly, he never said men are "better suited" to software development. You mention aptitude, when Damore focussed on preference and interest, based on a well-established literature of personality differences between men and women.
> [...] that men are better suited to software development at Google than women
When you use generic "men" and "women", you imply he talked about a categorical difference. Damore explicitly talked about population distributions, even illustrated with a Bell curve. He said for example "Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions."
More importantly, he never said men are "better suited" to software development. You mention aptitude, when Damore focussed on preference and interest, based on a well-established literature of personality differences between men and women.
[deleted]
> The NLRB turned down Damore's complaint. I think he could theoretically still sue in civil court? I don't think that's commonly done? Either way, his complaint was denied.
Technically the NLRB didn't act on Damore's charge because he withdrew it. The Advice Memo was requested by and directed to a Regional Director at the NLRB. If the charge had not been withdrawn the Regional Director likely would have refused to issue a complaint, i.e. dismissed the charge. That decision could have been appealed to the General Counsel, a Presidential appointee. The person that wrote the memo, the associate General Counsel for the Division of Advice, reports directly to the General Counsel. If the General Counsel upheld the decision to dismiss the charge, that decision would not be appealable to any court. Nor can the relevant provisions of the NLRA be enforced directly by private lawsuit.
Technically the NLRB didn't act on Damore's charge because he withdrew it. The Advice Memo was requested by and directed to a Regional Director at the NLRB. If the charge had not been withdrawn the Regional Director likely would have refused to issue a complaint, i.e. dismissed the charge. That decision could have been appealed to the General Counsel, a Presidential appointee. The person that wrote the memo, the associate General Counsel for the Division of Advice, reports directly to the General Counsel. If the General Counsel upheld the decision to dismiss the charge, that decision would not be appealable to any court. Nor can the relevant provisions of the NLRA be enforced directly by private lawsuit.
Thanks! This is good stuff.
The NLRB has a vast reach that many employees are completely unaware of. Several years ago I was the lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit against an employer. About 6 months after I filed the lawsuit my employer fired me for fabricated "disciplinary" reasons (not unexpectedly on my behalf, it did take them longer to react than I had thought). Of course, my attorneys immediately sunk their teeth in this termination.
Almost immediately my attorneys launched a two-pronged approach. They filed additional complaints to the lawsuit and they had me file a complaint with the NLRB. Prior to this, I had never even heard of the NLRB and when I read their website I still thought it was a protection for unionized employees. This is far from the truth. My NLRB complaint consisted of two complaints, one for wrongful termination and the second was centered around the employer trying to stop my organizing the class action by terminating my employment (I was the only member of the class that was terminated at this point). At this point, I was also separated as a plaintiff from the "class" and had my own lawsuit against the employer that encompassed the wrongful termination complaint.
The NLRB almost immediately assigned an investigator (a staff attorney) to explore my complaint. This lasted a couple months with several meetings between myself, my attorneys, and the NLRB interviewing the employer and other current employees.
One thing I learned is that there is nothing an employer hates more than a federal agency digging around their business. In the end, the NLRB found both my complaints valid. They offered a settlement to the employer that involved monitoring and random complaince checks for a period of time.
At the same time, my lawsuit continued through the courts. What did help my case was the NLRB findings. It was hard for the employer to deny complaints when they had already settled complaints with the NLRB. In the end, we ended up settling the entire case.
After the case was settled the employer ended up terminating most, if not all, of the employees that were involved for various reasons (mostly false allegations).
Overall, the NLRB does provide a level of protection for the common employee and working conditions not just for unionized employees that I, and I am sure many others, are completely unaware of.
Almost immediately my attorneys launched a two-pronged approach. They filed additional complaints to the lawsuit and they had me file a complaint with the NLRB. Prior to this, I had never even heard of the NLRB and when I read their website I still thought it was a protection for unionized employees. This is far from the truth. My NLRB complaint consisted of two complaints, one for wrongful termination and the second was centered around the employer trying to stop my organizing the class action by terminating my employment (I was the only member of the class that was terminated at this point). At this point, I was also separated as a plaintiff from the "class" and had my own lawsuit against the employer that encompassed the wrongful termination complaint.
The NLRB almost immediately assigned an investigator (a staff attorney) to explore my complaint. This lasted a couple months with several meetings between myself, my attorneys, and the NLRB interviewing the employer and other current employees.
One thing I learned is that there is nothing an employer hates more than a federal agency digging around their business. In the end, the NLRB found both my complaints valid. They offered a settlement to the employer that involved monitoring and random complaince checks for a period of time.
At the same time, my lawsuit continued through the courts. What did help my case was the NLRB findings. It was hard for the employer to deny complaints when they had already settled complaints with the NLRB. In the end, we ended up settling the entire case.
After the case was settled the employer ended up terminating most, if not all, of the employees that were involved for various reasons (mostly false allegations).
Overall, the NLRB does provide a level of protection for the common employee and working conditions not just for unionized employees that I, and I am sure many others, are completely unaware of.
If you don't mind my asking and if you are at liberty to say, what was the basis of the original class action suit?
I was a restaurant manager. It was "alleged" that the owners were operating an "illegal tip pool" and "skimming" from said pool, as well as not paying proper wages (i.e. overtime, hourly minimum wage).
You seem to understand this better than me, so can you explain a few things to me I find (as a non-American) confusing?
> The NLRB turned down Damore's complaint
Can you explain where you got this idea from? Not this article, because it states several contradictory or non-commital things such as:
> Damore withdrew his complaint in January
And
> "a federal agency lawyer concluded."
And
> an associate general counsel for the National Labor Relations Board wrote in a six-page memo disclosed Thursday
Is this just an opinion, or an actual ruling? In other words, is this a PR exercise by the NRLB, or is it an official ruling in some way?
https://nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-203891 appears to be the case - AFAICT as the dates lineup with the withdrawl statement, and https://www.google.com.au/search?q=site%3Anlrb.gov+james+dam... shows this as the only link. As a non-American, I'm not going to file a FOI request, so I have no idea what any of this is, or how to find the memo that Bloomberg quotes.
Can you (or anyone else) shed any actual, source not third party light on this?
> The NLRB turned down Damore's complaint
Can you explain where you got this idea from? Not this article, because it states several contradictory or non-commital things such as:
> Damore withdrew his complaint in January
And
> "a federal agency lawyer concluded."
And
> an associate general counsel for the National Labor Relations Board wrote in a six-page memo disclosed Thursday
Is this just an opinion, or an actual ruling? In other words, is this a PR exercise by the NRLB, or is it an official ruling in some way?
https://nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-203891 appears to be the case - AFAICT as the dates lineup with the withdrawl statement, and https://www.google.com.au/search?q=site%3Anlrb.gov+james+dam... shows this as the only link. As a non-American, I'm not going to file a FOI request, so I have no idea what any of this is, or how to find the memo that Bloomberg quotes.
Can you (or anyone else) shed any actual, source not third party light on this?
If you reread my comment, I spend a couple paragraphs explaining the procedural background to this. If the NLRB had found Damore's complaint valid, they would have intervened on his behalf. They did not, so they will not.
Apparently, there's no private right to action under the NLRA. Enforcement is public, and goes through the NLRB. If the NLRB decides against pursuing a case, that's probably the end for you (maybe short of suing the NLRB itself).
Apparently, there's no private right to action under the NLRA. Enforcement is public, and goes through the NLRB. If the NLRB decides against pursuing a case, that's probably the end for you (maybe short of suing the NLRB itself).
Just to clarify:
1. You believe that Damore's lawyers withdrew the claim because the NLRB said they wouldn't pursue it. Is that a correct assessment? That's the timeline AFAICT anyway. Does that make the memo a public statement of what they informed Damore of? Is that common, for the NLRB - or similar institutions - to release a memo about a withdrawn action? I'm not American so this all seems very odd to me. I just can't imagine a government body commenting on a withdrawn complaint here.
2. You have not read the memo itself. Is that true? Do you know where it is or where I can read it? How would I even start?
I'm not being critical, I just have no idea how the US's state and federal laws combine, and it all seems very complicated, procedurally odd and very overlapp-y.
1. You believe that Damore's lawyers withdrew the claim because the NLRB said they wouldn't pursue it. Is that a correct assessment? That's the timeline AFAICT anyway. Does that make the memo a public statement of what they informed Damore of? Is that common, for the NLRB - or similar institutions - to release a memo about a withdrawn action? I'm not American so this all seems very odd to me. I just can't imagine a government body commenting on a withdrawn complaint here.
2. You have not read the memo itself. Is that true? Do you know where it is or where I can read it? How would I even start?
I'm not being critical, I just have no idea how the US's state and federal laws combine, and it all seems very complicated, procedurally odd and very overlapp-y.
1. Yes.
2. No.
2. No.
You are looking at the wrong case, this is the correct one and contains a link to the Advice Memo, which is dated January 16: https://www.nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-205351
This is what an Advice Memo is: "The NLRB analyses referred to are NLRB Advice Memos, which are prepared by the Office of the General Counsel (GC), a division within the NLRB, to respond to requests for advice from various NLRB Regions across the country about the proper response to some specific fact pattern under the Act. In answering these requests, the General Counsel considers the facts of the specific question posed and analyzes Board precedent relating to the situation.
The GC then reaches a conclusion whether the particular fact pattern violates the Act or not. If the fact pattern does not violate the Act, the Office of General Counsel indicates the unfair labor practice charge should be dismissed. If it finds a violation, it will direct the Region to issue a complaint if the matter is not settled in accordance with its analysis of the law.
All this analysis, and the conclusions, are incorporated into a document known as an Advice Memorandum. These Advice Memos are distributed for the information of all NLRB Regions so that they will all have the same guidance and can address similar questions in a coordinated and consistent manner throughout the United States. The Advice Memorandum does not have the same authoritative force as a published decision of the Board, but it does set out the agency's enforcement position on the questions covered and provides guidelines that will be followed by all Regions when faced with a similar situation.”
So what happened was Damore filed a complaint under the National Labor Relations Act with the National Labor Relations Board. The regional office turned it over to the central office for advice, given the novel issues. The central office decided to decline the case, viewing it as not a violation of the National Labor Relations Act. I don't know whether Damore could still privately sue Google for violating the National Labor Relations Act in court or appeal this decision somehow; perhaps he had some rights, since from the link it looks like he withdrew his case on January 23, a week after the date of the advice memo. He does, however, still have a pending lawsuit against Google, which at the very least, could allege violations of numerous other laws other than (and perhaps also including) the National Labor Relations Act (e.g., California state law).
This is what an Advice Memo is: "The NLRB analyses referred to are NLRB Advice Memos, which are prepared by the Office of the General Counsel (GC), a division within the NLRB, to respond to requests for advice from various NLRB Regions across the country about the proper response to some specific fact pattern under the Act. In answering these requests, the General Counsel considers the facts of the specific question posed and analyzes Board precedent relating to the situation.
The GC then reaches a conclusion whether the particular fact pattern violates the Act or not. If the fact pattern does not violate the Act, the Office of General Counsel indicates the unfair labor practice charge should be dismissed. If it finds a violation, it will direct the Region to issue a complaint if the matter is not settled in accordance with its analysis of the law.
All this analysis, and the conclusions, are incorporated into a document known as an Advice Memorandum. These Advice Memos are distributed for the information of all NLRB Regions so that they will all have the same guidance and can address similar questions in a coordinated and consistent manner throughout the United States. The Advice Memorandum does not have the same authoritative force as a published decision of the Board, but it does set out the agency's enforcement position on the questions covered and provides guidelines that will be followed by all Regions when faced with a similar situation.”
So what happened was Damore filed a complaint under the National Labor Relations Act with the National Labor Relations Board. The regional office turned it over to the central office for advice, given the novel issues. The central office decided to decline the case, viewing it as not a violation of the National Labor Relations Act. I don't know whether Damore could still privately sue Google for violating the National Labor Relations Act in court or appeal this decision somehow; perhaps he had some rights, since from the link it looks like he withdrew his case on January 23, a week after the date of the advice memo. He does, however, still have a pending lawsuit against Google, which at the very least, could allege violations of numerous other laws other than (and perhaps also including) the National Labor Relations Act (e.g., California state law).
[deleted]
(for instance, any kind of official recognition that men are better suited to software development at Google than women)
This was where Damore's got his words twisted in his mouth: He never claimed that!
The problematic claims he did make are that women - on average - "have a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading" and are more prone to "neuroticism". Nowhere in the memo does he touch upon women's fitness for SWE jobs -- even though everybody seems to think so.
Whether he promoted stereotypes about women is another story (although most of his claims seem to have some backup by actual science) but the whole thing would have never blown so badly out of proportion if it wasn't for people who circulated a malicious and wrong summary of this memo, either intentionally or by being hanger-ons.
This was where Damore's got his words twisted in his mouth: He never claimed that!
The problematic claims he did make are that women - on average - "have a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading" and are more prone to "neuroticism". Nowhere in the memo does he touch upon women's fitness for SWE jobs -- even though everybody seems to think so.
Whether he promoted stereotypes about women is another story (although most of his claims seem to have some backup by actual science) but the whole thing would have never blown so badly out of proportion if it wasn't for people who circulated a malicious and wrong summary of this memo, either intentionally or by being hanger-ons.
High "neuroticism" is tendency to ruminate on one's life experiences in a negative way -- to reflect especially on difficult situations and experience anxiety or distress. It is one of the "Big 5" personality traits.
It's not the same thing as being crazy or a neurotic in the Freudian sense (which is not a personality trait but a condition or syndrome, more or less vaguely defined).
It's not the same thing as being crazy or a neurotic in the Freudian sense (which is not a personality trait but a condition or syndrome, more or less vaguely defined).
Neuroticism should be parsed as a reserved word. It is a technical term and his use of it is proper since he is quoting academia. The results of research are not stereotypes. That would be like saying that it is a stereotype to believe that people who smoke have a higher possibility of developing cancer.
It is not problematic to use the terminology of the field that you are citing. The problematic part is misrepresenting those words as judgements. That would be like firing our programmer for lazy-loading images because we can't tolerate laziness at our firm.
It is not problematic to use the terminology of the field that you are citing. The problematic part is misrepresenting those words as judgements. That would be like firing our programmer for lazy-loading images because we can't tolerate laziness at our firm.
> if the memo had been exclusively about how SFBA tech discriminates against conservatives and could in a number of ways be made more accommodating to them, Damore would had been protected from retaliation
Probably, but the entire conversation would have been different then, likely not even leading to his termination and the lawsuit in the first place
Probably, but the entire conversation would have been different then, likely not even leading to his termination and the lawsuit in the first place
That’s a feature
> and who believes strongly in the absolute innate equivalence in aptitude for our profession between men and women
Do you also believe in the absolute innate equivalence in motivation for our profession between men and women, so that in a perfectly fair society, we would end up with a 50/50 ratio?
Would this also be the case with other professions, such as nursing, psychologists, or social workers?
Do you also believe in the absolute innate equivalence in motivation for our profession between men and women, so that in a perfectly fair society, we would end up with a 50/50 ratio?
Would this also be the case with other professions, such as nursing, psychologists, or social workers?
> and who believes strongly in the absolute innate equivalence in aptitude for our profession between men and women
I believe in it also, but shouldn't this idea be quantifiable in order to be a legit basis of a firing? I.E. where is the line between "promoting stereotypes" and "promoting science?"
I believe in it also, but shouldn't this idea be quantifiable in order to be a legit basis of a firing? I.E. where is the line between "promoting stereotypes" and "promoting science?"
I think? the answer is that it probably doesn't much matter. The Advice Memo states explicitly that the NLRB gives deference to employers on this matter, because they're required by state and federal EEO laws to suppress discrimination of protected classes.
So where this might become a material question is if you were an employer who was receptive to the "scientific" arguments for superior male aptitude, and you had employees that shared that view, and your employees organized to promote that view organically. Like, maybe you couldn't discipline them at the insistence of some other employee?
But in general it sounds like if the workplace issue you're organizing around is "does our employer go too far in trying to comply with EEO laws", the NLRB is not going to have your back.
So where this might become a material question is if you were an employer who was receptive to the "scientific" arguments for superior male aptitude, and you had employees that shared that view, and your employees organized to promote that view organically. Like, maybe you couldn't discipline them at the insistence of some other employee?
But in general it sounds like if the workplace issue you're organizing around is "does our employer go too far in trying to comply with EEO laws", the NLRB is not going to have your back.
So, what if you were an employer who was receptive to the "scientific" arguments for completely equivalent aptitude between males and females, and you had employees that shared that view, and your employees organized to promote that view organically. Then someone dissented from that view and a large number of those employees demanded the head of the dissenter? In that case, the NLRB has your back!
But in general it sounds like if the workplace issue you're organizing around is "does our employer go too far in trying to comply with EEO laws", the NLRB is not going to have your back.
Well, for one thing, I think the issue James Damore was organizing around is, "does our employer effectively make it thoughtcrime to question how they comply with EEO laws on the basis of differing average preferences." The NLRB's answer is that, yes the employer can make it a thoughtcrime, the NLRB has your back on that, and furthermore, that a lower level NLRB functionary can adjudicate on matters of truth in science.
Basically, what the NLRB has done here is to "instantiate into law" through the back-door of regulations and regulatory bodies, ideologically driven junk science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate
But in general it sounds like if the workplace issue you're organizing around is "does our employer go too far in trying to comply with EEO laws", the NLRB is not going to have your back.
Well, for one thing, I think the issue James Damore was organizing around is, "does our employer effectively make it thoughtcrime to question how they comply with EEO laws on the basis of differing average preferences." The NLRB's answer is that, yes the employer can make it a thoughtcrime, the NLRB has your back on that, and furthermore, that a lower level NLRB functionary can adjudicate on matters of truth in science.
Basically, what the NLRB has done here is to "instantiate into law" through the back-door of regulations and regulatory bodies, ideologically driven junk science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate
I assume you write this knowing (a) that I do not at all agree with your conclusions about "science" and (b) do not really care, because science is not the issue here. Google has an anti-harassment policy. Damore violated it. The NLRB defers to employers in the enforcement of anti-harassment policies. Damore cannot use the NLRA to "overturn" Google's anti-harassment policies. This part of Damore's game is over.
(b) do not really care, because science is not the issue here.
The issue is witch-hunts. You may well come to care if and when they decide to come for you. Given my conclusions that you are a rational person who values truth, that may well happen to you. Then again, most people are just fine with coercion and injustice, so long as it's happening to people who "deserve it," in the style of comic book stories. It may never happen to you, and you may well be fine with them. That is also quite normal.
The issue is witch-hunts. You may well come to care if and when they decide to come for you. Given my conclusions that you are a rational person who values truth, that may well happen to you. Then again, most people are just fine with coercion and injustice, so long as it's happening to people who "deserve it," in the style of comic book stories. It may never happen to you, and you may well be fine with them. That is also quite normal.
Thanks for that explanation, it was both thorough and frankly, illuminating in a way that I wasn't expecting.
Do you think if he had kept his original memo to those acceptable points(the hostile attitude toward conservative views), that they might have gone forward with it? Or would it have still been too difficult to prove with the case?
Do you think if he had kept his original memo to those acceptable points(the hostile attitude toward conservative views), that they might have gone forward with it? Or would it have still been too difficult to prove with the case?
Yes. I'm summarizing not the Bloomberg article but the Advice Memo itself, which is on NLRB's case website (you can just go read it).
It's a little fuzzy because the Advice Memo asserts up front that it's assuming arguendo that the memo, in both its protected and unprotected components, constituted protected concerted action. So it's possible that NLRB never really reached the question of whether this kind of organizing truly constitutes organizing for "mutual aid and protection" under the definitions of the NLRA; it didn't have to, because whether or not you're organizing under the NLRA, the memo says there's pretty extensive case history saying you can't do it to work against federal anti-discrimination law.
The NLRA does not eliminate employment at-will! You can get fired for all sorts of dumb superficial reasons. You just can't be fired for exercising your specific rights to concerted action for improved workplace conditions under the NLRA.
But before you go flex this particular right --- and really people should start doing this, like, a lot --- go talk to a labor lawyer and dot your 't's.
This turns out to be pretty easy to do: you can just contact @michelleimiller at Coworker.org, who facilitates this kind of stuff.
It's a little fuzzy because the Advice Memo asserts up front that it's assuming arguendo that the memo, in both its protected and unprotected components, constituted protected concerted action. So it's possible that NLRB never really reached the question of whether this kind of organizing truly constitutes organizing for "mutual aid and protection" under the definitions of the NLRA; it didn't have to, because whether or not you're organizing under the NLRA, the memo says there's pretty extensive case history saying you can't do it to work against federal anti-discrimination law.
The NLRA does not eliminate employment at-will! You can get fired for all sorts of dumb superficial reasons. You just can't be fired for exercising your specific rights to concerted action for improved workplace conditions under the NLRA.
But before you go flex this particular right --- and really people should start doing this, like, a lot --- go talk to a labor lawyer and dot your 't's.
This turns out to be pretty easy to do: you can just contact @michelleimiller at Coworker.org, who facilitates this kind of stuff.
Do you have a link to the Advice Memo?
I'm having trouble finding it on nlrb.gov's site or Google w/ `site:www.nrlb.gov`.
It looks like it may be this [0][1]. But, that case doesn't mention Damore as a participant, though it does list his lawyer: Dhillon Law Group, Inc.
[0] NRLB Case: https://www.nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-205351
[1] Advice Memo (PDF): http://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45826e6391
I'm having trouble finding it on nlrb.gov's site or Google w/ `site:www.nrlb.gov`.
It looks like it may be this [0][1]. But, that case doesn't mention Damore as a participant, though it does list his lawyer: Dhillon Law Group, Inc.
[0] NRLB Case: https://www.nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-205351
[1] Advice Memo (PDF): http://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45826e6391
No, this is 32-CA-205351. (I have a local copy I downloaded but not the link).
Didn't I link 32-CA-205351 (both the case page and the PDF)?
Oh, wait, you totally did. The document list page you had was different than the one I saw, but that's the Advice Memo.
Does the Advice Memo go into detail on exactly which parts of Damore's memo are discriminatory and which parts aren't?
Yes. Despite "limiting language" like "studies show" or "on average", the NLRB found that the Damore memo's claims that women are susceptible to "neuroticism" and that they have lower variance in IQ constituted valid cause for Google to terminate.
It's important I think to understand that the NLRB isn't saying that it's unlawful to write the Damore memo. They're not even saying that Damore's IQ and psychology claims violate EEO law. Instead, what they're saying is that they're close enough to the underlying issue of anti-discrimination compliance that the NLRB isn't going to second-guess Google's decision to terminate.
It's important I think to understand that the NLRB isn't saying that it's unlawful to write the Damore memo. They're not even saying that Damore's IQ and psychology claims violate EEO law. Instead, what they're saying is that they're close enough to the underlying issue of anti-discrimination compliance that the NLRB isn't going to second-guess Google's decision to terminate.
"It's important I think to understand that the NLRB isn't saying that it's unlawful to write the Damore memo."
Well, they did call what Damore wrote "sexual harassment" and "discriminatory", and sexual harassment is illegal and violates EEO, so that is basically saying that what he wrote is unlawful:
"The Charging Party’s use of stereotypes based on purported biological differences between women and men should not be treated differently than the types of conduct the Board found unprotected in these cases. [His] statements about immutable traits linked to sex—such as women’s heightened neuroticism and men’s prevalence at the top of the IQ distribution—were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, notwithstanding [his] effort to cloak comments with “scientific” references and analysis, and notwithstanding “not all women” disclaimers."
Well, they did call what Damore wrote "sexual harassment" and "discriminatory", and sexual harassment is illegal and violates EEO, so that is basically saying that what he wrote is unlawful:
"The Charging Party’s use of stereotypes based on purported biological differences between women and men should not be treated differently than the types of conduct the Board found unprotected in these cases. [His] statements about immutable traits linked to sex—such as women’s heightened neuroticism and men’s prevalence at the top of the IQ distribution—were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, notwithstanding [his] effort to cloak comments with “scientific” references and analysis, and notwithstanding “not all women” disclaimers."
It is probably not generally unlawful for a rank-and-file employee to make discriminatory statements. You can be fired for doing that, but the government is unlikely to step in and do that for your employer.
Not directly, no. But a company can be held liable if it isn't taking action against discrimination perpetuated by the rank-and-file (whether that be education on the subject, disciplinary action, firing, etc).
[deleted]
I dunno, if you believe the legal teams, the only reason he was fired at all is because of those points. Maybe you believe it or maybe you don't, but in some alternate universe he didn't say those things, and didn't get fired at all.
Honest question: I'm from eastern Europe, trying to wrap my head around this US controversy.
I fully respect Google's right for at-will termination, just trying to figure out whether Damore sinned by going against "world-as-is" or "world-as-ought-to-be".
I took the effort and found both the full text of this new National Labor Relations Board judgement [0, PDF], which includes:
"… statements about immutable traits linked to sex—such as women’s heightened neuroticism … were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment…"
and Damore's original memo, which cites a peer-reviewed published source [1]:
"research in large samples has shown that levels of N (neuroticism) are higher in women than men. This is a robust finding that is consistent across cultures. This is especially the case during the reproductive years, but is also visible in children and elderly."
Does such research really constitute harassment in the US? If so, what are the broader implications for science?
Other rebuttals I could find were similarly vague in distinguishing between facts ("is") and desires ("ought to be"). Has Damore's memo been rebutted at the "is-level"? Is he wrong in facts, or merely controversial in his proposed policies?
[0] https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45826e6391 (PDF)
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23068306
I fully respect Google's right for at-will termination, just trying to figure out whether Damore sinned by going against "world-as-is" or "world-as-ought-to-be".
I took the effort and found both the full text of this new National Labor Relations Board judgement [0, PDF], which includes:
"… statements about immutable traits linked to sex—such as women’s heightened neuroticism … were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment…"
and Damore's original memo, which cites a peer-reviewed published source [1]:
"research in large samples has shown that levels of N (neuroticism) are higher in women than men. This is a robust finding that is consistent across cultures. This is especially the case during the reproductive years, but is also visible in children and elderly."
Does such research really constitute harassment in the US? If so, what are the broader implications for science?
Other rebuttals I could find were similarly vague in distinguishing between facts ("is") and desires ("ought to be"). Has Damore's memo been rebutted at the "is-level"? Is he wrong in facts, or merely controversial in his proposed policies?
[0] https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45826e6391 (PDF)
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23068306
>The NLRB turned down Damore's complaint. I think he could theoretically still sue in civil court? I don't think that's commonly done? Either way, his complaint was denied.
There's still a civil lawsuit going ahead as the article notes.
There's still a civil lawsuit going ahead as the article notes.
Right, but it's on a different set of claims, isn't it? I thought it was not a case brought under the NLRA.
It's a different set of claims but they have (in regards to the specifics of Damore’s claims; it's a class action charging a broader pattern, though) substantial overlap despite the differing legal basis. Particularly, if, as NLRB found, Damore was fired solely for statements violating a legitimate anti-harassment policy, this would be quite problematic for the claims in his lawsuit. Of course, the court in that case is not bound by the NLRBs fact findings.
I assume so. I read the civil complaint (I actually know his lawyer pretty well) but 1.) I'm not a lawyer myself and 2.) I haven't really studied the legal case in any depth.
One does wonder how much damage this memo does to that case. It will be interesting to see.
If his memo had been exclusively about discrimination against conservatives, he wouldn't have been fired in the first place. The obvious reason Google fired him is that he was now poison in terms of working with others, especially women, because he was saying that women as a whole were either less suited or less inclined to be engineers.
Less inclined (which was what he said) can be tested factually are you saying that it's ok to be fired to state something factually correct?
Some of the bits in his memo were pseudoscientific bunk, no better than phrenology. Making a lot of noise about 'facts' doesn't help here, in fact it does the opposite. So it seems your stand here is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Some of the bits in his memo were pseudoscientific bunk, no better than phrenology.
One of the cited studies from the Damore memo was done across 55 countries, and effectively has a P value which is eyebrow-raisingly high. (They used another stats test.) It's definitely an important result, and is acknowledged as such by a big swathe of Psychology academia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Ge...
One of the cited studies from the Damore memo was done across 55 countries, and effectively has a P value which is eyebrow-raisingly high. (They used another stats test.) It's definitely an important result, and is acknowledged as such by a big swathe of Psychology academia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Ge...
Sure, but just because I cite a study doesn't mean that the conclusions I make are valid. You seem to be saying that because Damore has citations in his memo it is ironclad (or perhaps you think that people who disagree with it disagree with every word of it).
Neither of those things are the case. There are subsections of the memo that are both objectionable and unscientific. That he has some things that are science-y does not make the entire document wholly unobjectionable.
Neither of those things are the case. There are subsections of the memo that are both objectionable and unscientific. That he has some things that are science-y does not make the entire document wholly unobjectionable.
Can you give an example?
Whether you find my stand irrelevant or not just because you don't agree with it, is telling and symptomatic for this discussion.
Why isn't my stand relevant, what is it you know for a fact that is pseudoscientific and even if it was the case, are you going to fire people for believing in God and being against gay marriage because it's anti-scientific.
Sounds like an anti-ellectual position to me.
Whether you find my stand irrelevant or not just because you don't agree with it, is telling and symptomatic for this discussion.
Why isn't my stand relevant, what is it you know for a fact that is pseudoscientific and even if it was the case, are you going to fire people for believing in God and being against gay marriage because it's anti-scientific.
Sounds like an anti-ellectual position to me.
Total breakdown of trust is a valid reason to fire someone.
You can fire people for more or less anything we are talking about whether its fair. Not sure how you get to total breakdown of trust.
sorry I should have said it is a fair reason to dismiss.
First, you have to establish that it was a total breakdown which I think you will have a hard time establishing in any meaningful way. But by all means. Let's hear the argument.
The Boss says I can not trust this person again nor can their coworkers for x y z reasons (And I Am afraid Mr Danmore has done this) and the employee is toast.
This is a civil matter so its on the balance of probabilities this isn't a criminal court.
This is a civil matter so its on the balance of probabilities this isn't a criminal court.
The boss just fired that person for just writing feedback which he was encouraged to do by HR.
How is that better?
How is that better?
If it makes your coworkers uncomfortable, yes.
> who believes strongly in the absolute innate equivalence in aptitude for our profession between men and women
This sounds almost sarcastic. I get that hyperbole is a rhetoric device. I agree to a certain extent, too, while I understand that positive discrimination is discriminating never the less. But: The absolute "innate" equivalence between any two persons is not comparable.
Prejudice is not allowed, sure, but it goes both ways. You can't just take any 50% of the population and claim they must be as good as the other half, just as you can't take any half and claim they must be inferior. Because that is subjective -- concerning subjects -- whereas you want to be objective -- judging actions by their objectives.
This sounds almost sarcastic. I get that hyperbole is a rhetoric device. I agree to a certain extent, too, while I understand that positive discrimination is discriminating never the less. But: The absolute "innate" equivalence between any two persons is not comparable.
Prejudice is not allowed, sure, but it goes both ways. You can't just take any 50% of the population and claim they must be as good as the other half, just as you can't take any half and claim they must be inferior. Because that is subjective -- concerning subjects -- whereas you want to be objective -- judging actions by their objectives.
> "concerted action" to improve working conditions
Improve the working conditions for whom though? IANAL, but I would think that it'd have to be an improvement in the working conditions for everyone, or at least not have a negative impact on other, non-managerial groups.
For example say engineering gets tired of the sales department's constant phone conversations and boisterous behavior. They organize a group that seeks to eliminate the sales department altogether, after all, the engineers are building a self-service SaaS product that sells itself.
Would the engineers have legal recourse if they were fired for seeking a change that would harm some other group?
Improve the working conditions for whom though? IANAL, but I would think that it'd have to be an improvement in the working conditions for everyone, or at least not have a negative impact on other, non-managerial groups.
For example say engineering gets tired of the sales department's constant phone conversations and boisterous behavior. They organize a group that seeks to eliminate the sales department altogether, after all, the engineers are building a self-service SaaS product that sells itself.
Would the engineers have legal recourse if they were fired for seeking a change that would harm some other group?
[deleted]
>> You can't use the NLRA to organize in opposition to federal employment law. Wa-waa.
I know I should really not be focusing on that one silly little detail out of your comment (which I agree with in general) but can you please explain that "Wa-Waa"? Do you mean it as in the "wa-waa-waa-waaaa" sound from old movies, like in the video below?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Xt1kUK71lc
And sorry for derailing the conversation.
I know I should really not be focusing on that one silly little detail out of your comment (which I agree with in general) but can you please explain that "Wa-Waa"? Do you mean it as in the "wa-waa-waa-waaaa" sound from old movies, like in the video below?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Xt1kUK71lc
And sorry for derailing the conversation.
There are no good outcomes in the current noise. People on both extremes will misread and misuse it.
Silicon Valley's achievement in the last 10 years is to make sure ambiguity is profitable. Resolution of anything or even a path to resolution just produces less clicks, talking heads and outrage.
The proof is in the pudding. Who wants to bet 2-5 years from now the status quo wouldn't have changed? Replace the issue with gun control, climate change or universal health it hardly matters.
If you guys want to see change the noise levels have to reduce.
Silicon Valley's achievement in the last 10 years is to make sure ambiguity is profitable. Resolution of anything or even a path to resolution just produces less clicks, talking heads and outrage.
The proof is in the pudding. Who wants to bet 2-5 years from now the status quo wouldn't have changed? Replace the issue with gun control, climate change or universal health it hardly matters.
If you guys want to see change the noise levels have to reduce.
> absolute innate equivalence
Is hacker aptitude some kind of conserved quantity that is conserved over sexes based on some natural symmetry ?
Why not just say, absolutely pretended equivalence.
Is hacker aptitude some kind of conserved quantity that is conserved over sexes based on some natural symmetry ?
Why not just say, absolutely pretended equivalence.
[deleted]
The null hypothesis is to assume there is innate equivalence; the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate otherwise and the attempts I've seen so far are lacking.
The null hypothesis would be to accept the state of things as they are.
If there are very few women in computer science, you wouldn't assume it was due to some conspiracy or "systematic discrimination" without any proof. You wouldn't enact policies of reverse discrimination (affirmative action) to correct some supposed imbalance of the system.
You'd simply admit you don't know why, and search for proof of the reason.
If there are very few women in computer science, you wouldn't assume it was due to some conspiracy or "systematic discrimination" without any proof. You wouldn't enact policies of reverse discrimination (affirmative action) to correct some supposed imbalance of the system.
You'd simply admit you don't know why, and search for proof of the reason.
[deleted]
A more correct null hypothesis is to accept the state of things as they are given signal from across time, though. Which raises the immediate question of why most programmers were women until recently.
"null hypothesis" simply means "a claim that might be falsified by a certain experiment".
Both "P" and "not P" can be null hypotheses, depending on the design of experiment.
Both "P" and "not P" can be null hypotheses, depending on the design of experiment.
I'm sorry, this statement is extraordinarily confusing to me. Why on earth is the null hypothesis that there is innate equivalence? This seems so precisely backward that I'm going to need you to justify it before I can agree. A lifetime full of thousands of interactions with both men and women on a daily basis have consistently shown me that there are huge differences between the sexes.
The fact that we are all equal does not mean we are all equivalent. I suspect you may not be making this distinction.
The fact that we are all equal does not mean we are all equivalent. I suspect you may not be making this distinction.
Either way, my statement was a cards-on-the-table disclaimer, not an invitation to litigate the point.
"Damore was terminated by Google for authoring his anti-diversity memo"
Wrong. Damore was pro diversity.
What he said was Google didn't achieve the wanted diversity, because the methodology is wrong.
Wrong. Damore was pro diversity.
What he said was Google didn't achieve the wanted diversity, because the methodology is wrong.
Thanks for taking the time to write this out and give some background.
Probably even less of a lawyer than you are, so thanks for that summary :)
Having "conservative viewpoints" is not a protected class.
> Having "conservative viewpoints" is not a protected class.
In California, it is illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee on the basis of their political beliefs [1], so to that extent particular political ideologies (including conservatism) can be viewed as protected classes.
[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... and https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
In California, it is illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee on the basis of their political beliefs [1], so to that extent particular political ideologies (including conservatism) can be viewed as protected classes.
[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... and https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
In context, that appears to be referring to voting or supporting a candidate in elections, not for discussing platforms or issues.
No. You can't put the law "in context" while outright ignoring case law. Courts have consistently found 1101 and 1102 to offer broad protection. I'm not a lawyer, nor want to do the research. AIUI from learned legal commentary, the broadness has not been tested for exactly this sort of issue, but that doesn't make it slam-dunk unprotected either.
You're claiming to put something "in context," but rather than clarify you're obscuring. This type of fake-smart comment is what makes me hate hacker news.
You're claiming to put something "in context," but rather than clarify you're obscuring. This type of fake-smart comment is what makes me hate hacker news.
It's not "fake-smart" to read a document and try to understand it. Refusing to do research yet making uncited authoritative claims strikes me as far more "fake-smart"
This type of arrogant hostile condescension makes me unhappy with with Hacker News.
This type of arrogant hostile condescension makes me unhappy with with Hacker News.
i.e. Promoting political viewpoints at work is not protected speech, especially when it's disruptive.
rbanffy(2)
This isn’t what those things are saying.
The first is preventing rules and regulations that guide the political beliefs of employees.
The second is a law against threatening to fire an employees for their political beliefs.
Discrimination is something totally different.
Damore was fired for espousing gender discrimination; again, because gender discrimination is very illegal.
The first is preventing rules and regulations that guide the political beliefs of employees.
The second is a law against threatening to fire an employees for their political beliefs.
Discrimination is something totally different.
Damore was fired for espousing gender discrimination; again, because gender discrimination is very illegal.
"Political affiliation" a protected class in California.
Not saying this is necessarily the same as "conservative viewpoints," but it could be interpreted that way.
Not saying this is necessarily the same as "conservative viewpoints," but it could be interpreted that way.
People organizing with other employees who share conservative views to engage in concerted action to improve their working conditions is a protected class, though, because people organizing with other employees to engage in concerted action to improve their working conditions is a protected class no matter what other descriptors you add.
"their" means employees', not just a subset of them. Suppose some people thought it'd improve their working conditions by freedom to share KKK rally times and places or organize porn watching parties at the workplace. The law isn't some robotic computer of legal rules. Context often matters.
They certainly don't need to be seeking improvements that benefit every single employee. For example, employees seeking to get paid maternity leave would be a protected activity even though it doesn't benefit all employees.
The KKK or porn examples would be an exception because it would create a hostile work environment for some employees to even suggest that, not because it would only benefit certain employees.
If Damore had only been trying to organize action to get improved work conditions for conservative employees, that would be protected activity and the NRLB opinion says as much. Google was careful to make clear that they were only disciplining him for parts of his memo that were likely to create a hostile work environment for other employees, that is something that they are not only allowed, but possibly required, to discipline employees for.
The KKK or porn examples would be an exception because it would create a hostile work environment for some employees to even suggest that, not because it would only benefit certain employees.
If Damore had only been trying to organize action to get improved work conditions for conservative employees, that would be protected activity and the NRLB opinion says as much. Google was careful to make clear that they were only disciplining him for parts of his memo that were likely to create a hostile work environment for other employees, that is something that they are not only allowed, but possibly required, to discipline employees for.
Melk(1)
guyzero(4)
What constitutes a harmful sterotype?
If I say that women are on average shorter than men, is that a harmful stereotype when it comes to mixed gender basketball leagues?
If I say that women are more caring on average than men, is that a harmful stereotype only if it is untrue, or is it harmful to state it even if it is true?
If I say that women are on average shorter than men, is that a harmful stereotype when it comes to mixed gender basketball leagues?
If I say that women are more caring on average than men, is that a harmful stereotype only if it is untrue, or is it harmful to state it even if it is true?
I think you have misrepresented a few things. One, it was a pro-diversity memo, not an anti-diversity memo. Two, it didn’t say anywhere that men are better suited to software development.
It’s fine to disagree with what he said, but it’s not fine to mischaracterize what he said.
It’s fine to disagree with what he said, but it’s not fine to mischaracterize what he said.
> is that if the memo had been exclusively about how SFBA tech discriminates against conservatives and could in a number of ways be made more accommodating to them, Damore would had been protected from retaliation.
But then this whole thing would be nothing, maybe a minor labor dispute. So this boils down to his bigoted views.
But then this whole thing would be nothing, maybe a minor labor dispute. So this boils down to his bigoted views.
This is well argued but some of the assumptions are false.
1) Damore never argued men were better suited to software engineering than women.
2) Damore never argued for google to violate EEO laws, and in fact it’s the opposite.
It’s very sad to me that there is such widespread misinterpretation of Damore’s nuance in his memo. In every possible factual way it’s a pro-diversity memo, but because it cites research on the average personality differences amongst men and women (which are 100% true), he gets crucified as a bigot and an anti-diversity zealot.
Furthermore, when it comes to matters such as these, “belief” should not play a substantial role. We’ve already proven that men and women don’t differ much on intelligence. No need to believe one way or another.
1) Damore never argued men were better suited to software engineering than women.
2) Damore never argued for google to violate EEO laws, and in fact it’s the opposite.
It’s very sad to me that there is such widespread misinterpretation of Damore’s nuance in his memo. In every possible factual way it’s a pro-diversity memo, but because it cites research on the average personality differences amongst men and women (which are 100% true), he gets crucified as a bigot and an anti-diversity zealot.
Furthermore, when it comes to matters such as these, “belief” should not play a substantial role. We’ve already proven that men and women don’t differ much on intelligence. No need to believe one way or another.
> Damore never argued for google to violate EEO laws, and in fact it’s the opposite.
While this may not have been his intent, this ruling appears to imply that the EEOC thinks that the content of his words do amount to that.
You can disagree, but my expectation is, being that they are EEOC lawyers and you are not, their understanding of what does or does not violate EEO law is better than yours.
While this may not have been his intent, this ruling appears to imply that the EEOC thinks that the content of his words do amount to that.
You can disagree, but my expectation is, being that they are EEOC lawyers and you are not, their understanding of what does or does not violate EEO law is better than yours.
I do disagree. This is on multiple thorough readings of his memo and a sound mind. He never advocates for Google to discriminate against anyone in his memo, nor does he advocate for Google to not prioritize diversity.
There is no quote in his original memo to prove otherwise, legal opinion notwithstanding.
And that's your right, my point is that the experts seem to disagree, and that should, at a minimum give you pause.
It did give me pause, then it gave me concern, then it fizzled into lack of surprise.
Damore lost the PR battle long ago. PR justice, while disheartening, isn’t anything new. Challengers to popular ideology are never right at first, but he’ll be right eventually. One day it’ll be more faux pas to assume there are zero average personality differences between the sexes.
Damore lost the PR battle long ago. PR justice, while disheartening, isn’t anything new. Challengers to popular ideology are never right at first, but he’ll be right eventually. One day it’ll be more faux pas to assume there are zero average personality differences between the sexes.
This is venturing off topic, but you're actually incorrect that he lost the PR battle [0]. The majority of people support Damore, or at least disagree with Google. The majority of subject matter experts, however, do not.
[0]: http://thehill.com/policy/technology/348246-poll-google-was-...
[0]: http://thehill.com/policy/technology/348246-poll-google-was-...
The way this whole thing played out makes me sad, because the guy did bring up a good point - current-day social justice leaves little avenue for well-meaning but unaware (perhaps through privilege) people to start conversations and learn about the reasons and motivations for certain efforts such as affirmative action and changes in vocabulary. Damore was indeed punished for speaking out, just as he feared.
Then he started retweeting Breitbart articles and selling "Goolag" t-shirts and threw his credibility out the window, and solving the problem of "how do we bring people on-board with the diversity thing without scaring them off" is again put off to another day.
Then he started retweeting Breitbart articles and selling "Goolag" t-shirts and threw his credibility out the window, and solving the problem of "how do we bring people on-board with the diversity thing without scaring them off" is again put off to another day.
> punished for speaking out
It wasn't merely that he spoke out. It's not just what you say, it's how you say it. Saying "women, on average, have more neuroticism" is not how you start a dialog. It's how you start an argument.
Let's not debate whether it was a factual statement, but suffice it to say that "what I said was factual so there's nothing wrong with it!" isn't a defense. There are a million statements that are factual that you don't write down and distribute throughout the whole company.
Secondary goals aside, Google's main purpose is to build internet services and make money. If I were Google's management, I'd feel justified in firing him for having the poor judgment to approach things in a way that embroiled the whole company in a fight. The lost productivity alone from the distraction must have been costly to the company.
It's possible he was just trying to help, but you don't hire/employ people for good intentions; you do it so they'll be a functioning gear in a bigger machine. If they can't do that, they aren't fulfilling their purpose at the company.
It wasn't merely that he spoke out. It's not just what you say, it's how you say it. Saying "women, on average, have more neuroticism" is not how you start a dialog. It's how you start an argument.
Let's not debate whether it was a factual statement, but suffice it to say that "what I said was factual so there's nothing wrong with it!" isn't a defense. There are a million statements that are factual that you don't write down and distribute throughout the whole company.
Secondary goals aside, Google's main purpose is to build internet services and make money. If I were Google's management, I'd feel justified in firing him for having the poor judgment to approach things in a way that embroiled the whole company in a fight. The lost productivity alone from the distraction must have been costly to the company.
It's possible he was just trying to help, but you don't hire/employ people for good intentions; you do it so they'll be a functioning gear in a bigger machine. If they can't do that, they aren't fulfilling their purpose at the company.
"women, on average, have more neuroticism" is provably true. It's been measured. It's a shame that we can't start a discussion with the truth
> "women, on average, have more neuroticism" is provably true.
What does that have to do with anything? It does not support (let alone prove) the idea that they are less capable engineers because of this. Where is the science linking this to ability? I might as well state "men, on average, are more violent", or have narrower hips - this is provably true, but it would equally uncorrelated to suitability to the life of a software engineer.
What does that have to do with anything? It does not support (let alone prove) the idea that they are less capable engineers because of this. Where is the science linking this to ability? I might as well state "men, on average, are more violent", or have narrower hips - this is provably true, but it would equally uncorrelated to suitability to the life of a software engineer.
In the context of the memo, he followed the neuroticism claim with a suggestion to "make tech and leadership less stressful", in order to help make the workplace more inclusive to women. You appear to assume that the whole thrust of the memo was to argue that women aren't suitable. The stated aim of the memo was to explore ways of reducing the gender gap, other than quotas. People are mad because about 4 statements out of 100 imply that women aren't suitable. The intention (road to hell and all that) seems to have been to say the reverse: that tech jobs don't suit women. Too fine a distinction to expect most people to make, I suspect.
> In the context of the memo, he followed the neuroticism claim with a suggestion to "make tech and leadership less stressful", in order to help make the workplace more inclusive to women
While appearing to be very scientific, the memo offers no science to backup the underlying assumption with that line of thought("The reason there is a gender gap is because women can't deal with the high-stress environments of tech/leadership"). This is a massive leap from neuroticism. If anyone has the science to back that assumption, I'll be happy to read it.
While appearing to be very scientific, the memo offers no science to backup the underlying assumption with that line of thought("The reason there is a gender gap is because women can't deal with the high-stress environments of tech/leadership"). This is a massive leap from neuroticism. If anyone has the science to back that assumption, I'll be happy to read it.
That's a leap that he explicitly encourages people not to make: populations have a lot of variation, and to look at a difference in means as a categorical difference, to convert "women have a higher population mean for trait X" into "women are more X", is wrong both mathematically and ethically.
(... And, yeah, I feel kind of pedantic here, but on this particular topic the people who don't think about it in terms of probability distributions are doomed to talk nonsense, and getting this right actually matters. So.)
(... And, yeah, I feel kind of pedantic here, but on this particular topic the people who don't think about it in terms of probability distributions are doomed to talk nonsense, and getting this right actually matters. So.)
I was talking in terms of population & probability - but that's neither here nor there because ultimately the distribution of the traits don't matter when the traits are not correlated with success/failure (or representation in C.Sci). That is the leap I am referring to: I'm not prepared to take the same leap (gender traits -> outcomes) others are taking without seeing the supporting literature.
edit: Rayiner's comment[1] explains the lack of scientific rigor way better than I did
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16399052
edit: Rayiner's comment[1] explains the lack of scientific rigor way better than I did
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16399052
What makes you think the memo claimed "they are less capable engineers"?
> It does not support (let alone prove) the idea that they are less capable engineers because of this
So you agree with what James Damore was saying then.
So you agree with what James Damore was saying then.
> What does [truth] have to do with anything?
Do you speak truth to power, or do you speak irrelevance to power?
Do you speak truth to power, or do you speak irrelevance to power?
"black people on average commit more crimes; these violent outburst make them unable to work in engineering teams"
Here; I took a real statistic, made it a generality and pretended that it applied to engineering.
Just because you cherry pick facts to support an argument does not mean that you are 'speaking the truth' as you wrote.
Moreover suggesting that a portion of your coworkers do not have its place here is crossing a very big line.
Here; I took a real statistic, made it a generality and pretended that it applied to engineering.
Just because you cherry pick facts to support an argument does not mean that you are 'speaking the truth' as you wrote.
Moreover suggesting that a portion of your coworkers do not have its place here is crossing a very big line.
source? (not trying to be snide or anything, I'm actually curious if there's a source for that)
For context, one should note that the word "neuroticism" is not used as a regular English word, but is one of the "Big Five" traits in psychology, which comes from factor analysis of personality surveys. Its "definition" would be something like "An underlying quality that correlates with answering 'Agree/Strongly Agree' on these questions and 'Disagree/Strongly Disagree' on those questions". Damore did not note this in his memo, which made the statement more offensive than it should have been.
With that established, if we go to Wikipedia...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism#Age,_sex_and_geogr...
"A 2013 review found that groups associated with higher levels of neuroticism are young adults who are at high risk for mood disorders and women.[22]
For sex, the same review found that "research in large samples has shown that levels of N (neuroticism) are higher in women than men. This is a robust finding that is consistent across cultures. This is especially the case during the reproductive years, but is also visible in children and elderly." It furthermore said that EEG responses showed clear differences between the sexes in individuals with high N levels, but no functional MRI studies have yet been performed to investigate the differences in sex regarding N. However, there is a reason to suspect physiological differences to play a role because of previous studies that showed for example, a correlation between the size of the subgenual anterior cingulate cortex and N in female teenagers, so "the issue of sex differences in N and the implications for understanding N’s neurobiological basis deserve more detailed and systematic investigation."[22] A 2010 review found personality differences between genders to be between "small and moderate," the largest of those differences being in the traits of agreeableness and neuroticism.[37] Many personality traits were found to have had larger personality differences between men and women in developed countries compared to less developed countries, and differences in three traits—extraversion, neuroticism, and people-versus-thing orientation—showed differences that remained consistent across different levels of economic development, which is also consistent with the "possible influence of biologic factors."[37] Three cross-cultural studies have revealed higher levels of female neuroticism across almost all nations.[37]"
The abstracts of both of the cited studies are visible, though the full articles seem to be behind paywalls.
With that established, if we go to Wikipedia...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism#Age,_sex_and_geogr...
"A 2013 review found that groups associated with higher levels of neuroticism are young adults who are at high risk for mood disorders and women.[22]
For sex, the same review found that "research in large samples has shown that levels of N (neuroticism) are higher in women than men. This is a robust finding that is consistent across cultures. This is especially the case during the reproductive years, but is also visible in children and elderly." It furthermore said that EEG responses showed clear differences between the sexes in individuals with high N levels, but no functional MRI studies have yet been performed to investigate the differences in sex regarding N. However, there is a reason to suspect physiological differences to play a role because of previous studies that showed for example, a correlation between the size of the subgenual anterior cingulate cortex and N in female teenagers, so "the issue of sex differences in N and the implications for understanding N’s neurobiological basis deserve more detailed and systematic investigation."[22] A 2010 review found personality differences between genders to be between "small and moderate," the largest of those differences being in the traits of agreeableness and neuroticism.[37] Many personality traits were found to have had larger personality differences between men and women in developed countries compared to less developed countries, and differences in three traits—extraversion, neuroticism, and people-versus-thing orientation—showed differences that remained consistent across different levels of economic development, which is also consistent with the "possible influence of biologic factors."[37] Three cross-cultural studies have revealed higher levels of female neuroticism across almost all nations.[37]"
The abstracts of both of the cited studies are visible, though the full articles seem to be behind paywalls.
> Damore did not note this in his memo,
He kind of did - in fact when he used the word 'Neuroticism' he linked to the exact article you linked to above (the main article, not the sub section on age sex and geographic differences).
Unfortunately Buzzfeed (edit: got this wrong, it was actually Gizmodo) decided to strip all the links (and a few charts) out of the version of the document they published, and so many people didn't realise that was what he was talking about.
He kind of did - in fact when he used the word 'Neuroticism' he linked to the exact article you linked to above (the main article, not the sub section on age sex and geographic differences).
Unfortunately Buzzfeed (edit: got this wrong, it was actually Gizmodo) decided to strip all the links (and a few charts) out of the version of the document they published, and so many people didn't realise that was what he was talking about.
To be fair to Buzzfeed (can’t believe I just wrote that) we don’t know if they did, or if the mystery person who leaked it did.
To be fair to Buzzfeed it turns out I remembered it wrong and it was Gizmodo who originally published the memo, I've corrected that in my comment, but we do know that they stripped it on purpose, stating in the article: "The text of the post is reproduced in full below, with some minor formatting modifications. Two charts and several hyperlinks are also omitted."
Wow I've only just seen this part (i was only familiar with the headlines of this story I never bothered to look into it until now) Whatever anyone's feelings on the issue one way or another, Gizmodo totally fucked this Damore over and I have to think it was deliberate, it doesn't make sense otherwise. I just browsed the original paper and there are citations all over the place - to strip those out is a deliberate move to influence the narrative, it has to be, I mean hell they edited it. They changed the nature of the guy's argument and there's no way in hell they didn't realize how big of an impact that would make (they're not going for a Pulitzer @ gizmodo, and they never claimed to that i know of, but still they aren't total journalistic imbeciles they had to have thought about it)
Wowwieee, I have to stop reading about this, it's depressing. This is a school bus fire. It sounds (according to Mr. Damore, and I'm not finding any disputes of this fact) like he posted this paper internally @ Google a long time before any of the hubbub and only when it became public did anyone have a problem with it. He claims to have gotten responses both positive and negative internally, which I can believe -- that sounds normal regardless of the issue at hand.
This is all PR bullshit. Is this what we've become?? If you can't have a reasonable, adult, calm discussion or debate on a topic then all hope is lost, almost everything else is moot at that point because the entire bedrock of modern society is crumbling. He presented a reasonable argument, and did it the right way (IMO). He wasn't spewing hate speech or name-calling or anything of the sort. He laid out his argument, cited sources from reputable studies in a professional manner, and asked for input/rebuttal. Only because he's asking questions some people may not be comfortable with did this go down the way it did. This is very, very sad, if we continue down this road it is not going to end well. for anybody.
This is all PR bullshit. Is this what we've become?? If you can't have a reasonable, adult, calm discussion or debate on a topic then all hope is lost, almost everything else is moot at that point because the entire bedrock of modern society is crumbling. He presented a reasonable argument, and did it the right way (IMO). He wasn't spewing hate speech or name-calling or anything of the sort. He laid out his argument, cited sources from reputable studies in a professional manner, and asked for input/rebuttal. Only because he's asking questions some people may not be comfortable with did this go down the way it did. This is very, very sad, if we continue down this road it is not going to end well. for anybody.
[deleted]
Sure.
And men, on average, have a lower emotional quotient (EQ) than women and in the case of software engineers it is significantly lower.
So given that software engineering is a social activity i.e. it involves team work with a wide variety of other people. Perhaps then we should look to hire more women since men are biologically unqualified to do the job.
Or you know this line of reasoning is asinine.
And men, on average, have a lower emotional quotient (EQ) than women and in the case of software engineers it is significantly lower.
So given that software engineering is a social activity i.e. it involves team work with a wide variety of other people. Perhaps then we should look to hire more women since men are biologically unqualified to do the job.
Or you know this line of reasoning is asinine.
Not so. First off, we're speaking specifically about Google, which might generalize to the extent of 'high performance' software jobs. Google hiring is selective enough that they can take candidates with exactly the traits they want, which for all we know could co-occur in men at a higher rate than in women.
But we're actually describing the candidate pool for these positions. Having a high EQ is rarely a motivating factor for going into software engineering at Stanford etc. It's people who come out of those programs and just so happens to have the right mix of EQ, drive, talent, and so on that apply to these jobs, and if the applicants are skewed male, the new hires will be as well.
But we're actually describing the candidate pool for these positions. Having a high EQ is rarely a motivating factor for going into software engineering at Stanford etc. It's people who come out of those programs and just so happens to have the right mix of EQ, drive, talent, and so on that apply to these jobs, and if the applicants are skewed male, the new hires will be as well.
You are silly because huge groups of liberal psychologists use the same technical language "women, on average, have more neuroticism" - you want to fire them too?
Secondary goals aside, Google's main purpose is getting the data right - and if you can't even speak of the data, then how are you going to get it right?
Secondary goals aside, Google's main purpose is getting the data right - and if you can't even speak of the data, then how are you going to get it right?
That’s an untenable charitable reading of Damore’s memo. You don’t “start conversations” and “learn” by drawing conclusions, such as the lack of women in tech can be explained by genetic predispositions. And he wasn’t talking about “changes in vocabulary.” He was attacking core assumptions about what a fair society should look like. If you want to learn, you ask questions. You try to understand the other point of view until you can explain it and address it on its own terms. Damore never tried to do that.
To use a technical analogy: it’s like a C++ programmer writing a rant about how JS dynamic typing must be for people too dumb to learn C++, and the ending it with “but I’d love to ‘learn’ more about JS!” Nobody is going to assume good faith.
To use a technical analogy: it’s like a C++ programmer writing a rant about how JS dynamic typing must be for people too dumb to learn C++, and the ending it with “but I’d love to ‘learn’ more about JS!” Nobody is going to assume good faith.
You strike me as reasonable. I would appreciate if you could answer a couple of questions.
1. If there are indeed biological differences between sexes that could help explain different aptitudes/predispositions for different intellectual pursuits, should it be firable to say so?
2. If boys and men are discriminated against in order to pursue equal outcomes, should they be allowed to voice opposition?
I won't challenge anyone who answers. Thank you.
1. If there are indeed biological differences between sexes that could help explain different aptitudes/predispositions for different intellectual pursuits, should it be firable to say so?
2. If boys and men are discriminated against in order to pursue equal outcomes, should they be allowed to voice opposition?
I won't challenge anyone who answers. Thank you.
> 1. If there are indeed biological differences between sexes that could help explain different aptitudes/predispositions for different intellectual pursuits, should it be firable to say so?
You need to unpack this into a few different things:
1) Are there cognitive differences between the sexes? Probably true--but we don't have a great idea of what they are.
2) Do those cognitive differences explain different aptitudes for different intellectual pursuits? No evidence for this in the context of computer programming. Which is why Damore's memo was so intellectually weak. The reasoning was basically "studies show women are people oriented" --> ??? --> "men are biologically predisposed to prefer programming."
3) Is it okay to fire people for saying things that are true? Businesses aren't free speech zones. Actions that jeopardize team cohesion, recruiting goals, company image, etc., are and should be fireable offenses. If someone at Google prepared and circulate a memo on how advertising is evil and destroying America, they should be fired, truth of the matter aside.
4) Everyone is entitled to an opinion, to speak on their own behalf, on their own time. People don't have to associate with you if they don't like your opinion. If you make a lot of money and send your kids to private school, you don't tell a room full of democrats "who cares about public education, let's cut the top tax rate." And if you do and people get salty, you don't say "but don't I have a right to speak on behalf of my own interests?"
You need to unpack this into a few different things:
1) Are there cognitive differences between the sexes? Probably true--but we don't have a great idea of what they are.
2) Do those cognitive differences explain different aptitudes for different intellectual pursuits? No evidence for this in the context of computer programming. Which is why Damore's memo was so intellectually weak. The reasoning was basically "studies show women are people oriented" --> ??? --> "men are biologically predisposed to prefer programming."
3) Is it okay to fire people for saying things that are true? Businesses aren't free speech zones. Actions that jeopardize team cohesion, recruiting goals, company image, etc., are and should be fireable offenses. If someone at Google prepared and circulate a memo on how advertising is evil and destroying America, they should be fired, truth of the matter aside.
4) Everyone is entitled to an opinion, to speak on their own behalf, on their own time. People don't have to associate with you if they don't like your opinion. If you make a lot of money and send your kids to private school, you don't tell a room full of democrats "who cares about public education, let's cut the top tax rate." And if you do and people get salty, you don't say "but don't I have a right to speak on behalf of my own interests?"
1) People have been fascinated with this and have studied it for decades. Just because it isn't quantified, doesn't mean we have no idea what they are
2) You are choosing to frame other's arguments incorrectly and then attacking those imperfections. Men and women in the countries "most equal" are polarized even more in their career choices.
3) People high up in Facebook & Google have publicly questioned advertising & social media addictiveness without public backlash. The memo was firing back at policies that jeopardize team cohesion - in Damore's own words. You don't need free speech inside of a company to discuss data and reference studies.
4) Your #4 doesn't make sense but does demonstrate that you think in a very 'partisan politics' style.
> Hard to have a conversation with someone who just flat out lies at every turn
This thread is awful enough without people stooping to personal attack. We ban accounts that do this. Moreover you've violate the site guidelines quite a bit and we've had to warn you before.
We won't ban you this time, but please (re-)read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules from now on if you want to keep commenting here.
This thread is awful enough without people stooping to personal attack. We ban accounts that do this. Moreover you've violate the site guidelines quite a bit and we've had to warn you before.
We won't ban you this time, but please (re-)read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules from now on if you want to keep commenting here.
> If there are indeed biological differences between sexes that could help explain different aptitudes/predispositions for different intellectual pursuits, should it be firable to say so?
First, I'll note that "should it be firable" in the question is a little bit ambiguous. I'm interpreting it as "should a company be allowed to fire an employee for this", and not as "should a company fire an employee over this".
If you believe in at-will employment, then yes. Truth does not protect you from being fired.
I'm not a huge fan of at-will employment in general, but I think even in this context the 1A freedom of association makes it problematic to prevent companies from firing people for their speech. Even truthful speech.
As an individual has the right to speak, without interference from government actors, the employer has the broad right to choose who they associate with. Restricting that right is problematic.
> 2. If boys and men are discriminated against in order to pursue equal outcomes, should they be allowed to voice opposition?
Of course they should be allowed to voice opposition. The government should not interfere with their speech in any way. Further, the government should not discriminate against those individuals based on that speech.
However, as they are allowed to voice their opposition their may be social consequences for doing so. Speech often carries social consequences—some I agree with and some I don't. For me, how appropriate or proportional those social consequences are depend very significantly on the content and tone of the particular voiced opposition and the social response. That makes it somewhat harder to respond to a general question.
You are free to challenge my responses. I'm happy to discuss these ideas.
Some similarly constructed questions I would return:
1. If there are not biological differences between sexes that could help explain different aptitudes/predispositions for different intellectual pursuits—but a coworker asserts that such differences exist, that your sex is the one with less aptitude—could you see how upset employees and applicants of that sex?
2. If women have traditionally been discriminated against in this industry, and a co-worker voices support for this ongoing discrimination in a way that makes them uncomfortable, should they be allowed to complain about that co-worker? Should their complaints be taken seriously?
I similarly won't challenge you if you answer.
First, I'll note that "should it be firable" in the question is a little bit ambiguous. I'm interpreting it as "should a company be allowed to fire an employee for this", and not as "should a company fire an employee over this".
If you believe in at-will employment, then yes. Truth does not protect you from being fired.
I'm not a huge fan of at-will employment in general, but I think even in this context the 1A freedom of association makes it problematic to prevent companies from firing people for their speech. Even truthful speech.
As an individual has the right to speak, without interference from government actors, the employer has the broad right to choose who they associate with. Restricting that right is problematic.
> 2. If boys and men are discriminated against in order to pursue equal outcomes, should they be allowed to voice opposition?
Of course they should be allowed to voice opposition. The government should not interfere with their speech in any way. Further, the government should not discriminate against those individuals based on that speech.
However, as they are allowed to voice their opposition their may be social consequences for doing so. Speech often carries social consequences—some I agree with and some I don't. For me, how appropriate or proportional those social consequences are depend very significantly on the content and tone of the particular voiced opposition and the social response. That makes it somewhat harder to respond to a general question.
You are free to challenge my responses. I'm happy to discuss these ideas.
Some similarly constructed questions I would return:
1. If there are not biological differences between sexes that could help explain different aptitudes/predispositions for different intellectual pursuits—but a coworker asserts that such differences exist, that your sex is the one with less aptitude—could you see how upset employees and applicants of that sex?
2. If women have traditionally been discriminated against in this industry, and a co-worker voices support for this ongoing discrimination in a way that makes them uncomfortable, should they be allowed to complain about that co-worker? Should their complaints be taken seriously?
I similarly won't challenge you if you answer.
You don’t “start conversations” and “learn” by drawing conclusions, such as the lack of women in tech can be explained by genetic predispositions.
No, but you can start conversations and learn by asking questions. What silences conversations and prevents learning is a menacing attitude towards to having conversations and asking questions.
He was attacking core assumptions about what a fair society should look like.
Aren't the assumptions the very things which should be questioned? If your axioms are flawed, then the systems built upon them are invalidated. Why should there be equality of outcomes? Should Asians have representation in the NBA proportional to their population percentage? Why is it that Jewish people have been radically more successful than the general population at tailoring across literally thousands of years of history, in so many different cultures and contexts? Why is there a Scandinavian Gender Equality paradox?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKmyO3hbOz8
(Watch that video and try and tell me that the "equalists" don't come across as unreasonable, closed minded, and ideologically driven?)
A broad reading of history tells us that cultural human capital is tremendously powerful. It also gives one hope, as the historical record also indicates that cultural human capital is also transferable. The transformation of the Irish diaspora from their utter destitution to their descendant's current place in 21st century society should tell you that. (Some historians would place the average displaced Irish peasant's wealth at something like 1/2 to 1/4th that of the contemporaneous average US slave's.) Such a reading of history also demolishes the ideology of the worst segments of the Alt-Right. (As well as demolishing that of the identity politics US far-left.)
Let's call such a world view, "Cultural Primacy." Given that cultural human capital has such deep-rooted and powerful effects, what conclusions could we draw about Google's policies? It could well be that cultural human capital would have strong and persistent effects on the preferences of groups, so it would be unreasonable to expect immediate 50/50 outcomes. In fact, it would be expected for such changes to be generational, perhaps taking 2 or 3 generations. Such a world view would also emphasize the educational pipeline, and the way the subcultures of professions and fields are perceived by under-represented groups. This also happens to be in line with James Damore's suggestions from the memo. It's also entirely in line with what Google and YouTube execs have said in public:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrOp8ewzJDc
No, but you can start conversations and learn by asking questions. What silences conversations and prevents learning is a menacing attitude towards to having conversations and asking questions.
He was attacking core assumptions about what a fair society should look like.
Aren't the assumptions the very things which should be questioned? If your axioms are flawed, then the systems built upon them are invalidated. Why should there be equality of outcomes? Should Asians have representation in the NBA proportional to their population percentage? Why is it that Jewish people have been radically more successful than the general population at tailoring across literally thousands of years of history, in so many different cultures and contexts? Why is there a Scandinavian Gender Equality paradox?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKmyO3hbOz8
(Watch that video and try and tell me that the "equalists" don't come across as unreasonable, closed minded, and ideologically driven?)
A broad reading of history tells us that cultural human capital is tremendously powerful. It also gives one hope, as the historical record also indicates that cultural human capital is also transferable. The transformation of the Irish diaspora from their utter destitution to their descendant's current place in 21st century society should tell you that. (Some historians would place the average displaced Irish peasant's wealth at something like 1/2 to 1/4th that of the contemporaneous average US slave's.) Such a reading of history also demolishes the ideology of the worst segments of the Alt-Right. (As well as demolishing that of the identity politics US far-left.)
Let's call such a world view, "Cultural Primacy." Given that cultural human capital has such deep-rooted and powerful effects, what conclusions could we draw about Google's policies? It could well be that cultural human capital would have strong and persistent effects on the preferences of groups, so it would be unreasonable to expect immediate 50/50 outcomes. In fact, it would be expected for such changes to be generational, perhaps taking 2 or 3 generations. Such a world view would also emphasize the educational pipeline, and the way the subcultures of professions and fields are perceived by under-represented groups. This also happens to be in line with James Damore's suggestions from the memo. It's also entirely in line with what Google and YouTube execs have said in public:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrOp8ewzJDc
But he wasn't asking questions. The document wasn't an invitation to explain where he was mistaken. By all accounts he was given feedback on his ideas before the final memo went out. In the very text he says that opposition to these ideas demonstrates bias and he therefore dismisses the very idea of being wrong.
This wasn't some intellectual debate.
This wasn't some intellectual debate.
But he wasn't asking questions. The document wasn't an invitation to explain where he was mistaken.
It was precisely that.
By all accounts he was given feedback on his ideas before the final memo went out.
By his own account.
In the very text he says that opposition to these ideas demonstrates bias and he therefore dismisses the very idea of being wrong.
Quote, please.
This wasn't some intellectual debate.
No, the reaction to the memo turned out to be screeching and namecalling.
Here's a feminist interviewing James Damore: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SFLoKa8FdA
It was precisely that.
By all accounts he was given feedback on his ideas before the final memo went out.
By his own account.
In the very text he says that opposition to these ideas demonstrates bias and he therefore dismisses the very idea of being wrong.
Quote, please.
This wasn't some intellectual debate.
No, the reaction to the memo turned out to be screeching and namecalling.
Here's a feminist interviewing James Damore: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SFLoKa8FdA
The reactions that were most amplified likely included some namecalling, but I saw a lot of well-reasoned and detailed takedowns of the pseudoscience in the memo.
My guess is that both sides look at the worst of the other to justify themselves.
My guess is that both sides look at the worst of the other to justify themselves.
The reactions that were most amplified likely included some namecalling, but I saw a lot of well-reasoned and detailed takedowns of the pseudoscience in the memo.
[citation needed]
Among the "pseudoscience" in the memo is one of the most important results in psychology of recent years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKmyO3hbOz8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Ge...
The study cited as "The Scandinavian Paradox" was across 55 countries and is one of the statistically strongest results in the social sciences, flat-out.
[citation needed]
Among the "pseudoscience" in the memo is one of the most important results in psychology of recent years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKmyO3hbOz8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Ge...
The study cited as "The Scandinavian Paradox" was across 55 countries and is one of the statistically strongest results in the social sciences, flat-out.
What core assumptions was he attacking specifically? Can you point to specific in his memo?
It’s a core assumption that when it comes to employment, men and women are generally similar at a cognitive level and equally well suited to different white-collar professions. We adopted that presumption as a protective mechanism, when we came out of a long period of invoking pseudo-scientific ideas about differences between men and women to justify sexism.
Can you point to anywhere in his memo where he claims that men and women's cognitive level is different? Again I have read this quite a few times and I don't see it.
So can you point me to exactly where he claims that?
So can you point me to exactly where he claims that?
These kinds of objections will draw approving nods from people who already agree with you, but to everyone else, the implication that differences in IQ variance between men and women lead the "top of the curve" to be naturally overpopulated with men is exactly what it sounds like: a claim for the intellectual superiority of men. Sure, there are dumb men; maybe they're even dumber than the dumbest women! But if you're looking for the best, that logic says, you're going to end up mostly with men.
But put that aside and just try to engage with the simultaneously naive and arrogant assumption that the people Google hires --- people, we assume, like Damore --- must somehow represent the top of that curve. Because what they do is just so demanding.
I work in this field, at a pretty deeply technical level, and when I hear other people in it make arguments premised on the notion that what we do demands the pinnacle of human cognitive ability, I just want to hide under a rock from embarrassment.
But put that aside and just try to engage with the simultaneously naive and arrogant assumption that the people Google hires --- people, we assume, like Damore --- must somehow represent the top of that curve. Because what they do is just so demanding.
I work in this field, at a pretty deeply technical level, and when I hear other people in it make arguments premised on the notion that what we do demands the pinnacle of human cognitive ability, I just want to hide under a rock from embarrassment.
but to everyone else, the implication that differences in IQ variance between men and women lead the "top of the curve" to be naturally overpopulated with men is exactly what it sounds like: a claim for the intellectual superiority of men. Sure, there are dumb men; maybe they're even dumber than the dumbest women! But if you're looking for the best, that logic says, you're going to end up mostly with men.
The claim is that there are more extreme outliers for men, both at the top and at the bottom. So there are more very stupid men. This is borne out by the research, and by the prevalence of Darwin Awards winners who are male. I don't think this makes men inherently superior, overall. I think it makes men more prone to specialization at the expense of other areas of attention, like social graces. My "lived experience" would seem to bear this out. Nerdy guys are more obnoxious in certain ways than the general populace, and currently express this in way which would tend to affect the preferences of women.
I work in this field, at a pretty deeply technical level, and when I hear other people in it make arguments premised on the notion that what we do demands the pinnacle of human cognitive ability, I just want to hide under a rock from embarrassment.
We've talked about this before, and I did and would still agree that the Bay Area/Silicon Valley's view of itself is overblown. Taking such a view actually deflates the notion of male superiority instead of inflating it.
Re: the online challenge which your company had online for recruitment purposes -- was it gender neutral in its presentation and availability, and what was the gender distribution of the successful takers? What was the gender distribution of the hired population?
The claim is that there are more extreme outliers for men, both at the top and at the bottom. So there are more very stupid men. This is borne out by the research, and by the prevalence of Darwin Awards winners who are male. I don't think this makes men inherently superior, overall. I think it makes men more prone to specialization at the expense of other areas of attention, like social graces. My "lived experience" would seem to bear this out. Nerdy guys are more obnoxious in certain ways than the general populace, and currently express this in way which would tend to affect the preferences of women.
I work in this field, at a pretty deeply technical level, and when I hear other people in it make arguments premised on the notion that what we do demands the pinnacle of human cognitive ability, I just want to hide under a rock from embarrassment.
We've talked about this before, and I did and would still agree that the Bay Area/Silicon Valley's view of itself is overblown. Taking such a view actually deflates the notion of male superiority instead of inflating it.
Re: the online challenge which your company had online for recruitment purposes -- was it gender neutral in its presentation and availability, and what was the gender distribution of the successful takers? What was the gender distribution of the hired population?
Gender and age diversity improved with work sample testing (but we never had to scale it to a point where we challenged our candidate pipeline, which was drawn pretty conventionally from commercial programmers, so, like everyone else, our candidate pipeline was male-dominated).
We tried to do a company premised on scaling it up, so that we could place enough candidates to service a truly large funnel. I looked forward to seeing what that would do for our parity numbers. But we did that startup wrong, and so I haven't found out how it will work out yet.
We tried to do a company premised on scaling it up, so that we could place enough candidates to service a truly large funnel. I looked forward to seeing what that would do for our parity numbers. But we did that startup wrong, and so I haven't found out how it will work out yet.
so, like everyone else, our candidate pipeline was male-dominated
Doesn't a situation where the candidate pipeline is so skewed call to question the desirability of "equality of outcomes?" It would also make me question ideological doubling-down, and mob psychology behaviors like ridiculing managers who hadn't met quotas yet. Such behaviors in such a context, like that of the Google which James Damore described, strike me as every but as illogical and mean-spirited as the parody motivational sign, "the beating will continue until morale improves."
Google has enacted diversity policies which are directed towards the front end of the pipeline -- like directly recruiting at Howard University -- and those are supposed to be backed up by hard numbers showing results.
Doesn't a situation where the candidate pipeline is so skewed call to question the desirability of "equality of outcomes?" It would also make me question ideological doubling-down, and mob psychology behaviors like ridiculing managers who hadn't met quotas yet. Such behaviors in such a context, like that of the Google which James Damore described, strike me as every but as illogical and mean-spirited as the parody motivational sign, "the beating will continue until morale improves."
Google has enacted diversity policies which are directed towards the front end of the pipeline -- like directly recruiting at Howard University -- and those are supposed to be backed up by hard numbers showing results.
"Equality of outcomes" is a political catch phrase, and not one I introduced into the conversation.
Right. "The social compact" is your catch phrase, or at least it used to be.
I do believe in equality of opportunity, and do not believe we have it. You're familiar with what I think of tech management culture. Hiring, in particular, but none of the rest of it is any better. The idea that anyone would feel comfortable making assertions about things our field gets right offends me. As a profession, we're clowns.
This is the funny thing. It's one thing to use this distribution to explain the gender disparity among Nobel laureates. Employing it to explain the same disparity in Google employees is just laughable. As someone who teaches college math at what one might call an 'elite' institution, I've found no difference between the abilities of students based on gender. If anything, the girls are better because they have to be better to be taken as seriously as an equivalent guy.
Again I would urge you and others to be specific. Where did he claim intellectual superiority of men?
This memo was written inside of Google, yet you seem to judge it as if it was written to the outside world. Why would you do that?
Even if he was misguided (as far as I know he was a top performer), then by what standard do you mean that your interpretation as an outsider is more relevant than the intent of the memo (which was feedback as encouraged by HR)?
Why should I read it in the light that you want me to look at it in (he is arrogant and think he is the pinnacle of human cognitive ability) rather than the one he intended which was to raise his concern with their hiring process?
This memo was written inside of Google, yet you seem to judge it as if it was written to the outside world. Why would you do that?
Even if he was misguided (as far as I know he was a top performer), then by what standard do you mean that your interpretation as an outsider is more relevant than the intent of the memo (which was feedback as encouraged by HR)?
Why should I read it in the light that you want me to look at it in (he is arrogant and think he is the pinnacle of human cognitive ability) rather than the one he intended which was to raise his concern with their hiring process?
> But put that aside and just try to engage with the simultaneously naive and arrogant assumption that the people Google hires --- people, we assume, like Damore --- must somehow represent the top of that curve. Because what they do is just so demanding.
This is fallacious reasoning. The claim that the IQ of men has higher variance implies (given a Gaussian distribution) that there is some IQ threshold beyond which there are many more men having an IQ greater than the threshold than there are women. It doesn't imply anything about whether this threshold is above or below the average IQ of Google employees. In fact, if indeed the claim is correct, the threshold may well be not very much higher than the average IQ of the general population.
This is fallacious reasoning. The claim that the IQ of men has higher variance implies (given a Gaussian distribution) that there is some IQ threshold beyond which there are many more men having an IQ greater than the threshold than there are women. It doesn't imply anything about whether this threshold is above or below the average IQ of Google employees. In fact, if indeed the claim is correct, the threshold may well be not very much higher than the average IQ of the general population.
When the Damore memo came out, people have calculated that to explain the only 20% women working for google, the average IQ of google engineers needs to be 160. That is laughable.
Interesting. Do you have a link to that calculation? Maybe tptacek was impliticly referencing that calculation. I took what he said at face value but maybe real world numbers make my claim moot.
By way of calculation, apparently 30k software engineers work for Google[1] so there are probably around 15k in the USA. There are 600k software engineers in the USA[2]. I estimate that Google employs about 10% of the engineers that could pass an interview with them if they tried, so the Google-level cohort in the USA is about 150k or 25% of all engineers.
The top 25% of engineers is 0.7 standard deviations above the mean of a normal distribution. Assuming equal means, female engineers would have to have a variance in "software engineering quotient"[3] 45% that of the male engineer variance.
So it seems that if men and women have the same mean propensity to be good software engineers (not just IQ, or even IQ at all, but general propensity) but the variance of the female propensity is 45% of that of the male, then that would entirely explain a 20%/80% ratio at Google.
(Caveat: I've calculated the SWEQ level based on male engineers only but since there is such a small proportion of female engineers I don't think this skews the calculation very much.)
[1] https://www.quora.com/How-many-software-engineers-does-Googl...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_engineering_demograph...
[3] IQ per se is probably not the relevant factor. I don't know if a single number representing "SWE quotient" is even plausible ...
By way of calculation, apparently 30k software engineers work for Google[1] so there are probably around 15k in the USA. There are 600k software engineers in the USA[2]. I estimate that Google employs about 10% of the engineers that could pass an interview with them if they tried, so the Google-level cohort in the USA is about 150k or 25% of all engineers.
The top 25% of engineers is 0.7 standard deviations above the mean of a normal distribution. Assuming equal means, female engineers would have to have a variance in "software engineering quotient"[3] 45% that of the male engineer variance.
So it seems that if men and women have the same mean propensity to be good software engineers (not just IQ, or even IQ at all, but general propensity) but the variance of the female propensity is 45% of that of the male, then that would entirely explain a 20%/80% ratio at Google.
(Caveat: I've calculated the SWEQ level based on male engineers only but since there is such a small proportion of female engineers I don't think this skews the calculation very much.)
[1] https://www.quora.com/How-many-software-engineers-does-Googl...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_engineering_demograph...
[3] IQ per se is probably not the relevant factor. I don't know if a single number representing "SWE quotient" is even plausible ...
Thanks! A variance ratio of 1.15 is nowhere near the 2.2 that my calculation predicts would be necessary! I think yorwba and I have done the same calculation from opposite directions and reached the same conclusion. A huge difference in variance would be needed to explain an 80/20 split at Google level.
Wait, what?
Damore's memo doesn't mention intelligence or IQ at all [1], not even in the abstract or as distributions or as averages.
--
Using the version of the memo cited on the wikipedia page https://web.archive.org/web/20170809220001/https://diversity...
Damore's memo doesn't mention intelligence or IQ at all [1], not even in the abstract or as distributions or as averages.
--
Using the version of the memo cited on the wikipedia page https://web.archive.org/web/20170809220001/https://diversity...
I'm not interested in rereading the version of the memo that was published publicly. I'm working from the direct quotes in the NLRB Advice Memo. I believe that what you read was not what was circulated inside Google, but Damore is not at pains to tell you that.
My understanding is that the version distributed was a draft purposefully leaked, rather than distributed by Damore.
Why should this be representative here? Shouldn't the leaker be punished for the fallout of distributing the draft, if the final version was more nuanced?
Why should this be representative here? Shouldn't the leaker be punished for the fallout of distributing the draft, if the final version was more nuanced?
It definitely mentions it. Here (section "Why we are blind"):
"[...] the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ and sex differences)"
I don't know how else to read that other than "men are smarter". Is there any other reading?
"[...] the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ and sex differences)"
I don't know how else to read that other than "men are smarter". Is there any other reading?
You're taking that way out of context. He's not saying that the left denies IQ differences between the sexes, and it's sloppy to quote half a sentence. If you read that section, he's analyzing the psychology of the left and the right.
The full sentence, which you clipped is: Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change), the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ8 and sex differences).
That is, that the left likes to pretend there are no IQ differences (between any two groups), nor that there are any psychology differences between the sexes [because it undermines their ideology, just as global warming undermines conservative ideology].
Though this may seem ambiguous, it's clear if you consider his footnote. [8]
The full sentence, which you clipped is: Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change), the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ8 and sex differences).
That is, that the left likes to pretend there are no IQ differences (between any two groups), nor that there are any psychology differences between the sexes [because it undermines their ideology, just as global warming undermines conservative ideology].
Though this may seem ambiguous, it's clear if you consider his footnote. [8]
Yes, of course, there are.
The correct reading is that there is biological difference both between the sexes and inside each of the sexes.
This is a reference to the identity politics you see especially in 2ndwave/3rd wave feminism which claims that almost everything is a social construct.
The correct reading is that there is biological difference both between the sexes and inside each of the sexes.
This is a reference to the identity politics you see especially in 2ndwave/3rd wave feminism which claims that almost everything is a social construct.
I don't get it.
He says there are IQ differences between people. Who are these "people" if not men and women? He either means men are smarter or he just randomly went on a tangent.
Let me ask you, when he says there are IQ differences between people, which groups of people do you think he means?
He says there are IQ differences between people. Who are these "people" if not men and women? He either means men are smarter or he just randomly went on a tangent.
Let me ask you, when he says there are IQ differences between people, which groups of people do you think he means?
What is it you don't get?
He is referencing the people who claim there is no biological differences and that almost everything is social constructs.
If you want to understand what he is talking about here is an example
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/16/how-fluid-i...
He is referencing the people who claim there is no biological differences and that almost everything is social constructs.
If you want to understand what he is talking about here is an example
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/16/how-fluid-i...
He's referring to a group that is selected based on their intelligence. In that case, it doesn't really matter what the distribution of the larger population is, because you're only talking about a group that is selected for their favorable attributes.
For someone to say that people who are already in a career, that is, already selected for their ability, are less suited because of their sex is kind of absurd.
For someone to say that people who are already in a career, that is, already selected for their ability, are less suited because of their sex is kind of absurd.
He's arguing "the left" would never say group A has a higher average IQ than group B, regardless of the groups.
That tidbit is a paranthetical in a sentence about the psychology of left vs right. His thrust is an illustration of how ideology and science are conflated.
That tidbit is a paranthetical in a sentence about the psychology of left vs right. His thrust is an illustration of how ideology and science are conflated.
Here (section "Why we are blind"):
"[...] the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ and sex differences)"
I don't know how else to read that other than "men are smarter". Is there any other reading?
I don't know how else to read that other than "men are smarter". Is there any other reading?
It's just possible to read it as a poorly written attempt to say that the Left ignores science on biological IQ differences (perhaps, as is quite popular to point to on the Right, those associated with race) and also biological sex differences, rather than it being intended to refer to biological, sex-linked, IQ differences.
If we charitably assume that the entire thing is poorly written then it can mean anything we want!
If you write something that people interpret as sexist due to your poor language and then spend no effort to correct that error.... that's still bad.
If you write something that people interpret as sexist due to your poor language and then spend no effort to correct that error.... that's still bad.
All it requires is that you read it in its full context. Read the memo. Then it's fairly obvious what he is talking about.
Yes, of course, there is.
The correct reading is that there is biological difference both between the sexes and inside each of the sexes.
This is a reference to the identity politics you see especially in 2ndwave/3rd wave feminism which claims that almost everything is a social construct.
He isn't talking about who is better just that there are differences.
The correct reading is that there is biological difference both between the sexes and inside each of the sexes.
This is a reference to the identity politics you see especially in 2ndwave/3rd wave feminism which claims that almost everything is a social construct.
He isn't talking about who is better just that there are differences.
My reply is here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16398806
And mine is here
What is it you don't get? He is referencing the people (mostly feminists on the left) who claim there are no biological differences and that almost everything is social constructs.
If you want to understand what he is talking about here is an example https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/16/how-fluid-i...
What is it you don't get? He is referencing the people (mostly feminists on the left) who claim there are no biological differences and that almost everything is social constructs.
If you want to understand what he is talking about here is an example https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/16/how-fluid-i...
You are one of these people who can't handle losing an argument that your ideology is a part of. You don't substantiate these claims - have you actually read the memo? Your analogy kind of proves that you didn't read the memo. Furthermore, I bet anyone at Google could make your mistaken analogy and not get in trouble for it. Furthermore, do you even believe someone should be fired if they made your programming language analogy?
I feel like the progressive left THRUST Damore and anyone who might have similar thoughts/questions into the welcoming arms of the alt-right. I'm disappointed with the "Goolag" t-shirts, but he did lose his livelihood, had his professional reputation destroyed, and only a limited time to cash out. So this socially awkward nerd did what any sensible person would do, rode the wave that was sent his way the best he could. Consider his professional options compared to a standard "former Googler." They destroyed him, it was terrible.
As someone who was an actual classmate of Damore, I can attest to his lack of character in this regard. I understand that the tone of his memo made it appear to have come from a thoughtful humanist, but this was a careful deception. In every social or professional encounter I've had with him, he's at least made somebody (particularly women) uncomfortable. In several cases these incidents led to meetings and reprimands. I am certain that he was already fully in the alt right camp, and did not say so aloud because he is a smart person capable of recognizing bad PR.
Well, maybe you have insider knowledge about how much he actually disagrees with those on the left at Google--or maybe you don't.
But either way, those who are fully in the alt-left camp at Google seem to consider themselves completely free to make anyone who disagrees with them uncomfortable and to go far beyond that: to force them to undergo indoctrination "training", or to be fired outright to make examples of them to others who might be tempted to openly question leftist dogma that may or may not actually be correct.
At Google, those on the far left don't seem to feel the need for "careful deception" when it comes to expressing their opinions of/to coworkers they disagree with. They don't act as though they are required to make those with different opinions "feel safe". They have every reason for confidence, because "safety" just means "privilege": We get to blame and criticize you, but you aren't allowed to respond, because we (not you) are entitled to "safety".
But either way, those who are fully in the alt-left camp at Google seem to consider themselves completely free to make anyone who disagrees with them uncomfortable and to go far beyond that: to force them to undergo indoctrination "training", or to be fired outright to make examples of them to others who might be tempted to openly question leftist dogma that may or may not actually be correct.
At Google, those on the far left don't seem to feel the need for "careful deception" when it comes to expressing their opinions of/to coworkers they disagree with. They don't act as though they are required to make those with different opinions "feel safe". They have every reason for confidence, because "safety" just means "privilege": We get to blame and criticize you, but you aren't allowed to respond, because we (not you) are entitled to "safety".
Only when it comes to things that the right is is indisputably on the wrong side of history and hasn't figured it out yet (gay rights, gender rights, etc).
Its not like the alt left yet to preach about communism or unions or taxation with the same privileged safety. Subjects like this get a lot of reasonable discussion from both sides at left leaning companies.
But when it comes to things like diversity? And you are a company full of the most intelligent people in the world? Yeah, sorry if you haven't realized that "unconscious bias" is a real thing, you don't deserve a safe space to question it, you are being wilfully ignorant.
Its not like the alt left yet to preach about communism or unions or taxation with the same privileged safety. Subjects like this get a lot of reasonable discussion from both sides at left leaning companies.
But when it comes to things like diversity? And you are a company full of the most intelligent people in the world? Yeah, sorry if you haven't realized that "unconscious bias" is a real thing, you don't deserve a safe space to question it, you are being wilfully ignorant.
>Only when it comes to things that the right is is indisputably on the wrong side of history and hasn't figured it out yet (gay rights, gender rights, etc).
Except that's not how it works the other direction. You mentioned communism. The left is indisputably on the wrong side of history here and hasn't figured it out yet. And yet somehow the right is still willing to engage in reasonable discussion.
A person could take a generous reading of Damore's memo and find plenty of common ground. It doesn't matter if he's right about the differences between genders being biological vs environmental. Survey after survey suggests that part of the reason why women avoid/leave tech is long hours and inflexible schedules. Since men are more willing to accept long hours and inflexible schedules (again, could be socially constructed) then Google is currently set up to maximally benefit men (patriarchy). To help with this situation Damore suggests some new policies like creating more part time positions and offering more telecommute opportunities.
But instead of trying to find common ground and move forward with some policies which might create an environment maximally beneficial to everyone, the ENTIRE NATION needed to stop what we were doing so this socially awkward nobody with no power could be publicly flogged over some potentially incorrect ideas about diversity policy.
Except that's not how it works the other direction. You mentioned communism. The left is indisputably on the wrong side of history here and hasn't figured it out yet. And yet somehow the right is still willing to engage in reasonable discussion.
A person could take a generous reading of Damore's memo and find plenty of common ground. It doesn't matter if he's right about the differences between genders being biological vs environmental. Survey after survey suggests that part of the reason why women avoid/leave tech is long hours and inflexible schedules. Since men are more willing to accept long hours and inflexible schedules (again, could be socially constructed) then Google is currently set up to maximally benefit men (patriarchy). To help with this situation Damore suggests some new policies like creating more part time positions and offering more telecommute opportunities.
But instead of trying to find common ground and move forward with some policies which might create an environment maximally beneficial to everyone, the ENTIRE NATION needed to stop what we were doing so this socially awkward nobody with no power could be publicly flogged over some potentially incorrect ideas about diversity policy.
> And yet somehow the right is still willing to engage in reasonable discussion.
This is a joke right? Proposing universal health care, paid maternity leave, or raising the minimum wage leads to screams of "SOCIALISM!" and any explicit support of socialism leads to screams about the millions of people killed by Stalin.
There is no reasonable discourse about the idea of weak-link based cultures (rather than strong-link), or government-mandated egalitarianism.
This is a joke right? Proposing universal health care, paid maternity leave, or raising the minimum wage leads to screams of "SOCIALISM!" and any explicit support of socialism leads to screams about the millions of people killed by Stalin.
There is no reasonable discourse about the idea of weak-link based cultures (rather than strong-link), or government-mandated egalitarianism.
When was the last time you saw a random nobody make national headlines news and have their career ruined for proposing universal healthcare? Yes, debates get heated, but the right generally does not try to destroy you in this way for being "wrong."
[deleted]
he did lose his livelihood, had his professional reputation destroyed
I'm frankly ashamed at the behavior of my classmates, who were so enthusiastically throwing him under the bus, without really knowing anything about him. I found it very odd that people who had no basis of judging his software engineering skills had very strong opinions about them.
I'm reminded of a documentary film about North Korea, where during one segment of a meeting, people went up to the front of the room and took turns condemning the United States, and were cheered the more fanatical they sounded. There is indeed "thought-crime" in the United States, and this category is at times conveniently expanded to to encompass any questioning of the new orthodoxy at all, with no basis but irrational, emotional ones.
I'm frankly ashamed at the behavior of my classmates, who were so enthusiastically throwing him under the bus, without really knowing anything about him. I found it very odd that people who had no basis of judging his software engineering skills had very strong opinions about them.
I'm reminded of a documentary film about North Korea, where during one segment of a meeting, people went up to the front of the room and took turns condemning the United States, and were cheered the more fanatical they sounded. There is indeed "thought-crime" in the United States, and this category is at times conveniently expanded to to encompass any questioning of the new orthodoxy at all, with no basis but irrational, emotional ones.
Team interaction is a software engineering skill. The ability to work with a diverse set of people and bring them together rather than disparaging and dividing them is a software engineering skill. I would rather have a good programmer who got along with my team than a great one that wrote such memos.
Can we differentiate between firing Damore and participating in a nation-wide metaphorical public hanging?
> Can we differentiate between firing Damore and participating in a nation-wide metaphorical public hanging?
Yes. Starting with the first is a thing that actually happened, and the second is not, so it's not worth talking about.
Yes. Starting with the first is a thing that actually happened, and the second is not, so it's not worth talking about.
I'm sorry, but some random nobody at Google having some wrong ideas about diversity policy does not deserve to be national front page news. James Damore is about as meek and mild as it gets. He's not some David Duke monster. None of us should have ever heard his name. This was a public assassination of a powerless nobody for cheap political points. That's the part that I have a problem with. I have no problem at all with Google firing him. I have a problem with the way the national media and general public behaved.
This was a public assassination of a powerless nobody for cheap political points. That's the part that I have a problem with.
This willingness to "un-person" someone for reasons of ideological fervor -- this is precisely why I, as a liberal, feel so alienated from so much of the far-left politics going around nowadays. I've personally been a target of such things. (I can't discuss it, but I can say that it was not gender based.)
It's such attitudes and the unreasonable fury behind them which most worries me.
This willingness to "un-person" someone for reasons of ideological fervor -- this is precisely why I, as a liberal, feel so alienated from so much of the far-left politics going around nowadays. I've personally been a target of such things. (I can't discuss it, but I can say that it was not gender based.)
It's such attitudes and the unreasonable fury behind them which most worries me.
As a conservative I share your feeling of alienation, because look at how the right has responded. It's given us Trump which is really gross. I fear we're in a very precarious position both culturally and politically and I wish I had some insight into how to move back towards a place where we can have rational intelligent discussions again. For the meantime I think we'll all be relegated to the "intellectual dark web," a phrase coined by I believe Eric Weinstein, the left-leaning professor who had to resign out of fear for his life after refusing to stay home during "no whites" day at Evergreen college.
Actually, that was Bret. Eric is his brother.
> I'm sorry, but some random nobody at Google having some wrong ideas about diversity policy does not deserve to be national front page news.
Claims of anti-white-male discrimination in tech are man-bites-dog stories, and naturally get more attention for that reason, plus, Damore immediately sought out media with political biases to maximally promote that kind of story. It becoming national front page news and getting the degree of attention it did in part just novelty, and in very large part the foreseeable result of how Damore soguht to promote his story.
> This was a public assassination
No, it wasn't. It was public, but there was no assassination.
Claims of anti-white-male discrimination in tech are man-bites-dog stories, and naturally get more attention for that reason, plus, Damore immediately sought out media with political biases to maximally promote that kind of story. It becoming national front page news and getting the degree of attention it did in part just novelty, and in very large part the foreseeable result of how Damore soguht to promote his story.
> This was a public assassination
No, it wasn't. It was public, but there was no assassination.
No, it wasn't. It was public, but there was no assassination.
It sure looked like an intellectually dishonest, ideologically fervent character assassination to me.
It sure looked like an intellectually dishonest, ideologically fervent character assassination to me.
can you elaborate on what you mean by intellectually dishonest?
Amongst other things, the original publication of the memo by Gizmodo stripped it of all the charts, citations and references Damore included.
[deleted]
>Damore immediately sought out media with political biases to maximally promote that kind of story
Was this before or after he'd already made national headlines for having written an "anti-diversity manifesto?"
Was this before or after he'd already made national headlines for having written an "anti-diversity manifesto?"
If you don't think that the social media / internet whipping that Damore and frankly anyone else that steps outside of several key echo chambers gets isn't real then I strongly doubt how good of faith you are in this conversation.
Then perhaps Google shouldn't ask for feedback on their courses. Seems rather disingenuous to say the least.
> Then perhaps Google shouldn't ask for feedback on their courses. Seems rather disingenuous to say the least.
My impression is that he circulated his “feedback” among employees. I would be surprised if that was requested by Google.
My impression is that he circulated his “feedback” among employees. I would be surprised if that was requested by Google.
He was encouraged like anyone else who took the course to provide feedback after a diversity program that he attended.
That's how it started.
That's how it started.
Software engineering skills are immaterial if you are making a considerable portion of a company with tens of thousands of employees uncomfortable and less productive. There is no way he was a net positive.
Team coherence and psychological safety are important, just as important as engineering skill. This is especially true at a large company.
Team coherence and psychological safety are important, just as important as engineering skill. This is especially true at a large company.
> but he did lose his livelihood, had his professional reputation destroyed, and only a limited time to cash out.
Why are you writing this in the passive, as if this is an unfortunate thing that happened to him? He did all of that to himself. That memo created a hostile workplace and Google had no choice but to fire him. The outcome here isn't terrible, it's exactly what should have happened.
Why are you writing this in the passive, as if this is an unfortunate thing that happened to him? He did all of that to himself. That memo created a hostile workplace and Google had no choice but to fire him. The outcome here isn't terrible, it's exactly what should have happened.
I asked Damore whether he expected the memo to blow up in his face, implying that he should have. His reply to me indicated he barely understood the question I was asking him. I got the impression he was naive, and a bit too eager to share his Jordan Petersonisms. I really don't think he knew. However, later on, in his Rubin Report interview, he did know exactly which excerpts got him in trouble.
Nope. 100% disagree with you. Nobody should be fired for speaking out and/or starting a meaningful conversation. The opposite is censorship.
Creating a hostile workplace is not “meaningful conversation”. The memo constituted pretty blatant harassment of all his female colleagues. You don’t have the right to say whatever you want. People absolutely should be fired for harassing and discriminating against their colleagues (which is effectively what the memo was). It’s toxic and incredibly hurtful and cannot be tolerated.
An hostile workplace is one firing an employee for the mere act of sharing an opinion. As the memo was not directly addressed to any female and did not insult them it is clearly not harassment. Questioning the hiring policy is not like attacking people directly. This is sad to see how much everything got conflated in an angry prêt-à-penser ideology that justify every of its excesses against the non believers.
No you're right, he didn't address harass a single coworker. Instead he harassed all of the women he work with at the same time. Just because he didn't name names doesn't mean it's not harassment; he deliberately insulted an entire demographic of people, and then tried to pretend it was "scientific" when it was just a load of bullshit, as if that makes it any better.
If his memo was railing against, say, the Irish, would you still think he wasn't harassing any of his Irish colleagues?
> any female
Now I understand. Go back to redpill please.
If his memo was railing against, say, the Irish, would you still think he wasn't harassing any of his Irish colleagues?
> any female
Now I understand. Go back to redpill please.
> If his memo was railing against, say, the Irish, would you still think he wasn't harassing any of his Irish colleagues?
If an entreprise I work in would start things such as saying "there is not enough Irish in the entreprise", have a skewed hiring process towards Irish, imposes me lessons about how to behave around Irish, and forbid the use of French even when only French speakers are around, yes I would totally support someone (of every nationality) asking the hierarchy what is going on. Or I may even do it myself.
The only case it would be acceptable is of course a company which makes money based in Irish culture and language, which then require these specific people to be hired. But on the women side of the things, as I consider them totally equals to men and thus apt to do the same technical jobs as men granted we speak of the same education level, I don’t see why they should be favored over men. And some women in my lab totally think that way too. One actually told me she hates this type of policies because it kinda lowered her work to get her job (not that’s easy either to succeed as a man).
If an entreprise I work in would start things such as saying "there is not enough Irish in the entreprise", have a skewed hiring process towards Irish, imposes me lessons about how to behave around Irish, and forbid the use of French even when only French speakers are around, yes I would totally support someone (of every nationality) asking the hierarchy what is going on. Or I may even do it myself.
The only case it would be acceptable is of course a company which makes money based in Irish culture and language, which then require these specific people to be hired. But on the women side of the things, as I consider them totally equals to men and thus apt to do the same technical jobs as men granted we speak of the same education level, I don’t see why they should be favored over men. And some women in my lab totally think that way too. One actually told me she hates this type of policies because it kinda lowered her work to get her job (not that’s easy either to succeed as a man).
[deleted]
> Nobody should be fired for speaking out and/or starting a meaningful conversation
Do you also strongly disagree with the concept of at-will employment?
If not, how do you reconcile the concept of at-will employment with this statement?
Do you also strongly disagree with the concept of at-will employment?
If not, how do you reconcile the concept of at-will employment with this statement?
You really think the memo was "starting a meaningful conversation"? Did you even read it?
> Nobody should be fired for speaking out and/or starting a meaningful conversation.
Do you not live on the same planet as the rest of us ?
Because it is common, legal, socially popular and frankly the status quo for companies to fire you based on what you say during work time. After all companies are paying you during that time to represent them and their values.
Society actually expects people to be fired based on what they say during work.
Do you not live on the same planet as the rest of us ?
Because it is common, legal, socially popular and frankly the status quo for companies to fire you based on what you say during work time. After all companies are paying you during that time to represent them and their values.
Society actually expects people to be fired based on what they say during work.
For better or worse, this is precisely the sort of freedom of association that at-will employment allows.
I think it's probably for the better myself.
I think it's probably for the better myself.
The memo was leaked, and its (willful?) misrepresentation created a "hostile" environment. Google did have a choice.
What do you mean, leaked? He sent it to the company. Whether or not it was released outside of the company has no bearing on whether it created a hostile environment. In fact, it was "leaked" precisely because it was so offensive.
And what misrepresentation? You're deluding yourself. The memo as written is what created the hostile work environment, not any "misrepresentation".
And what misrepresentation? You're deluding yourself. The memo as written is what created the hostile work environment, not any "misrepresentation".
It was leaked company-wide (outside a forum dedicated to the subject) before publically.
Few people apparently read the memo.
Few people apparently read the memo.
Even at this point, he would likely be easily able to get another engineering job if he wished. So I think you are vastly overstating the damage to his career. For sure, if he had admitted he was wrong or at least naive, and shut up about it, he'd have no problems at all. By doubling down on his statements and participating in lawsuits against Google, he's making himself less and less attractive to future employers. But you severely overestimate the impact this will actually have on his prospects.
But if we're talking about consequences of his actions, what about all the women whose careers he was advocating for destroying? Who, had he continued to work at Google, would have felt entirely unwelcome, untrusted, and unrespected? What is the impact on their careers when they face constant questioning of their very legitimacy merely because of their sex?
But if we're talking about consequences of his actions, what about all the women whose careers he was advocating for destroying? Who, had he continued to work at Google, would have felt entirely unwelcome, untrusted, and unrespected? What is the impact on their careers when they face constant questioning of their very legitimacy merely because of their sex?
Based on your comments it's quite clear that you either did not read his memo or do not understand statistics. Secondly, even if you take the most egregious possible interpretations of every sentence he wrote and try to take them out of context as much as possible to put them in a bad light, the national outcry is still completely unnecessary and disgusting. Fine, fire him, but he's about as meek and mild as they get, not some David Duke monster. He should've never made the news.
> what about all the women whose careers he was advocating for destroying?
Would you kindly provide a source for this? Preferably from the memo itself?
Would you kindly provide a source for this? Preferably from the memo itself?
For a company supposedly full of smart people, you'd think they'd be able to gracefully handle so called "problematic" views like Damore's.
You are not allowed to make protected groups feel harassed or discriminated against. Women are a protected group.
Its a federal workplace law. A company will correctly fire you if you cause women to feel harassed or discriminated. Peoples understanding of whats allowable needs to catch up with the implications of the laws.
Its a federal workplace law. A company will correctly fire you if you cause women to feel harassed or discriminated. Peoples understanding of whats allowable needs to catch up with the implications of the laws.
That is true. But I ask you this: do companies hire less technically capable engineers to boost diversity numbers? Do you believe that it does not happen at all, in any sense?
If you think that this does not happen, then how do companies boost the numbers of non-traditional candidates?
Google, as smart as they are, should be able to easily and conclusively prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this does not happen. Yet they resort to silencing.
If you think that this does not happen, then how do companies boost the numbers of non-traditional candidates?
Google, as smart as they are, should be able to easily and conclusively prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this does not happen. Yet they resort to silencing.
> Google, as smart as they are, should be able to easily and conclusively prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this does not happen. Yet they resort to silencing.
You’re suggesting that they should prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the party that accuses them of a given issue.
You’re suggesting that they should prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the party that accuses them of a given issue.
No, I'm suggesting that they aren't smart at handling certain topics.
His views _as stated_ necessarily meant _some_ women he worked with weren't qualified to be his coworkers because of their gender.
You have a right to free speech, not to alienate your coworkers.
You have a right to free speech, not to alienate your coworkers.
Could you point out that specific passage? As I read it he specifically went out of his way to say that all of the women he worked with were qualified.
Two sections:
- In the "personality differences" section, Damore repeats broad stereotypes about behavior that might make women less interested or less effective in tech jobs. He admits these are small effects and shouldn't be used to judge individuals, but goes on to propose policy changes that would impact individuals based on the stereotypes. Institutionalizing assumptions about womens' interests and capabilities is exactly what labor laws are designed to avoid.
- His section about discriminatory practices specifically suggests that there has been a lower bar for "diversity candidates", implying some of his more diverse co-workers shouldn't be there.
- In the "personality differences" section, Damore repeats broad stereotypes about behavior that might make women less interested or less effective in tech jobs. He admits these are small effects and shouldn't be used to judge individuals, but goes on to propose policy changes that would impact individuals based on the stereotypes. Institutionalizing assumptions about womens' interests and capabilities is exactly what labor laws are designed to avoid.
- His section about discriminatory practices specifically suggests that there has been a lower bar for "diversity candidates", implying some of his more diverse co-workers shouldn't be there.
1. There's another way to interpret this which is that masculine interests and capabilities are already institutionalized (patriarchy). The changes he suggests create a more gender neutral environment where everyone is capable of maximal success. I'm less interested in how labor laws are currently interpreted than I am in trying to find a system that maximally benefits the most people.
2. Yes, his section about discriminatory practices does accuse Google of being guilty of the bigotry of lowered expectations. But that doesn't make Damore or the memo bigoted. Context is important here, he just came out of diversity training classes and was asked his opinion. This memo is in direct response to presumably having been trained to hire in a discriminatory way. It's possible Damore misinterpreted his training, but that's different than making him a bigot.
And further, even if you take the most egregious interpretation of these writings, take everything out of context, and try to paint it in the worst light possible, the reaction is still unreasonable. I'm not talking about him getting fired. That's fine, Google can fire him for wearing the wrong tie as far as I'm concerned, so they can surely fire him for potentially questionable opinions. The position in my original post is about the national media and general public. Fire him sure, but is this really so bad that the entire nation needed to be brought in to witness his public flogging? This is a socially awkward nobody with no power who might have some bad ideas about diversity policy, not David Duke on some white nationalist crusade.
2. Yes, his section about discriminatory practices does accuse Google of being guilty of the bigotry of lowered expectations. But that doesn't make Damore or the memo bigoted. Context is important here, he just came out of diversity training classes and was asked his opinion. This memo is in direct response to presumably having been trained to hire in a discriminatory way. It's possible Damore misinterpreted his training, but that's different than making him a bigot.
And further, even if you take the most egregious interpretation of these writings, take everything out of context, and try to paint it in the worst light possible, the reaction is still unreasonable. I'm not talking about him getting fired. That's fine, Google can fire him for wearing the wrong tie as far as I'm concerned, so they can surely fire him for potentially questionable opinions. The position in my original post is about the national media and general public. Fire him sure, but is this really so bad that the entire nation needed to be brought in to witness his public flogging? This is a socially awkward nobody with no power who might have some bad ideas about diversity policy, not David Duke on some white nationalist crusade.
He literally says that those hiring practices can lower the bar.
Sure, maybe he's saying that the bar for white/Asian men is higher than intended rather than that the bar for women and minorities is lower than intended, but you can't honestly argue that he isn't saying that women and minorities could be clearing a lower bar than white/Asian men.
Sure, maybe he's saying that the bar for white/Asian men is higher than intended rather than that the bar for women and minorities is lower than intended, but you can't honestly argue that he isn't saying that women and minorities could be clearing a lower bar than white/Asian men.
If the hiring practices do in fact lower the bar, should he still be prohibited from saying that?
Was he?
[deleted]
That's your argument!
It's explicitly _not_ my argument! :)
"You have a right to free speech, not to alienate your coworkers."
"You have a right to free speech, not to alienate your coworkers."
Precisely! So that is your argument for why prohibiting him from saying that was legitimate (firing somebody for behaviour X is pretty much the definition of a company prohibiting behaviour X, I mean, what else can a company do?).
He wasn't prohibited from saying anything.
[deleted]
I'm sorry, but you sound like you're using double-speak. If Google has indeed lowered the bar for some minorities then it's Google who is exhibiting the soft bigotry of lowered expectations, not Damore for simply pointing it out. If Damore has simply incorrectly interpreted Google's hiring policy, then Damore is still not a bigot based on this statement. Damore went out of his way to specify that all of his coworkers were qualified and offered suggested policies which would attract more women without the bigotry he interpreted in the current hiring practices.
Damore did not specify that all his coworkers were qualified.
Damore believed Google lowered the bar, hence the statements I've made explaining how he offended his coworkers.
It is reasonable to believe Google _hasn't_ lowered the bar, and if you did, you would be offended by a long document warning about gender-biased consequences of lowering the bar.
I'm not sure how productive this thread is. I'm very surprised by your repeated assertions that there's direct textual evidence I'm mistaken, yet you're willing to accuse me of bad faith repeatedly, instead of just correcting me.
Damore believed Google lowered the bar, hence the statements I've made explaining how he offended his coworkers.
It is reasonable to believe Google _hasn't_ lowered the bar, and if you did, you would be offended by a long document warning about gender-biased consequences of lowering the bar.
I'm not sure how productive this thread is. I'm very surprised by your repeated assertions that there's direct textual evidence I'm mistaken, yet you're willing to accuse me of bad faith repeatedly, instead of just correcting me.
So I'm not afraid to eat crow when it's due. I've re-read the memo and you're right, in the memo he did not specifically state that everyone was qualified. I must have been thinking about an interview I saw of him.
I agree with you that it's reasonable to believe that Google _hasn't_ lowered the bar, but I don't see what difference that makes. There is a very applicable quote here by Albert Maysles, "Tyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance." With that in mind, I would like to plainly state my position here. I personally don't find Damore's memo to be unsettling, even though I disagree with some of it. If it were my company, I might have stopped at a firm one-on-one in HR with him. But I don't have all the details available internally and it's not my company. I fully support Google's right to fire him over the memo.
The problem I have is that a nobody with no power was publicly destroyed for cheap political points by the national media and general public. None of us here should even be having this discussion because a random nobody at Google with some incorrect ideas about diversity should never make national headlines with phrases like, "anti-diversity manifesto." This is a random socially awkward super-nerd, not David Duke.
I agree with you that it's reasonable to believe that Google _hasn't_ lowered the bar, but I don't see what difference that makes. There is a very applicable quote here by Albert Maysles, "Tyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance." With that in mind, I would like to plainly state my position here. I personally don't find Damore's memo to be unsettling, even though I disagree with some of it. If it were my company, I might have stopped at a firm one-on-one in HR with him. But I don't have all the details available internally and it's not my company. I fully support Google's right to fire him over the memo.
The problem I have is that a nobody with no power was publicly destroyed for cheap political points by the national media and general public. None of us here should even be having this discussion because a random nobody at Google with some incorrect ideas about diversity should never make national headlines with phrases like, "anti-diversity manifesto." This is a random socially awkward super-nerd, not David Duke.
The letter does bother me and I would have fired him, but I share some sympathy for having this blow up on a world stage. Is there any good timeline on how that happened? I'm pretty sure the leak (not the firing) is what made it national news... Do we know yet how that happened or how it circulated internally before that?
I think the thing that makes me more sympathetic is that the memo was written in response to him being asked his opinion on the diversity hire training he'd just received. Rightly or wrongly he clearly felt the diversity training was bigoted against him. I feel it's unfair to go out of your way to ask someone's opinion and then fire them for having the "wrong" one. I'm willing to grant someone a lot of leeway if they're genuinely trying to respond to a direct query. Conversely, it's also possible he went on a mini-crusade, in which case I'd definitely have fired him.
With regard to national news, I believe you are correct that the leak is what got it into the national news, not the firing. But that doesn't change the equation. The 4th estate is powerful and I believe it grossly misused its power here.
With regard to national news, I believe you are correct that the leak is what got it into the national news, not the firing. But that doesn't change the equation. The 4th estate is powerful and I believe it grossly misused its power here.
Yeah, once this got out to the news, it was pretty much guaranteed that this memo was the first thing anyone would know about this guy. I agree that's not "fair" in an objective sense -- everyone should get to learn from their mistakes, especially if they were made in a "safe" space where feedback was encouraged.
That's why I'm very curious exactly how this got distributed early on. Did someone take private feedback and socialize it? Or was feedback always a public bulletin board, where there's some shared responsibility on both readers and writers to think about the context? Or did Damore socialize it independently to prove support for his ideas?
If feedback was private, I think HR could take a firm line about what policies and principles Damore needs to adopt (at least at the workplace) to participate in his employment community, without helping his name get published with this memo (and possibly even without firing him). But the moment it got published changed the stakes for everyone involved, and not just due to PR. It's fair to ask: "can I require my female and minority employees to work with someone who has asserted that biological differences make them less likely to succeed?"
As far as the media goes, they've done what they're paid to do and socialize the most extreme opinions (most rejecting but some supporting Damore). I think that sucks for society but is a much bigger problem than this case.
That's why I'm very curious exactly how this got distributed early on. Did someone take private feedback and socialize it? Or was feedback always a public bulletin board, where there's some shared responsibility on both readers and writers to think about the context? Or did Damore socialize it independently to prove support for his ideas?
If feedback was private, I think HR could take a firm line about what policies and principles Damore needs to adopt (at least at the workplace) to participate in his employment community, without helping his name get published with this memo (and possibly even without firing him). But the moment it got published changed the stakes for everyone involved, and not just due to PR. It's fair to ask: "can I require my female and minority employees to work with someone who has asserted that biological differences make them less likely to succeed?"
As far as the media goes, they've done what they're paid to do and socialize the most extreme opinions (most rejecting but some supporting Damore). I think that sucks for society but is a much bigger problem than this case.
[deleted]
I urge you read the memo yourself.
He said Google lowers the false negative rate for women.
He said Google lowers the false negative rate for women.
From a statistics point of view, this statement is dispositive: "...decrease the false negative rate, not increase the false positive rate."
The interaction between type I and type II errors virtually always have an inverse relationship. You cannot decrease one without increasing the other. It is, for example, one of the difficulties in making good medical diagnostic tests.
P.S. snarky commentary such as 'read the memo yourself', implying I'm lying about having read it, doesn't contribute to civil discussion.
The interaction between type I and type II errors virtually always have an inverse relationship. You cannot decrease one without increasing the other. It is, for example, one of the difficulties in making good medical diagnostic tests.
P.S. snarky commentary such as 'read the memo yourself', implying I'm lying about having read it, doesn't contribute to civil discussion.
> The interaction between type I and type II errors virtually always have an inverse relationship.
If you're adjusting a dial, yes. But hiring is complex, and having more time to evaluate candidates means you can do a better job. Spending more effort is a simple way to improve false negatives and false positives. It's entirely plausible that a company might have extra time budgeted for double-checking resumes from certain groups.
If you're adjusting a dial, yes. But hiring is complex, and having more time to evaluate candidates means you can do a better job. Spending more effort is a simple way to improve false negatives and false positives. It's entirely plausible that a company might have extra time budgeted for double-checking resumes from certain groups.
He never stated that anywhere.
There was a confusingly-written part that I've seen a lot of people misinterpret in that particular way. My understanding of what he was trying to argue was this:
Imagine you have a skill-based RPG, where you gain skill in some task only by doing it and men and women are completely identical in every single way. Now imagine that more women enjoy alchemy, but more men prefer to spend their time mining. In this game, because of how skill gain works, if you look for really talented alchemists, most of your candidates will be women, even though the sexes are every bit as good as each other.
Imagine you have a skill-based RPG, where you gain skill in some task only by doing it and men and women are completely identical in every single way. Now imagine that more women enjoy alchemy, but more men prefer to spend their time mining. In this game, because of how skill gain works, if you look for really talented alchemists, most of your candidates will be women, even though the sexes are every bit as good as each other.
From a statistics point of view, this statement is dispositive:
"...decrease the false negative rate, not increase the false positive rate."
The interaction between type I and type II errors virtually always have an inverse relationship. You cannot decrease one without increasing the other. It is, for example, one of the difficulties in making good medical diagnostic tests.
The interaction between type I and type II errors virtually always have an inverse relationship. You cannot decrease one without increasing the other. It is, for example, one of the difficulties in making good medical diagnostic tests.
I'm not clear why this is being down voted, this was drilled pretty hard into my head the first time I had a job that relied on stats.
I am reasonably mathy and I don't understand the statement. That plus the topic -- sexism in tech generally, especially Damore -- makes me think the motivation for down voting it is probably "political." ie it sounds like it could be supporting Damore's position, much of the world has decided he is an evil sexist pig etc.
I was reasonably mathy too, but stats was pretty different and I only took a couple semesters of it. It wasn't until I was forced to interact with it in a job setting that the inverse relationship between type I & II errors became really apparent to me. Any time I would crank up settings to reduce type I error, keeping all other things the same, type II error would invariably creep up... and v. versa
Then when looking in to it, I saw a lot of the examples given from the medical industry as GP alludes to, where this is a real big problem (e.g. if your test is 99.999% accurate, but has a 0.001% false positive rate, then if your disease actually only affects 1/1000000 people then the overwhelming majority of people who your test select are actually healthy).
And then I went back and actually read the relevant sections on the stats textbooks for my courses and learned that
(a) it was actually in there, and (b) evidently my stats courses were way, way too easy to pass
As for the reply, I think I figured out why it was downvoted. It was a double-post, and the intended GGP was here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16398560
Where it makes much more sense.
Then when looking in to it, I saw a lot of the examples given from the medical industry as GP alludes to, where this is a real big problem (e.g. if your test is 99.999% accurate, but has a 0.001% false positive rate, then if your disease actually only affects 1/1000000 people then the overwhelming majority of people who your test select are actually healthy).
And then I went back and actually read the relevant sections on the stats textbooks for my courses and learned that
(a) it was actually in there, and (b) evidently my stats courses were way, way too easy to pass
As for the reply, I think I figured out why it was downvoted. It was a double-post, and the intended GGP was here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16398560
Where it makes much more sense.
Alas, this is the 1st time I posted it.
There was a heavy bias to down voting all of my comments for the first 4-6 hours, which evened out to the opposite over time. I usually see this pattern in gender-related threads
There was a heavy bias to down voting all of my comments for the first 4-6 hours, which evened out to the opposite over time. I usually see this pattern in gender-related threads
FWIW, I upvoted your comment for being mathematically correct, even though I was a bit confused as you meant to reply to someone else.
If I believe my employer is discriminating against women, or against black people, that requires that some of my male or non-black coworkers were hired over more capable women or black people.
Should anyone alleging that kind of discrimination be fired? Because they tend not to be.
Should anyone alleging that kind of discrimination be fired? Because they tend not to be.
He has no agency? He chose to speak up and then he chose to go down the path he did. It is an impressive feat of mental gymnastics to both kinda sorta acknowledge the alt-right might not be a great group of guys but then also claim Damore had no choice but to pull into that port in a storm of his own making. Allow me to pour out a beaker of Soylent for the poor, downtrodden white man.
It's a despicable thing to destroy someone over an idea, despite the contents of that idea.
I think tech workers are easy targets. For instance, we've all heard about the need for diversity in tech, but never hear about accredited investors being < 6 % female and < 1 % black.
I think tech workers are easy targets. For instance, we've all heard about the need for diversity in tech, but never hear about accredited investors being < 6 % female and < 1 % black.
> It's a despicable thing to destroy someone over an idea, despite the contents of that idea.
Well, if I find out anyone holds nazi ideologies I'm happy to socially "destroy" them over those ideas. I agree that the government shouldn't punish them for those ideas, but I think individual citizens and entities have every right to disassociate and socially punish someone for those ideas.
Now, I'm not saying that Damore's ideas are that extreme. However, it puts an upper bound for me on how much I can agree with your statement. There are ideas that I'm fine imposing social punishments on people for believing.
I agree that Damore probably shouldn't be "destroyed" for his ideas (for whatever a definition of "destroyed" is that obviously isn't literal destruction), but I don't see why being fired is problematic for the way he shared those ideas in the workplace.
Edit: This post previously had a typo that stated: "I agree that Damore probably should be 'destroyed' for his ideas". That was not the original intent, and I've corrected "should" to read "shouldn't"
Well, if I find out anyone holds nazi ideologies I'm happy to socially "destroy" them over those ideas. I agree that the government shouldn't punish them for those ideas, but I think individual citizens and entities have every right to disassociate and socially punish someone for those ideas.
Now, I'm not saying that Damore's ideas are that extreme. However, it puts an upper bound for me on how much I can agree with your statement. There are ideas that I'm fine imposing social punishments on people for believing.
I agree that Damore probably shouldn't be "destroyed" for his ideas (for whatever a definition of "destroyed" is that obviously isn't literal destruction), but I don't see why being fired is problematic for the way he shared those ideas in the workplace.
Edit: This post previously had a typo that stated: "I agree that Damore probably should be 'destroyed' for his ideas". That was not the original intent, and I've corrected "should" to read "shouldn't"
That serves to do is cause those who have been destroyed to seek out others like themselves and create an echo chamber where they get more extreme, alternatively it gets others to simply go dark in regards to their thoughts -- they still have them (possibly even more re-enforced because now you have given them an enemy) and they will toe the line until they can get into a position to push back.
You stamp this out instead by finding out how the people ended up with those views to begin with, by being able to engage with those who view the world different from you, and by not fueling their hate.
Does this work for ever person - no, but it should be at least attempted.
(fyi - this is more a general comment about social media slayings that are way too common, I'm not being sympathetic to anyone who considers themselves a nazi).
You stamp this out instead by finding out how the people ended up with those views to begin with, by being able to engage with those who view the world different from you, and by not fueling their hate.
Does this work for ever person - no, but it should be at least attempted.
(fyi - this is more a general comment about social media slayings that are way too common, I'm not being sympathetic to anyone who considers themselves a nazi).
Right. I agree that social media shame parties can overreact to things and create social punishments that I would agree aren't "proportional" (again, for some arbitrary definition of proportional).
My general views on this are derived largely from Popper and the paradox of tolerance (though, to be honest, I've more read about his writing that his work itself; it's next on my reading list). I don't think, as a society, we should tolerate intolerant behavior.
Which means, again as a society†, I think we should aggressively refuse and reject those with nazi ideologies. As an extension of that, I think we should mildly reject and refuse those with mildly intolerant ideologies. In my utopia, those social consequences would be proportional to the degree of intolerance, and I think you're right and fair to note that social shaming can quickly out-escalate the level of intolerance.
†not as a government; all consequences and punishments I'm speaking of should be social consequences and punishments. I'm fairly absolutist when it comes to 1A protections from the government
My general views on this are derived largely from Popper and the paradox of tolerance (though, to be honest, I've more read about his writing that his work itself; it's next on my reading list). I don't think, as a society, we should tolerate intolerant behavior.
Which means, again as a society†, I think we should aggressively refuse and reject those with nazi ideologies. As an extension of that, I think we should mildly reject and refuse those with mildly intolerant ideologies. In my utopia, those social consequences would be proportional to the degree of intolerance, and I think you're right and fair to note that social shaming can quickly out-escalate the level of intolerance.
†not as a government; all consequences and punishments I'm speaking of should be social consequences and punishments. I'm fairly absolutist when it comes to 1A protections from the government
[deleted]
>I agree that Damore probably should be "destroyed" for his ideas (for whatever a definition of "destroyed" is that obviously isn't literal destruction), but I don't see why being fired is problematic for the way he shared those ideas in the workplace.
I'm the OP whose comment started this mini-firestorm of a discussion and I think you and I are probably very closely aligned. I'll try to state plainly how I feel about the whole situation.
I'll start with a quote by Albert Maysles, "Tyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance." I can definitely see how a percentage of his memo can be interpreted as offensive. I don't know all the internal information about how everyone was behaving, but I'd like to think that if it were my company I would have treated this as a teachable moment and had a frank discussion with him in HR. That said, I fully support Google's right to fire him even if I take the most generous interpretations of the memo, because frankly I'm a huge supporter of at-will employment.
The problem that I have is the way the national media and general public responded to this situation. Damore is a nobody with no power who might have some incorrect ideas about diversity policy. I should have never heard of him. And I definitely should have never heard of him under national front page headlines with titles about an "anti-diversity manifesto." This is a meek and mild super-nerd, not David Duke. Thrusting him into the national spotlight in this way was clearly going to destroy his career and was completely unnecessary.
I'm the OP whose comment started this mini-firestorm of a discussion and I think you and I are probably very closely aligned. I'll try to state plainly how I feel about the whole situation.
I'll start with a quote by Albert Maysles, "Tyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance." I can definitely see how a percentage of his memo can be interpreted as offensive. I don't know all the internal information about how everyone was behaving, but I'd like to think that if it were my company I would have treated this as a teachable moment and had a frank discussion with him in HR. That said, I fully support Google's right to fire him even if I take the most generous interpretations of the memo, because frankly I'm a huge supporter of at-will employment.
The problem that I have is the way the national media and general public responded to this situation. Damore is a nobody with no power who might have some incorrect ideas about diversity policy. I should have never heard of him. And I definitely should have never heard of him under national front page headlines with titles about an "anti-diversity manifesto." This is a meek and mild super-nerd, not David Duke. Thrusting him into the national spotlight in this way was clearly going to destroy his career and was completely unnecessary.
Right. I agree that social media shame parties can overreact to things and create social punishments that I would agree aren't "proportional" (again, for some arbitrary definition of proportional).
My general views on this are derived largely from Popper and the paradox of tolerance (though, to be honest, I've more read about his writing that his work itself; it's next on my reading list). I don't think, as a society, we should tolerate intolerant behavior.
Which means, again as a society†, I think we should aggressively refuse and reject those with nazi ideologies. As an extension of that, I think we should mildly reject and refuse those with mildly intolerant ideologies. In my utopia, those social consequences would be proportional to the degree of intolerance, and I think you're right and fair to note that social shaming can quickly out-escalate the level of intolerance.
†not as a government; all consequences and punishments I'm speaking of should be social consequences and punishments. I'm fairly absolutist when it comes to 1A protections from the government
Which means, again as a society†, I think we should aggressively refuse and reject those with nazi ideologies. As an extension of that, I think we should mildly reject and refuse those with mildly intolerant ideologies. In my utopia, those social consequences would be proportional to the degree of intolerance, and I think you're right and fair to note that social shaming can quickly out-escalate the level of intolerance.
†not as a government; all consequences and punishments I'm speaking of should be social consequences and punishments. I'm fairly absolutist when it comes to 1A protections from the government
Lets make a distinction in socially destroy. If you found a nazi that worked for someone who knew he was a nazi and was fine with it, his wife was fine with it and all his friends were fine.
In this case how would you socially destroy them beyond pointing out to those around them what they have been hiding?
In this case how would you socially destroy them beyond pointing out to those around them what they have been hiding?
In my post, I hinted that I don't really have a definition for "socially destroy". I don't really know what it means or how the OP intended by it.
If I knew someone was a nazi, I would inform those around them. If their employer—for example—refused to terminate their employment, I would move "up the chain", and attempt to apply social consequences to that employer. How that works quickly becomes context dependent, but it expresses in things like boycotts, and other refusals to engage economically with those groups.
If I knew someone was a nazi, I would inform those around them. If their employer—for example—refused to terminate their employment, I would move "up the chain", and attempt to apply social consequences to that employer. How that works quickly becomes context dependent, but it expresses in things like boycotts, and other refusals to engage economically with those groups.
I think what this Advice memo is about isn't the idea itself, but how he poorly he handled the idea. The disruptive way he handled the idea is not protected from being fired in an at-will employment company. Google even worded that in the termination:
>Your post advanced and relied on offensive gender stereotypes to suggest that women cannot be successful in the same kinds of jobs at Google as men. I want to make clear that our decision is based solely on the part of your post that generalizes and advances stereotypes about women versus men. It is not based in any way on the portions of your post that discuss Google's programs or trainings, or how Google can improve its inclusion of differing political views. Those are important points. I also want to be clear that this is not about you expressing yourself on political issues or having political views that are different than others at the company. Having a different political view is absolutely fine. Advancing gender stereotypes is not.
>Your post advanced and relied on offensive gender stereotypes to suggest that women cannot be successful in the same kinds of jobs at Google as men. I want to make clear that our decision is based solely on the part of your post that generalizes and advances stereotypes about women versus men. It is not based in any way on the portions of your post that discuss Google's programs or trainings, or how Google can improve its inclusion of differing political views. Those are important points. I also want to be clear that this is not about you expressing yourself on political issues or having political views that are different than others at the company. Having a different political view is absolutely fine. Advancing gender stereotypes is not.
Gender stereotypes are sometimes supported by fact (even if they may primarily came into being by anecdote or plain ____ism). When they are, it is not fair to dismiss someone as "advancing gender stereotypes" whenever they make an "on average"-type claim (based on evidence) that happens to align with a gender stereotype; the problem comes when you forget the "on average" part of it (which he did not seem to).
Again, it's not about the validity of the idea, but how Damore handled himself with it.
Right, nor have I heard anyone mention the monumental irony of a company who makes billions monetizing differences between the sexes and then fires one of its employees for stating there are differences between the sexes.
If you mean the well-understood definition of "accredited investor" in the US, this is an objective measure with an objective barrier to entry (expected income and assets), and we DO hear about the need for diversity in this regard every time we hear about women and people of color making less money and advancing more slowly in their careers. On the other hand, software hiring and "tech diversity" is a subjective process with very, very subjective barriers to entry and so we hear about changing this process through human measures. This isn't a very good comparison.
It is an impressive feat of mental gymnastics to both kinda sorta acknowledge the alt-right might not be a great group of guys but then also claim Damore had no choice but to pull into that port
It's an impressive feat of mental gymnastics to put people like Dave Rubin, Gad Saad, and Steven Pinker into the category of "Alt-Right." (The first two being an openly gay man in a gay marriage, and a Lebanese jew.) There is no logic there. Basically, if you're not a true believer who has drunk the Kool-Aid, you must be one of the lurking enemy harboring evil thoughts. Sorry, but there are a lot of people who are happy to live and let live, but who have different ways of interpreting the world.
It's an impressive feat of mental gymnastics to put people like Dave Rubin, Gad Saad, and Steven Pinker into the category of "Alt-Right." (The first two being an openly gay man in a gay marriage, and a Lebanese jew.) There is no logic there. Basically, if you're not a true believer who has drunk the Kool-Aid, you must be one of the lurking enemy harboring evil thoughts. Sorry, but there are a lot of people who are happy to live and let live, but who have different ways of interpreting the world.
The comment you replied to does not describe those figures as alt-right. On the other hand, the very first person Damore engaged after being fired was Stefan Molyneux, who is undeniably alt-right. It's also insipid to suggest that being gay or Jewish precludes being alt-right or otherwise bigoted. What would that make Milo Yiannopoulos?
the very first person Damore engaged after his firing was Stefan Molyneux, who is undeniably alt-right.
I try to avoid Molyneux as much as possible. Keep in mind that the term "alt-right" is overloaded terminology. Roaming Millenial has a video where she outlines 4 broad categories of "alt-right." Not all of them are White Supremacist. Molyneux, I would just categorize as a very cultish Libertarian. Molyneaux should be rejected because of observations of his actual morality, with regards to questions of free inquiry. You might know additional bad things about him. However, it's "insipid" (your word) to judge James Damore's ideas based on association.
It's also insipid to suggest that being gay or Jewish precludes being alt-right
Just as insipid to put Gad Saad, Dave Rubin, and Steven Pinker into that category, based on what they say and the positions they take. The fact that they are gay or Jewish should at least get you to question the narratives pushed by media and take into account their actual positions. Hint: The narratives with regards to those 3 are false, and are unprincipled attempts to silence through association, probably because the critiques and information they supply pretty much demolish those narratives.
What would that make Milo Yiannopoulos?
Milo is, as far as I can tell, genuinely is anti Alt-Right, where that term encompasses the more radical 3/4ths of Roaming Millenial's categorization. He may well line up politically with some segment of the online community which rejects identity politics, but which is still far right. He also displays a problematic morality as evidenced by some of his actions. In my estimation, he's half activist and half opportunist.
I try to avoid Molyneux as much as possible. Keep in mind that the term "alt-right" is overloaded terminology. Roaming Millenial has a video where she outlines 4 broad categories of "alt-right." Not all of them are White Supremacist. Molyneux, I would just categorize as a very cultish Libertarian. Molyneaux should be rejected because of observations of his actual morality, with regards to questions of free inquiry. You might know additional bad things about him. However, it's "insipid" (your word) to judge James Damore's ideas based on association.
It's also insipid to suggest that being gay or Jewish precludes being alt-right
Just as insipid to put Gad Saad, Dave Rubin, and Steven Pinker into that category, based on what they say and the positions they take. The fact that they are gay or Jewish should at least get you to question the narratives pushed by media and take into account their actual positions. Hint: The narratives with regards to those 3 are false, and are unprincipled attempts to silence through association, probably because the critiques and information they supply pretty much demolish those narratives.
What would that make Milo Yiannopoulos?
Milo is, as far as I can tell, genuinely is anti Alt-Right, where that term encompasses the more radical 3/4ths of Roaming Millenial's categorization. He may well line up politically with some segment of the online community which rejects identity politics, but which is still far right. He also displays a problematic morality as evidenced by some of his actions. In my estimation, he's half activist and half opportunist.
Stefan Molyneux is not alt-right where do you get that idea from?
Milo was one of the most hated people by the alt-right, his husband is black, how much more do you need for him to most probably no being alt-right?.
I refuse to believe that anyone who sincerely and honestly spent any time looking into the actual opinions of Milo, Ben Shapiro, Molyneux etc and not just cherry-picked soundbites would make such claims about them. Milo is extreme in his provocations but he is hardly anything close to alt-right.
I certainly don't agree with everything these guys have to say but I would urge you to actually listen to what they are trying to say before you judge them.
To the downvoters. At least provide me with a reason for the downvote. What did I say that's so wrong?
Milo was one of the most hated people by the alt-right, his husband is black, how much more do you need for him to most probably no being alt-right?.
I refuse to believe that anyone who sincerely and honestly spent any time looking into the actual opinions of Milo, Ben Shapiro, Molyneux etc and not just cherry-picked soundbites would make such claims about them. Milo is extreme in his provocations but he is hardly anything close to alt-right.
I certainly don't agree with everything these guys have to say but I would urge you to actually listen to what they are trying to say before you judge them.
To the downvoters. At least provide me with a reason for the downvote. What did I say that's so wrong?
The downvoters are mindless ideologues who can't argue, only mash arrow buttons.
Re: Ben Shapiro -- As far as I can tell, he's a religious conservative, with a certain cosmopolitan flavor of rationalist deism, which completely falls in line with his particular religious beliefs. He's also one of the most effective and vocal critics of the Alt-Right. He's actively regarded as an enemy by most of the Alt-Right. Anyone who tries and tell you that Ben Shapiro is Alt-Right is an unprincipled ideologue who doesn't care about facts, only political power.
Re: Ben Shapiro -- As far as I can tell, he's a religious conservative, with a certain cosmopolitan flavor of rationalist deism, which completely falls in line with his particular religious beliefs. He's also one of the most effective and vocal critics of the Alt-Right. He's actively regarded as an enemy by most of the Alt-Right. Anyone who tries and tell you that Ben Shapiro is Alt-Right is an unprincipled ideologue who doesn't care about facts, only political power.
If you want to see how easy it is to be defined as alt-right take a look at this tweet from someone here on HN who now claims that I love alt-right.
https://twitter.com/albedoa/status/964709008559964161
That's how little it takes.
It's really absurd.
https://twitter.com/albedoa/status/964709008559964161
That's how little it takes.
It's really absurd.
People are throwing around such terms as a means of trying to scare others into silence. Such cherry picking is breath-taking in its sheer intellectual dishonesty.
Yet, in your reply, you question the fellow's literacy?? That's not acceptable.
We have taken the art of discourse and replaced it with barbs designed wholly to get likes, or whatever the hell Twitter calls them now. This does not help anyone.
We have taken the art of discourse and replaced it with barbs designed wholly to get likes, or whatever the hell Twitter calls them now. This does not help anyone.
Not sure what you think I should have replied. He claims I have a love for the alt-right and his attempt is to shame me. I wrote that message and then muted him.
You shouldn't have replied. You and the other guy are both out of your gourds, and you don't understand how crazy you look.
I look crazy for saying he didn't learn to read when he claimed I love the alt-right based on that post I wrote?
Maybe I shouldn't have replied but he was basically trying to start a mob against me. Not that I care but just wanted for the record that his claim was wrong and didn't want to engage in any civil manor when not spoken to that way either.
Maybe I shouldn't have replied but he was basically trying to start a mob against me. Not that I care but just wanted for the record that his claim was wrong and didn't want to engage in any civil manor when not spoken to that way either.
Your reply is a case of putting out the fire with gasoline. When you know nothing else to do, but you are absolutely sure this will make things vastly worse, standing idly by and watching the fire burn is the least worst thing you can do.
Granted, it's a horrible experience.
Granted, it's a horrible experience.
You failed to achieve your goals and just made things worse by replying. Block and move on.
Maybe I shouldn't have replied but he was basically trying to start a mob against me.
This is precisely how they operate. They are trying to use a tactic of persuasion by repetition simultaneously with a tactic of tarring by association. Far left ideologues are currently engaging in this behavior towards DC Comics artist Ethan Van Sciver, claiming he's an actual Nazi based on his drawing the Green Lantern villain Sinestro with a Hitler mustache and titling it "My Struggle" -- ten years ago. It is conscious and deliberate. And it has been going on that way since 2012 or so.
This is precisely how they operate. They are trying to use a tactic of persuasion by repetition simultaneously with a tactic of tarring by association. Far left ideologues are currently engaging in this behavior towards DC Comics artist Ethan Van Sciver, claiming he's an actual Nazi based on his drawing the Green Lantern villain Sinestro with a Hitler mustache and titling it "My Struggle" -- ten years ago. It is conscious and deliberate. And it has been going on that way since 2012 or so.
How is Milo not espousing alt right views? He was employed by Breitbart.
How is Milo not espousing alt right views?
He's an active and vocal critic of the Alt-Right. He devoted an entire chapter of his book to criticism of the Alt-Right. Just what views of his would you cite as "Alt-Right?" Can you back those up with quotes? As far as I can tell, he's an amoral opportunist who will stoop to saying vile things, but he's not Alt-Right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blJfibQnTgU
He was employed by Breitbart.
He left.
He's an active and vocal critic of the Alt-Right. He devoted an entire chapter of his book to criticism of the Alt-Right. Just what views of his would you cite as "Alt-Right?" Can you back those up with quotes? As far as I can tell, he's an amoral opportunist who will stoop to saying vile things, but he's not Alt-Right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blJfibQnTgU
He was employed by Breitbart.
He left.
I just find it amusing that in a thread about someone who stated maybe all women are genetically less suited to engineering, we are supposed to understand the differences among four or five distinct fringe right-wing ideologies, and refrain from general remarks based on the behaviors of one group or another.
It's actually a thread about someone who didn't state that. You can only emotionally impute that to him.
we are supposed to understand the differences among four or five distinct fringe right-wing ideologies
No, you're supposed to be informed, and you're not supposed to impute views on others they don't actually have, just because you think you can get away with it. You know, intellectual honesty?
refrain from general remarks based on the behaviors of one group or another.
Yes, please don't tar people through stereotypes or anything which is not factually or rationally founded. Furthermore, judge people on the merit of what they do and say as individuals. Don't lump people into groups because you are incensed and you feel like it. That sort of behavior is precisely the moral downfall of the Alt-Right.
we are supposed to understand the differences among four or five distinct fringe right-wing ideologies
No, you're supposed to be informed, and you're not supposed to impute views on others they don't actually have, just because you think you can get away with it. You know, intellectual honesty?
refrain from general remarks based on the behaviors of one group or another.
Yes, please don't tar people through stereotypes or anything which is not factually or rationally founded. Furthermore, judge people on the merit of what they do and say as individuals. Don't lump people into groups because you are incensed and you feel like it. That sort of behavior is precisely the moral downfall of the Alt-Right.
Can you please point to anywhere in the memo where he claimed that? I am not asking about your interpretation but where he actually claims that women are genentically less suited for engineering.
I hope you realize how important it is to be precise here. The man lost his job for providing feedback as encouraged by HR after he did a diversity course.
Just making claims that isn't backed up about by what he is actually saying isn't very helpful.
I hope you realize how important it is to be precise here. The man lost his job for providing feedback as encouraged by HR after he did a diversity course.
Just making claims that isn't backed up about by what he is actually saying isn't very helpful.
The leaked emails documenting his correspondence with various alt-right figureheads paints a different picture.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/heres-how-breitbart...
https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/heres-how-breitbart...
One suggestion.
Listen to an interview with him and here he present his opinions. He is provocative but mostly just an annoying showman. His harshest stance is on islam which given he is gay seems fairly understandable.
Joe Rogan has a good interview with him (which is the one that got him fired from Breibart.)
Listen to an interview with him and here he present his opinions. He is provocative but mostly just an annoying showman. His harshest stance is on islam which given he is gay seems fairly understandable.
Joe Rogan has a good interview with him (which is the one that got him fired from Breibart.)
> He was employed by Breitbart.
> He left
He resigned under pressure when controversy erupted over his past comments that were viewed as supporting, or at least minimizing the significance of, pedophilia.
He didn't leave because he suddenly realized, after years of association, that Breitbart was an alt-right outlet, so the fact that he left is not really germane to what his voluntary association with Breitbart says about his ideology.
> He left
He resigned under pressure when controversy erupted over his past comments that were viewed as supporting, or at least minimizing the significance of, pedophilia.
He didn't leave because he suddenly realized, after years of association, that Breitbart was an alt-right outlet, so the fact that he left is not really germane to what his voluntary association with Breitbart says about his ideology.
Actually not really and I would challenge you to say exactly what he says that is alt-right.
He is a conservative who knows how to provoke that's about it.
He is a conservative who knows how to provoke that's about it.
What neo-nazi, neo-white supremacy, neo-fascist, neo-fascists or another hate-group view have you heard Milo consistently claim?
I am aware of his provocations and yes he can be extreme but calling him alt-right while he is at the same time one of the most hated on the alt-right.
Breitbart was a more of an alt-media rather than alt-right. He didn't care about peoples political views he was after the existing media.
I am aware of his provocations and yes he can be extreme but calling him alt-right while he is at the same time one of the most hated on the alt-right.
Breitbart was a more of an alt-media rather than alt-right. He didn't care about peoples political views he was after the existing media.
Both Politico and the Washington Post describe Molyneux as alt-right.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/trump-alt-ri...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2017/...
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/trump-alt-ri...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2017/...
Do they make distinctions between the 4 major sub-groups? Molyneux is, as far as I know, a kooky Libertarian. Mainstream media is getting pretty skewed and desperate for eyeballs. If you're not shocked and dismayed, you're not looking very hard. Basically, in these death-throe days of old media news, you have to do your own fact checking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0ykkHNRAro
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0ykkHNRAro
I have no idea and honestly, at this point, I don't really care. For some reason, politics has become a game of zingers and one liners. Actual respectful discourse has gone out of style.
Hell, I hopped over to Twitter to defend ThomPete against a very tasteless tweet. I dreamed that maybe, just maybe I could be involved in a conversation that revolved around mutual respect and well worded arguments. Instead, there was ThomPete questioning his critic's literacy???
This shit has to stop. When I was younger, we used to be able to have conversations like:
Me - I believe ________.
You - I disagree because ________, __________, and __________.
Me - Good points, but what about _______?
Today, conversations like that just don't exist. I'm sick and tired of this shit and frankly, I want to disengage.
But seriously, we need genuine discourse. We have to leave the hurtful barbs at the schoolyard and actually speak to each other like respectful adults. Fuck all of this division. It's leading us all down a horrible path.
Hell, I hopped over to Twitter to defend ThomPete against a very tasteless tweet. I dreamed that maybe, just maybe I could be involved in a conversation that revolved around mutual respect and well worded arguments. Instead, there was ThomPete questioning his critic's literacy???
This shit has to stop. When I was younger, we used to be able to have conversations like:
Me - I believe ________.
You - I disagree because ________, __________, and __________.
Me - Good points, but what about _______?
Today, conversations like that just don't exist. I'm sick and tired of this shit and frankly, I want to disengage.
But seriously, we need genuine discourse. We have to leave the hurtful barbs at the schoolyard and actually speak to each other like respectful adults. Fuck all of this division. It's leading us all down a horrible path.
I'm right there with you. I'm in my 40s, and to me, your dialog is the normal and expected way for adults to discuss. I truly don't understand this brave new world of 'you're either with us, presenting a unified, jargon-tastic front, or you're a nazi/marxist'. So I mostly just don't speak to anyone anymore.
They're coming for you next. Soon behaving ethically will be insufficient, you'll be required to make public statements in support of the party or be presumed to be with the enemy.
I have no idea and honestly, at this point, I don't really care. For some reason, politics has become a game of zingers and one liners. Actual respectful discourse has gone out of style.
It's precisely this sort of apathy which far-left ideologues are using. Given that you are an advocate of good old fashioned rational dialogue, it might not be too long before they come after you next and try to lump you into the "Alt-Right." They're already doing that to people who are basically just Republicans, like Ben Shapiro.
It's precisely this sort of apathy which far-left ideologues are using. Given that you are an advocate of good old fashioned rational dialogue, it might not be too long before they come after you next and try to lump you into the "Alt-Right." They're already doing that to people who are basically just Republicans, like Ben Shapiro.
Then, they can come after me, but again, I don't really care. I know the truth about myself.
What else should I have responded? Claiming I have love for the alt-right based on that post is absurd.
I agree with you, although I had never heard of Stefan Molyneux until that interview came out, and I wouldn't be surprised if Damore hadn't either. He was probably really glad to be able to speak his mind, and may not have realized what he was doing. I'm definitely giving him the benefit of the doubt here, a position which I admit is somewhat undermined by him (apparently) tweeting out Breitbart articles.
I listened to most of his interviews tho, and he didn't sound alt-right to me at all. He sounded pretty Libertarian/Classical Liberal (he describes himself as a Classical Liberal)
I listened to most of his interviews tho, and he didn't sound alt-right to me at all. He sounded pretty Libertarian/Classical Liberal (he describes himself as a Classical Liberal)
Not judging these people at all, but being Gay or Jewish is no way incompatible with being racist.
I think it's plausible that had the memo not been leaked externally he'd still have his job. In that respect he truly didn't have agency.
That memo was never intended to remain private correspondance. And I'd hope that Google would have terminated his employment in any case.
I read the memo. There is no way that any normal company would have tolerated something like that being posted on work servers. It was far away from views that normal society tolerates.
He has just as much agency and culpability for his actions as the people who were all too happy to dehumanize him publicly for a cheap political win.
If Damore was really concerned about a lack of ability to "start conversations", then he should've approached his memo with a shred of humility. He decries Google's diversity efforts but does little to suggest he's done much research into that topic itself. In fact, he barely mentions their specific programs at all.
Here [1], by the way, is an interesting overview of diversity programs. It mentions that voluntary diversity training (contrasted with mandatory training) is among the more effective tools for this. IIRC, it was Damore's attendance of such that got him all riled up.
Edit: here's the link:
[1] https://hbr.org/2016/07/why-diversity-programs-fail
Here [1], by the way, is an interesting overview of diversity programs. It mentions that voluntary diversity training (contrasted with mandatory training) is among the more effective tools for this. IIRC, it was Damore's attendance of such that got him all riled up.
Edit: here's the link:
[1] https://hbr.org/2016/07/why-diversity-programs-fail
He is writing it as feedback (which was encouraged by the HR team) to the very people who set up the program, why on earth would he need to do mention that specifically? He wasn't writing it to you.
What in that memo makes you feel that you can claim he didn't start with a shred of humulity? Can you point to any specifics?
What in that memo makes you feel that you can claim he didn't start with a shred of humulity? Can you point to any specifics?
> He decries Google's diversity efforts but does little to suggest he's done much research into that topic itself.
I take it you either didn't read the memo, or read the version of the memo with all the references removed (Gizmodo, Buzzfeed, and surely others)
I take it you either didn't read the memo, or read the version of the memo with all the references removed (Gizmodo, Buzzfeed, and surely others)
"that topic itself" refers to the diversity program, not his Google scholar searches.
If he had stuck to the point about how ignorant-but-well-meaning people can trip over rapidly changing "acceptable" discourse, then none of this would have escalated as it did. That's an argument that can be made, and there's definitely things Google and other companies could do to address that problem.
He went much further, though, basically asserting that women engineers didn't belong at Google, and that in fact the job of software engineer is (and should be) designed to exclude women's typical strengths and preferences (as if general traits of the biological sexes have anything to do with individuals' aptitude and preferences). By so doing, he created a hostile workplace for women at Google. If that type of talk is tolerated within the company, what woman would feel comfortable working in a technical role?
He went much further, though, basically asserting that women engineers didn't belong at Google, and that in fact the job of software engineer is (and should be) designed to exclude women's typical strengths and preferences (as if general traits of the biological sexes have anything to do with individuals' aptitude and preferences). By so doing, he created a hostile workplace for women at Google. If that type of talk is tolerated within the company, what woman would feel comfortable working in a technical role?
Can you point to where he says any of what you claim? I have read that memo quite a few time and see no such claims anywhere.
Here's a couple:
Women on average show a higher interest in people
and men in things
We can make software engineering more people-oriented
with pair programming and more collaboration.
Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-
oriented certain roles at Google can be and we
shouldn't deceive ourselves or students into
thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get
female students into coding might be doing this).
Women on average are more cooperative
[...but] Competitiveness and self reliance can be
valuable traits and we shouldn't necessarily
disadvantage those that have themAs it happens, this excerpt is borne out at all points by the research on the "Big 5" personality traits, which to date are the clearest results in psychology outside of the power of General Intelligence to affect life outcomes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfI4BEONsng
I would also note, that Google often seems to fall down in terms of taking into account how changes in software affect the people who are their users.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfI4BEONsng
I would also note, that Google often seems to fall down in terms of taking into account how changes in software affect the people who are their users.
How does pointing out difference in interest and a pretty well-established fact that women on average are more cooperative by any metrics prove that he should have claimed that women do not belong on google?
In fact, his point is that technology is not even for most men which he has made clear in other interviews.
In fact, his point is that technology is not even for most men which he has made clear in other interviews.
The problem is the assumption that being cooperative is somehow a liability rather than a strength in a profession that's much more about cooperation than other engineering fields. (E.g. the trope that software is more complicated than an aircraft carrier because unlike in software, the toilet doesn't have modes of interaction with the steam launcher.)
Where does he claim it's a liability? As far as I remember I claim that this difference means that men and women generally make different choices. Can you point to where he says it's a liability?
His ultimate conclusion is that biological differences explain, at least by enough to reconsider diversity efforts, the difference in self selection into programming. Given that conclusion, your reading is even less charitable than mine. Under that reading, he’s literally just throwing out an unrelated difference between men and women, then asserting that’s why men disproportionately choose programming. Classic: premise -> ??? -> conclusion.
Reading his memo charitably, I think he’s assuming that cooperativeness contraindicates for programming preference, so at least he has a complete chain of reasoning, even if that assumption is wrong:
Women -> cooperative; cooperative -/-> programming; women -/-> programming.
Reading his memo charitably, I think he’s assuming that cooperativeness contraindicates for programming preference, so at least he has a complete chain of reasoning, even if that assumption is wrong:
Women -> cooperative; cooperative -/-> programming; women -/-> programming.
Can you please be specific.
Point to exact quotes, not your own interpretation of what he writes.
That makes it easier to discuss.
Point to exact quotes, not your own interpretation of what he writes.
That makes it easier to discuss.
> a pretty well-established fact that women on average are more cooperative
Please, establish it for us. Point us to studies (and counter-studies) which state this fact of yours.
Please, establish it for us. Point us to studies (and counter-studies) which state this fact of yours.
Wikipedia has lots of links to studies. There is also an overview of Gender differences:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Ge...
"The difference in neuroticism was the most prominent and consistent, with significant differences found in 49 of the 55 nations surveyed."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Ge...
"The difference in neuroticism was the most prominent and consistent, with significant differences found in 49 of the 55 nations surveyed."
That doesn't at all prove your claim that he "basically asserted that women engineers didn't belong at Google".
> Then he started retweeting Breitbart articles and selling "Goolag" t-shirts and threw his credibility out the window
What does that have to do with his credibility or his arguments? His arguments stand on its own merits. Externalities has no bearing on argument. If he said 1+1=2 and then retweeted a breitbart article, does that mean 1+1 no longer equal 2?
What does that have to do with his credibility or his arguments? His arguments stand on its own merits. Externalities has no bearing on argument. If he said 1+1=2 and then retweeted a breitbart article, does that mean 1+1 no longer equal 2?
Given that Breitbart, Stephen Molynieux, etc, all basically support the least charitable interpretation of the memo (that women are genetically less predisposed to engineering), his active association with them makes the claim that the memo was a good-faith attempt to improve diversity rather hard to swallow.
Examples:
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/14/haidt-google-memo-c...
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/15/heres-why...
Examples:
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/14/haidt-google-memo-c...
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/15/heres-why...
> Given that Breitbart, Stephen Molynieux, etc, all basically support the least charitable interpretation of the memo (that women are genetically less predisposed to engineering)
So? Are you saying you disagree? Then state your case.
> his active association with them makes the claim that the memo was a good-faith attempt to improve diversity rather hard to swallow.
Why does it make it hard to swallow? What does damore stating a fact that women being more predisposed to more social careers rather than engineering have anything to do with his stance on diversity? Are you saying that men should be forced out of engineering and women should be forced into it?
So should we take over norway, get rid of women's rights and force the norwegian women to go into engineering?
> http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/14/haidt-google-memo-c....
That link is about an NYU professor who says data and analysis backs up damore's claim.
> http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/15/heres-why....
A lot of good points there.
So? Are you saying you disagree? Then state your case.
> his active association with them makes the claim that the memo was a good-faith attempt to improve diversity rather hard to swallow.
Why does it make it hard to swallow? What does damore stating a fact that women being more predisposed to more social careers rather than engineering have anything to do with his stance on diversity? Are you saying that men should be forced out of engineering and women should be forced into it?
So should we take over norway, get rid of women's rights and force the norwegian women to go into engineering?
> http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/14/haidt-google-memo-c....
That link is about an NYU professor who says data and analysis backs up damore's claim.
> http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/15/heres-why....
A lot of good points there.
> What does damore stating a fact that women being more predisposed to more social careers rather than engineering have anything to do with his stance on diversity?
This memo only helps this narrative of 'being predisposed' and that is the issue we are trying to get at.
From your last article: "Ladies, apparently, find the aggressively competitive nature of these subjects too “uninviting,” so they drop out." So many assumptions in those articles that I had to stop reading. Please look up logical fallacies.
This memo only helps this narrative of 'being predisposed' and that is the issue we are trying to get at.
From your last article: "Ladies, apparently, find the aggressively competitive nature of these subjects too “uninviting,” so they drop out." So many assumptions in those articles that I had to stop reading. Please look up logical fallacies.
[deleted]
So regardless of the facts here, you're on the bandwagon of "guilt by association." That is, "we caught you being friends with communists so we're going to take your job away"?
I can't edit my original comment anymore, but I'd like to clarify that I mistook the claim of the comment to which I was replying as "association doesn't imply Damore espoused a genetic predisposition between men and women with regard to engineering", which is something other commenters are making in this thread.
I'm not on the bandwagon of "guilt by association"; Damore's claims are ridiculous on their face.
I'm not on the bandwagon of "guilt by association"; Damore's claims are ridiculous on their face.
Which claim of his is the most ridiculous?
Why is his credibility thrown out the window just because he retweets Breitbart articles?
This sounds like a really lazy way fo reasoning.
This sounds like a really lazy way fo reasoning.
Was Damore "well-meaning but unaware" before his post? Did he, in good faith, attempt to "start a conversation and learn"?
>well-meaning
Damore cherry-picked Wikipedia articles to claim women are biologically inferior with the intent of causing an uproar, that's not at all "well-meaning".
Buried deep, deep down, he had somewhat of a point, but it wasn't at all the point he was trying to argue for.
Damore cherry-picked Wikipedia articles to claim women are biologically inferior with the intent of causing an uproar, that's not at all "well-meaning".
Buried deep, deep down, he had somewhat of a point, but it wasn't at all the point he was trying to argue for.
I got the feeling there was more stuff he said that never leaked but who knows
There wasn't. There are extensive leakers in google on both sides of the fence who would have leaked the fuller doc if one existed.
We're not talking about children, we're talking about adults. Literate, tech savvy, affluent, college graduates.
How would you imagine those folks educate themselves? Easily, by relying on the abundant resources available to them. The internet, books, youtube, etc. There's a ton of material out there, if you actually care, if you think it's important to educate yourself the resources are available. He did not do that, because he wasn't seeking to inform himself, he was seeking to advance an agenda, to encourage others to adopt a prejudice that he held.
Also, I'm getting really sick and tired of these comments that bemoan the fates that have befallen these individuals who have substantially brought it upon themselves and give short shrift to the impact they've had on others. Damore was "merely asking questions" but the questions he was asking were things like "do women deserve to be the equals of men in this field?" and so forth. As both google management and the judge here have correctly pointed out, communicating in that way is incredibly damaging. It's unprofessional, it's discriminatory on its face, and it has no place in a modern work environment. The man is a grown-up, he should be smart enough to know how to broach a difficult subject of conversation if he is seeking to learn more about it or to explore controversial topics. Similarly, you can't just blunder into a discussion about race relations in the 21st century by leading off with questions like "are people of color equal to whites?" or "was slavery really wrong?" Because, again, those are on their face discriminatory, exclusionary, and harmful.
And to claim that Damore was in any way trying to advance the cause of diversity is just plain counter-factual. It is clear, especially after the end of his google employment, that he has a much different agenda.
How would you imagine those folks educate themselves? Easily, by relying on the abundant resources available to them. The internet, books, youtube, etc. There's a ton of material out there, if you actually care, if you think it's important to educate yourself the resources are available. He did not do that, because he wasn't seeking to inform himself, he was seeking to advance an agenda, to encourage others to adopt a prejudice that he held.
Also, I'm getting really sick and tired of these comments that bemoan the fates that have befallen these individuals who have substantially brought it upon themselves and give short shrift to the impact they've had on others. Damore was "merely asking questions" but the questions he was asking were things like "do women deserve to be the equals of men in this field?" and so forth. As both google management and the judge here have correctly pointed out, communicating in that way is incredibly damaging. It's unprofessional, it's discriminatory on its face, and it has no place in a modern work environment. The man is a grown-up, he should be smart enough to know how to broach a difficult subject of conversation if he is seeking to learn more about it or to explore controversial topics. Similarly, you can't just blunder into a discussion about race relations in the 21st century by leading off with questions like "are people of color equal to whites?" or "was slavery really wrong?" Because, again, those are on their face discriminatory, exclusionary, and harmful.
And to claim that Damore was in any way trying to advance the cause of diversity is just plain counter-factual. It is clear, especially after the end of his google employment, that he has a much different agenda.
I think one has to factor in the fact that we are in an industry that lionizes people who spend every waking moment concentrating on their field of expertise and nothing else.
Doubly so for Google.
Not because “how can you find the time” is an excuse, but because it’s a symptom of the problem. We have an industry that enables people with no sense of perspective. It’s not just the outliers that need to ‘wake uo’. It’s on all of us.
Doubly so for Google.
Not because “how can you find the time” is an excuse, but because it’s a symptom of the problem. We have an industry that enables people with no sense of perspective. It’s not just the outliers that need to ‘wake uo’. It’s on all of us.
His agenda was to make Google aware of some of the consequence of their diversity politics, something they themselves had asked for feedback on.
He didn't ask whether women deserved to be equals and just the fact that you think that shows just how ignorant many commentators are in this case.
If you actually are interested in hearing his version of the story, not just your own wrongly informed and biased one here is a good interview to provide you with some of the proper contexts. Then tell me what exactly it is that he has done wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NOSD0XK0r8
He didn't ask whether women deserved to be equals and just the fact that you think that shows just how ignorant many commentators are in this case.
If you actually are interested in hearing his version of the story, not just your own wrongly informed and biased one here is a good interview to provide you with some of the proper contexts. Then tell me what exactly it is that he has done wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NOSD0XK0r8
The problem with Damore's theory he posited (that the difference in traits and abilities between men and women is why you see a certain imbalance in tech) ignores the history of computer science, where in the early days of CS you had a large amount of women entering into software followed by a sharp dropoff in the 80s [1]. The 'biological differences' argument falls flat because it implies that somehow women changed on a biological level between 1984 and today.
I also take umbrage with his civil suit against Google because it amounts to no more than a document meant to doxx google employees by revealing their names and political positions ranging from benign to the more 'punch nazis' level of discourse. There was selective censorship applied such that people he agreed with were protected, while people he disagreed with were brought out in front of the crowd. I have seen pictures floating around designed to make it easy to effectively target said employees facebook, twitter etc accounts.
[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when...
I also take umbrage with his civil suit against Google because it amounts to no more than a document meant to doxx google employees by revealing their names and political positions ranging from benign to the more 'punch nazis' level of discourse. There was selective censorship applied such that people he agreed with were protected, while people he disagreed with were brought out in front of the crowd. I have seen pictures floating around designed to make it easy to effectively target said employees facebook, twitter etc accounts.
[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when...
It's not just the history of computer science. Damore's essay was based on time-tested pseudo-scientific reasoning, the sort that has been invoked to exclude women in many different fields. When law firms offered Sandra Day O'Connor a secretarial job after she graduated third in her class at Stanford, do you think they said "we just don't like women?" Of course not. They couched their bias in appeals to the differences between men and women, and how those differences supposedly were relevant to the practice of law.
Damore is more of the same. Take, for example, his invocation of studies showing that women are more prone to be "neurotic." Aside from the fact that "neurotic" covers an immense range of personality traits--Damore leaves it as an exercise for the reader why that would be a bad thing. Among other things, "neurotic" encompasses "obsessive compulsive" or "anxious." Why isn't that a good trait in a programmer--someone who needs to be constantly on the lookout for the errant buffer overflow? He also invokes the idea that women are less able to handle "stressful" situations. Which explains why nurses--who are literally dealing with life and death every day--are mostly women? It's not that there isn't evidence of differences in personality traits between men and women, it's that all the inferences after "infant boys prefer trucks" is complete handwaving.
Back in the day, people would, with the pretense of science, invoke differences in cranial measurements to explain the economic plight of African Americans. Damore's is just the latest in a long line of pseudo-scientific gibberish. And it blows my mind that so many in the tech community are falling for it. You actually have to be bad at logical reasoning to find Damore's points compelling.
Damore is more of the same. Take, for example, his invocation of studies showing that women are more prone to be "neurotic." Aside from the fact that "neurotic" covers an immense range of personality traits--Damore leaves it as an exercise for the reader why that would be a bad thing. Among other things, "neurotic" encompasses "obsessive compulsive" or "anxious." Why isn't that a good trait in a programmer--someone who needs to be constantly on the lookout for the errant buffer overflow? He also invokes the idea that women are less able to handle "stressful" situations. Which explains why nurses--who are literally dealing with life and death every day--are mostly women? It's not that there isn't evidence of differences in personality traits between men and women, it's that all the inferences after "infant boys prefer trucks" is complete handwaving.
Back in the day, people would, with the pretense of science, invoke differences in cranial measurements to explain the economic plight of African Americans. Damore's is just the latest in a long line of pseudo-scientific gibberish. And it blows my mind that so many in the tech community are falling for it. You actually have to be bad at logical reasoning to find Damore's points compelling.
> When law firms offered Sandra Day O'Connor a secretarial job after she graduated third in her class at Stanford, do you think they said "we just don't like women?" Of course not. They couched their bias in appeals to the differences between men and women, and how those differences supposedly were relevant to the practice of law.
Note that he isn't saying that women do have these traits; they are saying that on average, they are more likely to. In this example, O'Connor would just be one of the ones to not have them.
Note that he isn't saying that women do have these traits; they are saying that on average, they are more likely to. In this example, O'Connor would just be one of the ones to not have them.
[deleted]
There are more male programmers than female. Please explain how invoking genetic differences explanations is pseudo scientific, whereas invoking systematic discrimination explanations is not pseudo-scientific.
Consider: There are more male rapists than female rapists. Is this because female rapists are systematically discriminated against? Does our society shamefully teach children that raping is only for boys? Or are males simply genetically more predisposed to rape relative to females?
If males are genetically more likely to rape, should we lock them all up at birth? I guess not?
Consider: There are more male rapists than female rapists. Is this because female rapists are systematically discriminated against? Does our society shamefully teach children that raping is only for boys? Or are males simply genetically more predisposed to rape relative to females?
If males are genetically more likely to rape, should we lock them all up at birth? I guess not?
The difference is that we have a theory of causation and evidence that the causal factors exist. We can point to studies showing that identical resumes with female names are half as likely to get called back, and we have a workable theory of how things like that affect gender ratio. These theories are backed by a real-world social experiment: when we eliminated many explicit forms of discrimination that existed in past decades, we saw the proportion of women rise rapidly in many formerly male dominated professions. That gives us a rich source of empirical evidence to draw from. (E.g. we saw in law and medicine that affirmative action led to self-perpetuating long term changes in gender ratio; once going into a law career wasn’t signing up for a life of being an extreme minority, womens’ representation shot way up).
With the biological explanation, we have evidence of certain gender differences, and we have evidence of disparities in representation, but we have no theory of how the two are causally linked. That’s the hallmark of pseudo-science. Say we know that women are more cooperative than men. What does that mean for programming? Is programming inherently less cooperative than fields like accounting where there are more women than men? What is the sensitivity of programming choice to differences in “cooperativeness?” The biggest confounder is that while we have scientfic studies associating genders with traits, we have nothing linking traits with professions. That’s where Damore’s memo goes off the rails into handwaving and begging the question: he repeatedly assumes that because men are over represented in programming, that programming is necessarily characterized by male traits. (E.g. thing oriented versus people oriented: why does Goldman Sachs have more women creating abstract financial instruments than many tech companies have creating social apps?)
With the biological explanation, we have evidence of certain gender differences, and we have evidence of disparities in representation, but we have no theory of how the two are causally linked. That’s the hallmark of pseudo-science. Say we know that women are more cooperative than men. What does that mean for programming? Is programming inherently less cooperative than fields like accounting where there are more women than men? What is the sensitivity of programming choice to differences in “cooperativeness?” The biggest confounder is that while we have scientfic studies associating genders with traits, we have nothing linking traits with professions. That’s where Damore’s memo goes off the rails into handwaving and begging the question: he repeatedly assumes that because men are over represented in programming, that programming is necessarily characterized by male traits. (E.g. thing oriented versus people oriented: why does Goldman Sachs have more women creating abstract financial instruments than many tech companies have creating social apps?)
The memo itself debunks most of what you're saying here - and the insane thing here is that people like you are opposing other's rights to even state an opposing theory. You're not arguing against the memo so much as you are arguing against this technical employee's right to make what he deemed a technical argument.
There's nothing wrong with stating pseudo-science. It's just that people won't take you seriously.
More very disingenuous arguments. People took him so seriously he got fired!
Yes, when affirmative action becomes status quo, you get a stable population of whoever you are affirming into the profession. However, that is not removing an explicit form of discrimination but rather introducing one.
Certainly, it is quite difficult to predict what psychological profile will succeed in a particular profession. But observing that males tend to succeed in programming is not begging the question whether males have relative genetic predisposition to programming (especially at the top 0.1% google level) but rather serves as evidence for the proposition.
When we observe for instance that Asians are overrepresented as programmers, we don't use that to infer that non-Asians are discriminated against, but rather that for whatever reason Asians seem to possess some trait profile, possibly genetic, possibly not, advantageous for programming work.
I'm not claiming that women were never discriminated against, just that it does not appear to be the best explanation for the observed large trends in gender ratios. For instance it doesn't explain male/female behavior differences in other arenas like criminality while genetic differences does.
Certainly, it is quite difficult to predict what psychological profile will succeed in a particular profession. But observing that males tend to succeed in programming is not begging the question whether males have relative genetic predisposition to programming (especially at the top 0.1% google level) but rather serves as evidence for the proposition.
When we observe for instance that Asians are overrepresented as programmers, we don't use that to infer that non-Asians are discriminated against, but rather that for whatever reason Asians seem to possess some trait profile, possibly genetic, possibly not, advantageous for programming work.
I'm not claiming that women were never discriminated against, just that it does not appear to be the best explanation for the observed large trends in gender ratios. For instance it doesn't explain male/female behavior differences in other arenas like criminality while genetic differences does.
>Yes, when affirmative action becomes status quo, you get a stable population of whoever you are affirming into the profession. However, that is not removing an explicit form of discrimination but rather introducing one.
This is super clearly not what GP was talking about. Removing implicit and explicit barriers to participation is not affirmative action. You are asserting the opposite of history here.
>Certainly, it is quite difficult to predict what psychological profile will succeed in a particular profession. But observing that males tend to succeed in programming is not begging the question whether males have relative genetic predisposition to programming (especially at the top 0.1% google level) but rather serves as evidence for the proposition.
It in no way serves as evidence for that proposition. By logic, quite the opposite is happening: you are proposing that as an explanation for the observation. There is no inherent connection between them.
>When we observe for instance that Asians are overrepresented as programmers, we don't use that to infer that non-Asians are discriminated against, but rather that for whatever reason Asians seem to possess some trait profile, possibly genetic, possibly not, advantageous for programming work.
Such a "trait profile" could include things like contemporary trends in national cultures, economic development policies, attitudes toward education, random vagaries of history and much much more. Anecdotally, I don't think I've ever heard someone, with a straight face, include genetics in such a discussion. But just as broad a spectrum of influences could be at play with the current gender balance of a given profession. And that's exactly the point: we don't have the clean data to make ANY strong claims about how much of the status quo was shaped by genetics.
>I'm not claiming that women were never discriminated against, just that it does not appear to be the best explanation for the observed large trends in gender ratios. For instance it doesn't explain male/female behavior differences in other arenas like criminality while genetic differences does.
It doesn't have to be the "best" or only explanation. But if there's good reason to believe that it's a factor, it should be taken into consideration and attempts should be made to solve it just like any other problem.
This is super clearly not what GP was talking about. Removing implicit and explicit barriers to participation is not affirmative action. You are asserting the opposite of history here.
>Certainly, it is quite difficult to predict what psychological profile will succeed in a particular profession. But observing that males tend to succeed in programming is not begging the question whether males have relative genetic predisposition to programming (especially at the top 0.1% google level) but rather serves as evidence for the proposition.
It in no way serves as evidence for that proposition. By logic, quite the opposite is happening: you are proposing that as an explanation for the observation. There is no inherent connection between them.
>When we observe for instance that Asians are overrepresented as programmers, we don't use that to infer that non-Asians are discriminated against, but rather that for whatever reason Asians seem to possess some trait profile, possibly genetic, possibly not, advantageous for programming work.
Such a "trait profile" could include things like contemporary trends in national cultures, economic development policies, attitudes toward education, random vagaries of history and much much more. Anecdotally, I don't think I've ever heard someone, with a straight face, include genetics in such a discussion. But just as broad a spectrum of influences could be at play with the current gender balance of a given profession. And that's exactly the point: we don't have the clean data to make ANY strong claims about how much of the status quo was shaped by genetics.
>I'm not claiming that women were never discriminated against, just that it does not appear to be the best explanation for the observed large trends in gender ratios. For instance it doesn't explain male/female behavior differences in other arenas like criminality while genetic differences does.
It doesn't have to be the "best" or only explanation. But if there's good reason to believe that it's a factor, it should be taken into consideration and attempts should be made to solve it just like any other problem.
> yes, when affirmative action becomes status quo, you get a stable population of whoever you are affirming into the profession
You ignored the “self perpetuating” part. The even gender ratio stayed stable long after those measures were removed.
> But observing that males tend to succeed in programming is not begging the question whether males have relative genetic predisposition to programming (especially at the top 0.1% google level) but rather serves as evidence for the proposition.
What? No. That’s textbook begging the question. You’re trying to explain the overrepresetnstion of men in programming, by pointing to that overrepresentation as evidence of predisposition. Textbook begging the question.
You ignored the “self perpetuating” part. The even gender ratio stayed stable long after those measures were removed.
> But observing that males tend to succeed in programming is not begging the question whether males have relative genetic predisposition to programming (especially at the top 0.1% google level) but rather serves as evidence for the proposition.
What? No. That’s textbook begging the question. You’re trying to explain the overrepresetnstion of men in programming, by pointing to that overrepresentation as evidence of predisposition. Textbook begging the question.
Many jurisdictions define rape in a manner that requires that the person assaulted be penetrated. Under this definition, it is literally impossible for a woman to rape a man, except in cases where that definition would include anal penetration with an object other than a penis. In most jurisdictions, this would be defined as sodomy, not rape.
I don't have stats on sexual assault handy. But I can tell you that, yes, our society does, in fact, teach children (and adults) that rape is something only boys do. This is a fact.
I don't have stats on sexual assault handy. But I can tell you that, yes, our society does, in fact, teach children (and adults) that rape is something only boys do. This is a fact.
I think you'll find that many feminists and activsts are not happy with most juristictions rape laws.
I have zero idea why you feel the need to point that out to me.
I wont answer the Consider* part of what you said because it's a straw man argument and should be treated as such.
There are more male programmers than female NOW* but that wasn't the case 50 years ago.
Systematic discrimination has been proven as fact, with palpable examples (I shouldnt have to google this for you).
The 'genetic differences' that this memo quoted have been proven wrong by science... making it psuedo-science.
There are more male programmers than female NOW* but that wasn't the case 50 years ago.
Systematic discrimination has been proven as fact, with palpable examples (I shouldnt have to google this for you).
The 'genetic differences' that this memo quoted have been proven wrong by science... making it psuedo-science.
Yep they did the same to me... If they don't like your argument they just flag it as offensive. Admins are obviously on the side of oppression since I was prevented from posting for the last few hours and they threatened to ban me.
It's like... Employee discusses theory and gets fired to silence the unwanted opinion. Then we discuss whether it should have happened or not - and we're at the point now of suppressing any opinions that strongly disagree with the firing. So not only aren't you allowed to support an idea - but you're not allowed to defend anyone who has supported it. This is why this discussion always comes back to free speech! Why can't we defend each other's rights to free speech? After participating in this thread it is clearer than ever.
[deleted]
Tangent, but men and women are heterosexually assaulted at similar rates, it's just that men on average are better able to resist due to strength advantages,and have more of a stigma against reporting. And not as much in the workplace since on average men have more positions of power in workplaces
I'm not sure about that, for instance the below link claims 91% of victims of sexual assault are female.
https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/publications_nsvrc...
https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/publications_nsvrc...
I'm skeptical of the "early days of CS" narrative. Could it be that there were lots of women working with computers because it was seen as "secretarial" work. In other words, was it just bosses placing their female employees in computer-related roles as companies added those positions? If so, could it be that that "dropoff" in the 80s could be just reflective of the demographics of people who were choosing that profession. i.e. Once "computers" became a career that you could pursue, as opposed to being placed in, it attracted more men than women, possibly because men are more attracted to that type of work.
My mother's college roommate went to work for NASA and worked on the Apollo projects starting in the 50s. Programming at that time was all women, and it was definitely seen as menial work. The literal astrophysicists and computer scientists were doing the "real" work, and the women were "just punching cards."
That wasn't the reality of it, of course. Those women were doing massive amounts of the work around the logic of the systems.
But there was a hierarchy, and everyone knew it. Wasn't until the 70s and 80s that things turned into a man's world. Once people figured out that there were hard problems to solve and plenty of opportunities to yell, "Yeah! We Really Fucked that problem in the ass!" Yeah, right about that time, the women started leaving.
My mom's roommate didn't quit NASA until she retired quite nicely in 1995. And by that time it was a very different place.
You can laugh and mock someone who started with punch cards all you want, and maybe even think she's a dinosaur who didn't keep up. But this woman taught me assembly, C, Lisp, C++, SQL, and Python. Not too shabby for a punchcard programmer from the 50s. I'd say she kept up just fine.
But boy, did she want out of that environment. She was not a happy camper by the time the 90s rolled around.
The thing you aren't getting is that it's the people on the ground who did a lot of the work to make programming languages not suck.
That wasn't the reality of it, of course. Those women were doing massive amounts of the work around the logic of the systems.
But there was a hierarchy, and everyone knew it. Wasn't until the 70s and 80s that things turned into a man's world. Once people figured out that there were hard problems to solve and plenty of opportunities to yell, "Yeah! We Really Fucked that problem in the ass!" Yeah, right about that time, the women started leaving.
My mom's roommate didn't quit NASA until she retired quite nicely in 1995. And by that time it was a very different place.
You can laugh and mock someone who started with punch cards all you want, and maybe even think she's a dinosaur who didn't keep up. But this woman taught me assembly, C, Lisp, C++, SQL, and Python. Not too shabby for a punchcard programmer from the 50s. I'd say she kept up just fine.
But boy, did she want out of that environment. She was not a happy camper by the time the 90s rolled around.
The thing you aren't getting is that it's the people on the ground who did a lot of the work to make programming languages not suck.
No one is saying programming with Punch cards isn't programming. They are saying that transcribing paper into punchcards and running them through the computer isn't programming, any more than typing in code is programming. Someone who writes code that they or others put into the machine, is programming
Sure, but the scientists at NASA didn't write code. They wrote down the computations that needed to be carried out and the women who punched the cards had to turn them into programs. And as we all know, transfering a formula to code and making it run efficiently is not trivial, even if you're working with a language "well suited" for the task like FORTRAN (which I'm going to bet was on the punched cards the OP's friend was editing).
I know that initially, part of the reason was that only women knew how to type.
In fact, it was almost embarrassing for a man if he knew how to type since that was women's work.
So I'm sure that played a role once keyboard came into the picture.
Before that, when it was mostly punchcards, women were manual "computers" that did the calculations. So it seems reasonable that computers were considered women's work and thus that drive the trend.
Whether women were more or less suited to the job wouldn't seem to be relevant at the time.
In fact, it was almost embarrassing for a man if he knew how to type since that was women's work.
So I'm sure that played a role once keyboard came into the picture.
Before that, when it was mostly punchcards, women were manual "computers" that did the calculations. So it seems reasonable that computers were considered women's work and thus that drive the trend.
Whether women were more or less suited to the job wouldn't seem to be relevant at the time.
> more or less suited
I would say "more or less preferred" is a more relevant and less acerbic metric to consider.
I think James Damore's main thesis (or one of his main theses) was that men had more of a natural and biologically driven preference to work with things/machines. So if women were placed in these positions, it detracts from the narrative that "something mysterious happened in the 80s that caused women to flee the computer industry".
I would say "more or less preferred" is a more relevant and less acerbic metric to consider.
I think James Damore's main thesis (or one of his main theses) was that men had more of a natural and biologically driven preference to work with things/machines. So if women were placed in these positions, it detracts from the narrative that "something mysterious happened in the 80s that caused women to flee the computer industry".
Doesn't your narrative just confirm then that "working with computers" has always been related to social norms? Women were placed there and performed as well as any later man(hence many notable women in early computer science).
When ceos started realizing the potential social and economic power of the magic typing box it was no longer socially taboo for men to operate them. Of course, no self respecting business elite man would use one, only dirty hippie social rejects.
That's what makes the whole thing extra sad. For the longest time silicon valley types had to deal with being social outcasts in the business world. Rather than learn from that to be more inclusive they just took up the mantle of the business elite they replaced and perpetuated the same system of prejudice. In fact now that I think about it part of excluding women from the profession might have been an attempt at self preservation. Early tech people knew they were already looked down upon, if they didn't amp up the sexism to make it clear they were real men they would look even weaker to their east coast elite superiors.
When ceos started realizing the potential social and economic power of the magic typing box it was no longer socially taboo for men to operate them. Of course, no self respecting business elite man would use one, only dirty hippie social rejects.
That's what makes the whole thing extra sad. For the longest time silicon valley types had to deal with being social outcasts in the business world. Rather than learn from that to be more inclusive they just took up the mantle of the business elite they replaced and perpetuated the same system of prejudice. In fact now that I think about it part of excluding women from the profession might have been an attempt at self preservation. Early tech people knew they were already looked down upon, if they didn't amp up the sexism to make it clear they were real men they would look even weaker to their east coast elite superiors.
> Doesn't your narrative just confirm then that "working with computers" has always been related to social norms?
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. It doesn't matter how well they "performed". What matters is: would they have chosen that profession if they weren't placed there? Could it be that men preferred computer-related careers more than women did? If so, then the fact that many women were placed in those careers initially is completely irrelevant to the question of why there aren't a lot of women in those careers now.
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. It doesn't matter how well they "performed". What matters is: would they have chosen that profession if they weren't placed there? Could it be that men preferred computer-related careers more than women did? If so, then the fact that many women were placed in those careers initially is completely irrelevant to the question of why there aren't a lot of women in those careers now.
The graph in the article linked by the OP plots the number of women majoring in computer science (and another three fields). Unless "computer science" meant something radically different in the '70s and early '80s than it does today, or secretaries' roles included coding algorithms and data structures in PDP assembly, then no, those were not secretaries, but computer scientists.
He says:
>that these differences may [emphasis added] explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership
And he says one of the differences is a higher drive for status. That is one way it could change without the 80's thing being counter-evidence, if the status of practitioners and/or leadership in the field changed for some reason (maybe Bill Gates becoming the richest man in the world).
I'm not saying that I agree with him, or that the status drive difference is true, or that it would actually be an explanation for the difference from the 80s to now (Bill Gates might have lowered the status of the field for being socially awkward). I'm only saying that your counter argument may not work because he couched his statement in "may" and he talks about meta-level factors around the field.
>that these differences may [emphasis added] explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership
And he says one of the differences is a higher drive for status. That is one way it could change without the 80's thing being counter-evidence, if the status of practitioners and/or leadership in the field changed for some reason (maybe Bill Gates becoming the richest man in the world).
I'm not saying that I agree with him, or that the status drive difference is true, or that it would actually be an explanation for the difference from the 80s to now (Bill Gates might have lowered the status of the field for being socially awkward). I'm only saying that your counter argument may not work because he couched his statement in "may" and he talks about meta-level factors around the field.
If status hypothesis is right, it explains why women didn't change since 80s. What did indeed changed since then is popularity of tech. With more money floating around there are more people seeking for status.
This is well researched in the feminist sociology literature. When a "women's job" (like teaching or nursing) becomes more respected, pay goes up, and... The industry gets an influx of men working in it.
pay goes up, and... The industry gets an influx of men working in it.
But isn’t the opposite true as well? I mean, it wasn't that long ago that the IT department was at the bottom of the organisational pecking order, sometimes literally at the bottom in a dingy, windowless basement, and jokes about nerds and geeks and personal hygiene and poor fashion choices and so on were totally mainstream and acceptable. In those days, no-one said it was problematic that these losers and social lepers tended to skew male.
Obviously, everyone should be free to do any work that they want to and show an aptitude for. But you posit a one-way traffic that just isn't true.
But isn’t the opposite true as well? I mean, it wasn't that long ago that the IT department was at the bottom of the organisational pecking order, sometimes literally at the bottom in a dingy, windowless basement, and jokes about nerds and geeks and personal hygiene and poor fashion choices and so on were totally mainstream and acceptable. In those days, no-one said it was problematic that these losers and social lepers tended to skew male.
Obviously, everyone should be free to do any work that they want to and show an aptitude for. But you posit a one-way traffic that just isn't true.
[deleted]
I'm not sure it's supported by a really wide research. Scandinavian countries boast high equality ratings, and feminism being a part of political mainstream, AND social/tax system, which significantly reduces gap between high-, and low-salaried positions as well as competition between employees. And still tech is essentially a male field, and nursing - female-dominated.
Cause: at the original wage, supply is low and demand is high
Effect: wages rise
Effects of that effect: men choose the job, and respect increases
Effect: wages rise
Effects of that effect: men choose the job, and respect increases
As we all know correlation-causation link us not that easy. In 80s programming was a very much different thing - I know it, because both of my parents were programmers (though not in US), and also it was a very small pool at that time, so direct comparison may not be so valid as you seem to believe.
>The 'biological differences' argument falls flat because it implies that somehow women changed on a biological level between 1984 and today.
Alternatively, that the nature of software work changed.
Alternatively, that the nature of software work changed.
Just because initially, women worked on computers doesn't indicate to me whether they were more or less suited to the job. People just thought of it as women's work. They were the typists and human "computers"
In a way that aligns well with some nebulous personality difference between men and women? That's quite a claim.
It seems to me like the nature of the work hasn't even dramatically changed in the first place.
It seems to me like the nature of the work hasn't even dramatically changed in the first place.
As long as we're just literally making stuff up, isn't there a strong argument that software has become more "feminine" since the 1950s? Back then it was all about business calculations and the like. Now it's all "social" and "design" and "user-centric."
There was no sharp drop-off in the 80s. What happened is that interest from men soared while the proportion of women choosing to study it remained relatively constant in comparison, only dropping by a little in terms of the actual percentage of the female student body choosing it over other subjects. Looking only at the ratio is completely misleading.
There was only a short exception around the PC boom and the dotcom boom, when the proportion of women choosing to study it actually increased, and then fell down again once the boom was gone. This is similar to what the Scandinavian countries found in trying to encourage women to go into engineering: when they stop the campaigns, women's participation drops back to baseline.
But rather than look at the complete picture, only the gender ratio graph is ever shown, because that's the one that confirms the preconception that women are being victimized. This "drop", by the way, only exists at the bachelor level, and vanishes at the masters and PhD level, which suggests there is nothing driving committed and talented women out of the field at all.
But even if you didn't think all of the above is valid, it is preposterous to posit that the biological differences argument implies women must've somehow changed in the mid 80s. There is a much simpler explanation: computer science itself changed, and how it relates to industry. With the birth of PCs and especially SaaS, the amount of hard CS skills required to make computers do useful things dropped pretty much to zero. Only people with a particular theorical and abstract interest need to go into it. At the same time, software development pioneered many of the async and remote working styles that are common place in open source, and which allow for individualistic collaboration rather than the always-on social setting that women prefer. You see this in engineering too. Women gravitate towards engineering subjects that feature more team work, field work and lab work, and which involve working with people. The increased appeal of the field for men could be due to the fact that a segment of people previously tortured by social styles could now excel in a more solitary setting.
None of this is a taboo when it is used to imply that women's communication and empathy skills are innately superior, a common refrain in diversity circles. But try to make the same argument about men and their abstraction skills, at a population level, and suddenly you're blaspheming against the church of intersectionality.
The double standards and shoddy science are obvious, and the NLRB should be ashamed for rendering a judgment that declares reality to be sexist because some people's feelings were hurt. The only person who got actually victimized was Damore himself, for the crime of taking diversity advocates at their word, and actually offering them the feedback they claim to want, but clearly are incapable of processing.
There was only a short exception around the PC boom and the dotcom boom, when the proportion of women choosing to study it actually increased, and then fell down again once the boom was gone. This is similar to what the Scandinavian countries found in trying to encourage women to go into engineering: when they stop the campaigns, women's participation drops back to baseline.
But rather than look at the complete picture, only the gender ratio graph is ever shown, because that's the one that confirms the preconception that women are being victimized. This "drop", by the way, only exists at the bachelor level, and vanishes at the masters and PhD level, which suggests there is nothing driving committed and talented women out of the field at all.
But even if you didn't think all of the above is valid, it is preposterous to posit that the biological differences argument implies women must've somehow changed in the mid 80s. There is a much simpler explanation: computer science itself changed, and how it relates to industry. With the birth of PCs and especially SaaS, the amount of hard CS skills required to make computers do useful things dropped pretty much to zero. Only people with a particular theorical and abstract interest need to go into it. At the same time, software development pioneered many of the async and remote working styles that are common place in open source, and which allow for individualistic collaboration rather than the always-on social setting that women prefer. You see this in engineering too. Women gravitate towards engineering subjects that feature more team work, field work and lab work, and which involve working with people. The increased appeal of the field for men could be due to the fact that a segment of people previously tortured by social styles could now excel in a more solitary setting.
None of this is a taboo when it is used to imply that women's communication and empathy skills are innately superior, a common refrain in diversity circles. But try to make the same argument about men and their abstraction skills, at a population level, and suddenly you're blaspheming against the church of intersectionality.
The double standards and shoddy science are obvious, and the NLRB should be ashamed for rendering a judgment that declares reality to be sexist because some people's feelings were hurt. The only person who got actually victimized was Damore himself, for the crime of taking diversity advocates at their word, and actually offering them the feedback they claim to want, but clearly are incapable of processing.
You are deeply misinformed. At PhD level, Bio and Agro are gender balanced. CS is 95% male. Math and Engineering are about 70% male.
Women weren't becoming less represented in CS over time, because they were never welcomed in graduate programs in the first place
http://blogs.nature.com/naturejobs/2017/05/08/gender-gap-in-...
Women weren't becoming less represented in CS over time, because they were never welcomed in graduate programs in the first place
http://blogs.nature.com/naturejobs/2017/05/08/gender-gap-in-...
No I'm not, I'm literally describing the NCES own numbers. Here:
https://imgur.com/a/MQUx0
The point of discussion is whether there has been a drastic reduction in female participation in CS since the early 80s. This is a point that is commonly brought up, based on the graph of the gender _ratio_ of degrees conferred (which is dominated by bachelor's degrees).
As this ratio has dropped only because the absolute male numbers have increased, it is unfair to attribute that to a reduction in female participation.
I never said anything about equal gender balance, in fact, I strongly believe anyone who aims for a 50/50 gender ratio in STEM has embarked on a quest for a holy grail that can never be found, for the same reason social workers and nursing will never be 50/50 gender balanced. The only way to get close is to actively discriminate against the people most interested in it, and this is both stupid and immoral.
By the way, during those crucial 80s and 90s, computer tech was strongly associated with geeks and nerds, and the popular image was that of socially inept rejects. But now all that has been retconned as women being discriminated against, because the hard work of those nerds has turned it into a lucrative and prestiguous discipline. The idea that women weren't welcomed is preposterous, those men and the communities they built have always been infatuated with any woman who considered them worthy of respect, and a minority of women have always been part of it too.
https://imgur.com/a/MQUx0
The point of discussion is whether there has been a drastic reduction in female participation in CS since the early 80s. This is a point that is commonly brought up, based on the graph of the gender _ratio_ of degrees conferred (which is dominated by bachelor's degrees).
As this ratio has dropped only because the absolute male numbers have increased, it is unfair to attribute that to a reduction in female participation.
I never said anything about equal gender balance, in fact, I strongly believe anyone who aims for a 50/50 gender ratio in STEM has embarked on a quest for a holy grail that can never be found, for the same reason social workers and nursing will never be 50/50 gender balanced. The only way to get close is to actively discriminate against the people most interested in it, and this is both stupid and immoral.
By the way, during those crucial 80s and 90s, computer tech was strongly associated with geeks and nerds, and the popular image was that of socially inept rejects. But now all that has been retconned as women being discriminated against, because the hard work of those nerds has turned it into a lucrative and prestiguous discipline. The idea that women weren't welcomed is preposterous, those men and the communities they built have always been infatuated with any woman who considered them worthy of respect, and a minority of women have always been part of it too.
> The 'biological differences' argument falls flat because it implies that somehow women changed on a biological level between 1984 and today.
Or that computer science, and programming, started to change around 1984, which is not at all implausible.
Also, in the article you linked there is a good observation:
> The share of women in computer science started falling at roughly the same moment when personal computers started showing up in U.S. homes in significant numbers.
Which coincides with the time in which programming became a hobby you take up in childhood because you enjoy doing it, rather than a profession like any other. In other words, this could hint to a self-selection into a computer science career based on pure enjoyment of the activity as a child.
(The article instead suggests computers were marketed mainly as toys for boys- which is also not implausible, but doesn't explain why tech companies would have willingly cut themselves off half of the possible revenues of their product- I bet a 100% increase in sales would beat any prejudice).
Or that computer science, and programming, started to change around 1984, which is not at all implausible.
Also, in the article you linked there is a good observation:
> The share of women in computer science started falling at roughly the same moment when personal computers started showing up in U.S. homes in significant numbers.
Which coincides with the time in which programming became a hobby you take up in childhood because you enjoy doing it, rather than a profession like any other. In other words, this could hint to a self-selection into a computer science career based on pure enjoyment of the activity as a child.
(The article instead suggests computers were marketed mainly as toys for boys- which is also not implausible, but doesn't explain why tech companies would have willingly cut themselves off half of the possible revenues of their product- I bet a 100% increase in sales would beat any prejudice).
> The 'biological differences' argument falls flat because it implies that somehow women changed on a biological level between 1984 and today.
This article has an alternative explanation as for why:
http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagger...
Without implying there was any biological change at all - rather that other fields that were shut off to women (medicine, law etc) become more open.
It's a long read, but provides some interesting food for thought.
This article has an alternative explanation as for why:
http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagger...
Without implying there was any biological change at all - rather that other fields that were shut off to women (medicine, law etc) become more open.
It's a long read, but provides some interesting food for thought.
It's a somewhat interesting read, but one that I cannot agree with the conclusions as the author seems to have not bothered to read up on the data with regards to gender ratio in other careers.
For example the following claim made by the author:
>Women are less likely to be interested in programming than men. But if you ban the smart women from every other occupation – well, they’ll take it. Once you unban them, they’ll go to other things they like more, like being veterinarians (80% women) and forensic scientists (74% women). My guess is in 1980, neither of those careers had many women in them. Where did all those super-smart women who now dominate the fields come from? Probably places like schoolteaching and programming!
Can have doubt immediately cast on it by examining the percentage of women graduates by all degree types [1]. If we presume this to be true, then in the 80s we should see a large tick up in other degrees followed by a large tick down in computer science. And well, the data doesn't exactly support that. In fact, Computer Science is one of the few that bucks the trend of the other degrees. His entire argument essentially boils down to 'women are interested in these degrees, and men are interested in these degrees' which is a soft-argument saying that genetic or gender-related differences is why we see such large disparities between various careers. He handwaves away the statistic relating to the drop in the 80s, which makes me have trouble taking him seriously.
[1] http://www.randalolson.com/2014/06/14/percentage-of-bachelor...
For example the following claim made by the author:
>Women are less likely to be interested in programming than men. But if you ban the smart women from every other occupation – well, they’ll take it. Once you unban them, they’ll go to other things they like more, like being veterinarians (80% women) and forensic scientists (74% women). My guess is in 1980, neither of those careers had many women in them. Where did all those super-smart women who now dominate the fields come from? Probably places like schoolteaching and programming!
Can have doubt immediately cast on it by examining the percentage of women graduates by all degree types [1]. If we presume this to be true, then in the 80s we should see a large tick up in other degrees followed by a large tick down in computer science. And well, the data doesn't exactly support that. In fact, Computer Science is one of the few that bucks the trend of the other degrees. His entire argument essentially boils down to 'women are interested in these degrees, and men are interested in these degrees' which is a soft-argument saying that genetic or gender-related differences is why we see such large disparities between various careers. He handwaves away the statistic relating to the drop in the 80s, which makes me have trouble taking him seriously.
[1] http://www.randalolson.com/2014/06/14/percentage-of-bachelor...
Are we sure that stenographers and typists were not counted as programmers in the 80?
You're on the wrong side of this thing - it is insanely silly to imply someone should be fired from a tech company for a "theory he posited" (your words).
How about some references for your second paragraph. I've seen statistics floating around proving you wrong...
How about some references for your second paragraph. I've seen statistics floating around proving you wrong...
Damore was the first Doxxing victim here. He didn't publish the memo publicly.
This is one of the few subjects where much of the HN crowd is either experiencing some shared hallucination, or is relying heavily on poor journalism.
There are many comments that classify his memo as anti-diversity (it is pro diversity), and there are many that seem to suggest that the memo claimed women are less suited for these jobs, which again is patently false to anyone who gives it a reasonable and full read.
The injustice here is that this employee was taken to a workshop/seminar, was asked for feedback, which he submitted, and was ignored. His firing only came when his memo was leaked to the public and it became the subject of a media witch hunt.
Had the memo not been public, he would still be working there. This was not a planned firing and there was nothing normal about it. The CEO cancelled his vacation to return to HQ and address the situation caused by the media outcry.
This is a cancerous cultural problem that manifests the worst forms of censorious and authoritarian practices of dictatorial regimes of the past. Diversity at this cost is not worth it. Nothing is worth this kind of environment that is openly hostile and punitive to "wrongthink".
People of various backgrounds are not tokens to be planted into various positions to fulfill some fetish or misguided sense of justice. Under-representation by a specific group or sub group is not sufficient evidence of discrimination or a conspiracy. Deeming programs and opportunities unavailable to people because they don't have the correct biological trait is disgusting, and the ends do not justify the means. To argue that favoring someone because they belong to a special genetic group is rooted in the very "essentialist" thinking that is claimed to be chastised.
There is a better solution to these issues, and at this rate it will never be found. Ironic that some of the world's most innovative people who have no problem bouncing from one design pattern to another, are perfectly content with an approach to a point that criticism of it will get you fired.
There are many comments that classify his memo as anti-diversity (it is pro diversity), and there are many that seem to suggest that the memo claimed women are less suited for these jobs, which again is patently false to anyone who gives it a reasonable and full read.
The injustice here is that this employee was taken to a workshop/seminar, was asked for feedback, which he submitted, and was ignored. His firing only came when his memo was leaked to the public and it became the subject of a media witch hunt.
Had the memo not been public, he would still be working there. This was not a planned firing and there was nothing normal about it. The CEO cancelled his vacation to return to HQ and address the situation caused by the media outcry.
This is a cancerous cultural problem that manifests the worst forms of censorious and authoritarian practices of dictatorial regimes of the past. Diversity at this cost is not worth it. Nothing is worth this kind of environment that is openly hostile and punitive to "wrongthink".
People of various backgrounds are not tokens to be planted into various positions to fulfill some fetish or misguided sense of justice. Under-representation by a specific group or sub group is not sufficient evidence of discrimination or a conspiracy. Deeming programs and opportunities unavailable to people because they don't have the correct biological trait is disgusting, and the ends do not justify the means. To argue that favoring someone because they belong to a special genetic group is rooted in the very "essentialist" thinking that is claimed to be chastised.
There is a better solution to these issues, and at this rate it will never be found. Ironic that some of the world's most innovative people who have no problem bouncing from one design pattern to another, are perfectly content with an approach to a point that criticism of it will get you fired.
The shared hallucination is the one experienced by the people agreeing with the memo, and the ones who feel needlessly 'victimized' and 'persecuted' now that times are changing.
Of course, this is expected since the first ones to complain about growing equality are the ones who prospered disproportionately under inequality.
Of course, this is expected since the first ones to complain about growing equality are the ones who prospered disproportionately under inequality.
It has very little to do with feelings though. In my specific case I am not affected by these politics and policies whatsoever as I am thousands of miles away from the United States, and I am self employed.
To constantly read about cases where biology determines whether or not people are eligible for a particular opportunity, i.e. imposing inequality of opportunity in order to arrive at equality of outcome, is violating the very principles one claims to be opposed to. The excuse for this kind of implementation is that it is justified, in order to fix historical inequality. The people who are being discriminated against had no say in historical inequality. They were born into this kind of a society by accident of birth. If a young boy in Saudi Arabia goes to get a driving license and is told that he is no longer eligible because they have decided to randomly reject 4/5 male applicants to correct for historical injustice, he is being penalized for something he had nothing to do with. When a young boy is rejected for a job he is qualified for, citing the fact that he is the wrong sex, he is being penalized for something he had nothing to do with. Nobody should be at a disadvantage imposed on them by others using biology as a reason to do so. This is immoral, and no outcome is worth this kind of violation of principle.
To constantly read about cases where biology determines whether or not people are eligible for a particular opportunity, i.e. imposing inequality of opportunity in order to arrive at equality of outcome, is violating the very principles one claims to be opposed to. The excuse for this kind of implementation is that it is justified, in order to fix historical inequality. The people who are being discriminated against had no say in historical inequality. They were born into this kind of a society by accident of birth. If a young boy in Saudi Arabia goes to get a driving license and is told that he is no longer eligible because they have decided to randomly reject 4/5 male applicants to correct for historical injustice, he is being penalized for something he had nothing to do with. When a young boy is rejected for a job he is qualified for, citing the fact that he is the wrong sex, he is being penalized for something he had nothing to do with. Nobody should be at a disadvantage imposed on them by others using biology as a reason to do so. This is immoral, and no outcome is worth this kind of violation of principle.
In isolation, yes, you are very right. But history is anything but that, and there is always a context and reason for why things are the way they are.
I am from India, and I know bias when I see it. Classism and racism is systemic in India and whether you want to believe me or not, a person from a religion or upper caste will prefer a person from the same group. I am not going to claim that this exact same thing happens in the US, but I will not believe that it doesn't happen at all.
The thing is that the memo even mentions the problems with inherent bias, and then mentions that we need to have "open" dialogue.
The open dialogue is hard to happen when one group has been suppressed for generations.
What are you going to tell them? - Ok, we are sorry for what we have done, now we are going to be equal and you can compete for the same things? One group is dirt poor and disadvantaged, and the other has always enjoyed enough wealth to get proper education. How is that level playing field?
Minorities need to be given a hand up, at least for a generation to really make a level playing field.
As for your examples, yes, it's unfair, but that's what the under privileged group got told for generations. I guess life really is unfair.
I am from India, and I know bias when I see it. Classism and racism is systemic in India and whether you want to believe me or not, a person from a religion or upper caste will prefer a person from the same group. I am not going to claim that this exact same thing happens in the US, but I will not believe that it doesn't happen at all.
The thing is that the memo even mentions the problems with inherent bias, and then mentions that we need to have "open" dialogue.
The open dialogue is hard to happen when one group has been suppressed for generations.
What are you going to tell them? - Ok, we are sorry for what we have done, now we are going to be equal and you can compete for the same things? One group is dirt poor and disadvantaged, and the other has always enjoyed enough wealth to get proper education. How is that level playing field?
Minorities need to be given a hand up, at least for a generation to really make a level playing field.
As for your examples, yes, it's unfair, but that's what the under privileged group got told for generations. I guess life really is unfair.
Minorities don't need to be given a "hand up". People with demonstrable disadvantages can make a good case for the need to be given a "hand up".
The criteria for being institutionally favoured must not be rooted in biology, because it generalizes against people who do not have the requisite biological trait. This is the very same evil you are seeking to correct. You cannot use the same evil against a different group to "equalise" the wrongs committed before.
Two 15 year olds, one the son of a brahmin shopkeeper, the other, the son of a lower caste politician each score 89% in their class 10 examination. The politician's son has lived in the lap of luxury, elite coaching classes, servants, chauffer driven car, quiet studying environment. The shopkeeper's daughter shares a room with two siblings, spends 3 days a week doing a shift at the store, studies alone in an area with frequent power cuts.
By your system of favoring minorities, the politician's son is favoured over her, because he comes from a background of historical oppression. These cases are deemed "rare enough" to be considered acceptable sacrifices for the great cause of social justice.
Why must a biological standard be applied? Is this the best we can do ?
What are you going to tell the shopkeeper's daughter? Ok, we are sorry but after enough generations we will reverse this and your grandchildren will have justice?
You also cannot legislate away social ills and negative perceptions of one community by another. You certainly won't improve such divisions by favoring one community over another at an institutional level.
The shopkeeper's daughter tells her kids that she could have been an engineer at one of the city's best colleges, but she was not the correct caste for her grades to be deemed sufficient. Do you think this helps these divisions?
In a hypothetical engineering classroom, 25% of the class is at a different academic level to the rest of the class. How does this impact the relationships between students? How does this impact the way teachers teach these classes? Are these going to fix the divisions between castes?
These are poor solutions. These solutions must not go uncriticized. No solution should go uncriticized. We should always want to do better. Criticism of a solution does not imply a lack of empathy for the problem or those disaffected by it. Criticism of a solution to discrimination does not imply a favorable attitude to discrimination. These are cheap, ad hominem and intellectually dishonest ways of silencing people who do so, rather than engaging them, as was done with Mr. Damore.
The criteria for being institutionally favoured must not be rooted in biology, because it generalizes against people who do not have the requisite biological trait. This is the very same evil you are seeking to correct. You cannot use the same evil against a different group to "equalise" the wrongs committed before.
Two 15 year olds, one the son of a brahmin shopkeeper, the other, the son of a lower caste politician each score 89% in their class 10 examination. The politician's son has lived in the lap of luxury, elite coaching classes, servants, chauffer driven car, quiet studying environment. The shopkeeper's daughter shares a room with two siblings, spends 3 days a week doing a shift at the store, studies alone in an area with frequent power cuts.
By your system of favoring minorities, the politician's son is favoured over her, because he comes from a background of historical oppression. These cases are deemed "rare enough" to be considered acceptable sacrifices for the great cause of social justice.
Why must a biological standard be applied? Is this the best we can do ?
What are you going to tell the shopkeeper's daughter? Ok, we are sorry but after enough generations we will reverse this and your grandchildren will have justice?
You also cannot legislate away social ills and negative perceptions of one community by another. You certainly won't improve such divisions by favoring one community over another at an institutional level.
The shopkeeper's daughter tells her kids that she could have been an engineer at one of the city's best colleges, but she was not the correct caste for her grades to be deemed sufficient. Do you think this helps these divisions?
In a hypothetical engineering classroom, 25% of the class is at a different academic level to the rest of the class. How does this impact the relationships between students? How does this impact the way teachers teach these classes? Are these going to fix the divisions between castes?
These are poor solutions. These solutions must not go uncriticized. No solution should go uncriticized. We should always want to do better. Criticism of a solution does not imply a lack of empathy for the problem or those disaffected by it. Criticism of a solution to discrimination does not imply a favorable attitude to discrimination. These are cheap, ad hominem and intellectually dishonest ways of silencing people who do so, rather than engaging them, as was done with Mr. Damore.
How is it that you feel so correct that you don't need to cite anything in reply to such a thorough analysis of events?
"Prospered under inequality"? What was the name of this inequality law? Or was it "systemic" so I can't possibly understand it with my biased white male brain? The inequality we're under is the huge push to hire minorities and women. For example, as an Asian to get into Harvard, you need to have higher grades than a Black. How is this liberal policy not racist?
Yes, it's unfortunate that you can articulate the problem so well and still not see it for what it really is. But in the interest of carrying on, I am copy pasting one of my replies -
In isolation, yes, you are very right. But history is anything but that, and there is always a context and reason for why things are the way they are.
I am from India, and I know bias when I see it. Classism and racism is systemic in India and whether you want to believe me or not, a person from a religion or upper caste will prefer a person from the same group. I am not going to claim that this exact same thing happens in the US, but I will not believe that it doesn't happen at all.
The thing is that the memo even mentions the problems with inherent bias, and then mentions that we need to have "open" dialogue.
The open dialogue is hard to happen when one group has been supressed for generations.
What are you going to tell them? - Ok, we are sorry for what we have done, now we are going to be equal and you can compete for the same things? One group is dirt poor and disatvantaged, and the other has always enjoyed enough wealth to get proper education. How is that level playing field?
Minorities need to be given a hand up, at least for a generation to really make a level playing field.
In isolation, yes, you are very right. But history is anything but that, and there is always a context and reason for why things are the way they are.
I am from India, and I know bias when I see it. Classism and racism is systemic in India and whether you want to believe me or not, a person from a religion or upper caste will prefer a person from the same group. I am not going to claim that this exact same thing happens in the US, but I will not believe that it doesn't happen at all.
The thing is that the memo even mentions the problems with inherent bias, and then mentions that we need to have "open" dialogue.
The open dialogue is hard to happen when one group has been supressed for generations.
What are you going to tell them? - Ok, we are sorry for what we have done, now we are going to be equal and you can compete for the same things? One group is dirt poor and disatvantaged, and the other has always enjoyed enough wealth to get proper education. How is that level playing field?
Minorities need to be given a hand up, at least for a generation to really make a level playing field.
>"What are you going to tell them? - Ok, we are sorry for what we have done, now we are going to be equal and you can compete for the same things? One group is dirt poor and disatvantaged, and the other has always enjoyed enough wealth to get proper education. How is that level playing field?"
Okay, setting aside the ethical and moral implications. The effects that you are trying to fix are impossible to unravel from everything else. No one is even attempting to unravel it, and are simply using race, wealth and gender. No one bothers to think something as simple as "oh - you're a poor white male whose family has been living in a trailer park for generations without education - let's try give you a leg-up" over any random black-female.
That is the fundamental problem and we're all beating around the bush. You can not fix cosmic injustice. It's done, and short of time-travel or planetary-sized super-computers, we can not untangle the mess of consequences it has caused. Anything less is just playing lip-service while neglecting the truly-needy.
Okay, setting aside the ethical and moral implications. The effects that you are trying to fix are impossible to unravel from everything else. No one is even attempting to unravel it, and are simply using race, wealth and gender. No one bothers to think something as simple as "oh - you're a poor white male whose family has been living in a trailer park for generations without education - let's try give you a leg-up" over any random black-female.
That is the fundamental problem and we're all beating around the bush. You can not fix cosmic injustice. It's done, and short of time-travel or planetary-sized super-computers, we can not untangle the mess of consequences it has caused. Anything less is just playing lip-service while neglecting the truly-needy.
In isolation? Where is any of this in isolation - is there an island with a politics laboratory somewhere? And yes, I've been to India and the truth is the same: the only way to stop being racist and sexist is to stop. Not to institute sexist and racist policies of "women aren't good enough so we must force more to be hired in professions they don't prefer" and "blacks aren't good enough so we need to let them in when their grades are lower than every one else's." Minorities need to be given a hand? You mean we need equal outcomes and minority opinions like Damore's are not welcome?
Witch-hunts were authoritarian campaigns of gendercide. A gross, systematic slaughtering of thousands upon thousands of women. It's egregiously callous for you to misuse the term in this way.
Perhaps you men "snark-hunt".
Perhaps you men "snark-hunt".
It's not misuse, it's intentional.
Men were not the target of witch hunts because they were the "incorrect" sex.
Today, in cases where merit seemingly takes a backseat to diversity, men are the "incorrect" sex for some opportunities, like say if you want to speak at a node.js conference, or attend some special mentoring workshop. The opposite is not true, if you are not a man, there are no instances that I am aware of where you are openly denied or discouraged from pursuing an opportunity for that reason alone.
Men were not the target of witch hunts because they were the "incorrect" sex.
Today, in cases where merit seemingly takes a backseat to diversity, men are the "incorrect" sex for some opportunities, like say if you want to speak at a node.js conference, or attend some special mentoring workshop. The opposite is not true, if you are not a man, there are no instances that I am aware of where you are openly denied or discouraged from pursuing an opportunity for that reason alone.
I think this is an inaccurate view of witch. How did you come to your understanding?
This sounds like the federal government concluded that Damore's firing did not violate federal employment law. I think (but I'm no expert) that the issue of whether Damore's firing violated California employment law is still an open question.
This is correct. The National Labor Relations Board issued an Advice Memo, declining to prosecute a case under the federal National Labor Relations Act.
Damore's California lawsuit, which per the first page of the complaint, lists the below causes of action under various California laws, is unaffected.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT:
1. Violation of Cal. Labor Code § 1101
2. Violation of Cal. Labor Code § 1102
3. Workplace Discrimination on the basis of Gender and/or Race in Violation of FEHA
4.Workplace Harassment in Violation of FEHA
5.Retaliation in Violation of FEHA
6.Retaliation in Violation of Public Policy
7.Retaliation in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.5
8.Failure To Prevent Harassment, Discrimination, and Retaliation
9.Unfair Business Practices, Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq
10.Declaratory Relief
Damore's California lawsuit, which per the first page of the complaint, lists the below causes of action under various California laws, is unaffected.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT:
1. Violation of Cal. Labor Code § 1101
2. Violation of Cal. Labor Code § 1102
3. Workplace Discrimination on the basis of Gender and/or Race in Violation of FEHA
4.Workplace Harassment in Violation of FEHA
5.Retaliation in Violation of FEHA
6.Retaliation in Violation of Public Policy
7.Retaliation in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.5
8.Failure To Prevent Harassment, Discrimination, and Retaliation
9.Unfair Business Practices, Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq
10.Declaratory Relief
What I think of his views (I disagree) is not germaine to the question: was it sensible to write and publish? It was not. That I disagree with his premise and polemic makes it easier for me to align desire and reality, but the reality of the situation doesn't change because of my desires: he was stupid to publish and Google were within their rights to fire him.
All the other observed comments about liberal/conservative/libertarian views are frankly not very interesting. The bottom line to me is that he didn't have a strong enough claim to unfair dismissal.
Court did its job. Move on.
All the other observed comments about liberal/conservative/libertarian views are frankly not very interesting. The bottom line to me is that he didn't have a strong enough claim to unfair dismissal.
Court did its job. Move on.
I think the problem is not if you should predict if Google will fire you because of this. It is "are you doing harm to anybody else?" Saying these words already embarrassed his female colleagues and is he still expecting Google withhold free speech within massive anger from females? Google's firing may be inevitable after a tipping point.
He's stupid. Something like liberal/conservative is totally unrelated, indeed.
He's stupid. Something like liberal/conservative is totally unrelated, indeed.
> he was stupid to publish
Only in the way that union organizers and whistle blowers are stupid.
Only in the way that union organizers and whistle blowers are stupid.
In choosing to publish at risk of jobloss? Surely not: they both go into the situation expecting adversity and seeking a wider oucome. He did no such thing, either by intent or not. But I already stated I don't agree with his world view and contextually I do agree with union organisation and whistleblowing, neither of which this was. What's your point? Trolling.
[deleted]
Could a lawyer educate me on a technical matter here?
They say that "discriminatory statements are not protected". Is "discriminatory statement" a matter of law or a matter of fact? Naively I'd expect a jury to decide if a statement is discriminatory.
They say that "discriminatory statements are not protected". Is "discriminatory statement" a matter of law or a matter of fact? Naively I'd expect a jury to decide if a statement is discriminatory.
Search for 'Rekieta Law' on YouTube, he is a lawyer analysing the case in depth
Reading the comments in this thread is disheartening. It mostly consists of either false claims of what Damore actually said or pre-conceived interpretations of his memo as being anti-diversity without a single, not a single reference to his memo.
My general impression is that because Damore is a big fat nobody whose career has already been flushed down the toilet by these events, it is a popular discussion to have precisely because it is relatively safe for anyone to give their 2 cents worth and explore how to talk about extremely divisive topics that can be quite dangerous to try to talk about. Kind of like it is popular to mock the Gor books because it is a safe way to express opinions about gender issues where it would not be safe to talk about actual real life situations where society expects women to be submissive and deferential.
So I really don't expect such discussions to be high quality. I think it has merit that it can happen at all, but my feeling is that much of the discussion swirling around the Damore memo is training wheels level discussion.
So I really don't expect such discussions to be high quality. I think it has merit that it can happen at all, but my feeling is that much of the discussion swirling around the Damore memo is training wheels level discussion.
I think you have it backwards - this thread is full of people making excuses for Damore.
And yes, I've read it. Just because he wrote some sentences that claimed he's in favor of diversity doesn't magically change the content of the rest of the memo.
If he was truly arguing in good faith, he should've stuck to actual, demonstrable examples of issues or problems caused by the existing diversity practices. There was no need to go on long rambling tangents about population statistics that even he acknowledges aren't really relevant to the topic:
> "Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions."
You'll note that most of the memo seems to be implying the opposite.
And yes, I've read it. Just because he wrote some sentences that claimed he's in favor of diversity doesn't magically change the content of the rest of the memo.
If he was truly arguing in good faith, he should've stuck to actual, demonstrable examples of issues or problems caused by the existing diversity practices. There was no need to go on long rambling tangents about population statistics that even he acknowledges aren't really relevant to the topic:
> "Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions."
You'll note that most of the memo seems to be implying the opposite.
It's quite strange, but if you read James Damore's memo at face value, you'll find Google and YouTube execs saying essentially the same thing in public:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrOp8ewzJDc
There was no need to go on long rambling tangents about population statistics that even he acknowledges aren't really relevant to the topic
It's certainly relevant. The "jury is still out" in terms of biology and gender preferences and how those are modulated by culture:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKmyO3hbOz8
(Seriously, watch that, and tell me which side is intellectually open and honest, and which side comes across as ideologues.)
> "Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions."
You'll note that most of the memo seems to be implying the opposite.
"Seems to be implying." You are essentially admitting to an ideologically skewed, imputational reading.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrOp8ewzJDc
There was no need to go on long rambling tangents about population statistics that even he acknowledges aren't really relevant to the topic
It's certainly relevant. The "jury is still out" in terms of biology and gender preferences and how those are modulated by culture:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKmyO3hbOz8
(Seriously, watch that, and tell me which side is intellectually open and honest, and which side comes across as ideologues.)
> "Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions."
You'll note that most of the memo seems to be implying the opposite.
"Seems to be implying." You are essentially admitting to an ideologically skewed, imputational reading.
I would also urge you to be more specific. Give me a specific example so we can discuss it. Just handwavy claims without any specifics is useless.
My favorite part:
"Men’s higher drive for status
"We always ask why we don't see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.
"Status is the primary metric that men are judged on4, pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths."
I pity those poor men, forced into high-paying, high-status, but unsatisfying jobs like programming, management, coal mining, and garbage collection.
"Men’s higher drive for status
"We always ask why we don't see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.
"Status is the primary metric that men are judged on4, pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths."
I pity those poor men, forced into high-paying, high-status, but unsatisfying jobs like programming, management, coal mining, and garbage collection.
No one is asking you to pity them. But if you want to compete with them head to head you better be prepared to do the same.
That's the point.
That's the point.
This is the ultimate HN bikeshedding topic.
It's a proxy for the nature / nurture debate.
I put my vote token in the nature side. Women can do what ever men can and persisting the ideas that they can't sucks.
That is my opinion and I am unwilling to change it.
It's a proxy for the nature / nurture debate.
I put my vote token in the nature side. Women can do what ever men can and persisting the ideas that they can't sucks.
That is my opinion and I am unwilling to change it.
I agree it is bikeshedding. But I think it is bikeshedding with a constructive purpose of serving as a safe sandbox in which people can practice talking about difficult subjects without it blowing up in their face.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16399006
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16399006
The "constructive purpose" of the discussion for a man is to practice talking about difficult subjects. The real world implication of discussing it is suggesting that the potential of women in tech is up for debate.
Just talking about some things is enough to imply unintended conclusions. That's how it works in the real world no matter how hard you want to play Mr. Logic. To believe otherwise is extremely naive and puts you in serious danger, as Damore found out.
Opinions based around differences in human biology have a really bad historical track record. Groups and institutions have built up a natural vomit reflex for when they show up. Many might argue that this is a suppression of the truth but they also have to appreciate that that suppression might be in service of a greater good.
Just talking about some things is enough to imply unintended conclusions. That's how it works in the real world no matter how hard you want to play Mr. Logic. To believe otherwise is extremely naive and puts you in serious danger, as Damore found out.
Opinions based around differences in human biology have a really bad historical track record. Groups and institutions have built up a natural vomit reflex for when they show up. Many might argue that this is a suppression of the truth but they also have to appreciate that that suppression might be in service of a greater good.
I was married for a lot of years. My marriage was a case of opposites attract. We argued incessantly about everything but personal belief.
It took us a lot of years to get to the point where we could go furniture shopping and communicate constructively in order to agree on a purchase instead of fighting about who would win this one. We often were focused on entirely different attributes in our decision making process. For example, attractiveness of a bookshelf might be my focus. Sturdiness might be his.
Once we got past knee jerk rejection of each other's first pick, it was entirely possible to find a bookshelf that satisfied both his criteria and mine. But that required us to be able to communicate effectively, something we didn't have mastered when we got married at age 19.
When you do surveys, you find that the majority of people are both antiabortion and pro choice at the same time. Most people feel that abortion should be a last resort, not standard birth control. But they also feel a woman should have control over her body and her life and should not need to prove she was raped to choose to terminate a pregnancy.
Pollsters with a political agenda know this. They can survey the same people about the same issue and come up with data to support either antiabortion laws or pro choice laws depending on how they ask the questions.
Most people are not monoliths and not rabidly polarized along X social fault lines. The inability to safely talk to "the other side" means people can't learn to speak in a more nuanced way and can't build bridges.
I'm not 19 anymore. I see no reason to pick bookshelf A while hubby picks bookshelf B and we fight about who gets what they want. I am much more interested these days in finding out why he likes B, talking about why I like A and then looking for a third option that is satisfactory to both of us.
Society benefits when people can find a safe sandbox to begin that communication process. It does not have to be a case of which side wins and which side loses.
It took us a lot of years to get to the point where we could go furniture shopping and communicate constructively in order to agree on a purchase instead of fighting about who would win this one. We often were focused on entirely different attributes in our decision making process. For example, attractiveness of a bookshelf might be my focus. Sturdiness might be his.
Once we got past knee jerk rejection of each other's first pick, it was entirely possible to find a bookshelf that satisfied both his criteria and mine. But that required us to be able to communicate effectively, something we didn't have mastered when we got married at age 19.
When you do surveys, you find that the majority of people are both antiabortion and pro choice at the same time. Most people feel that abortion should be a last resort, not standard birth control. But they also feel a woman should have control over her body and her life and should not need to prove she was raped to choose to terminate a pregnancy.
Pollsters with a political agenda know this. They can survey the same people about the same issue and come up with data to support either antiabortion laws or pro choice laws depending on how they ask the questions.
Most people are not monoliths and not rabidly polarized along X social fault lines. The inability to safely talk to "the other side" means people can't learn to speak in a more nuanced way and can't build bridges.
I'm not 19 anymore. I see no reason to pick bookshelf A while hubby picks bookshelf B and we fight about who gets what they want. I am much more interested these days in finding out why he likes B, talking about why I like A and then looking for a third option that is satisfactory to both of us.
Society benefits when people can find a safe sandbox to begin that communication process. It does not have to be a case of which side wins and which side loses.
That's your spouse, come on. We're talking about coworkers, people who casually end up in meetings together and talk shit or play politics with zero regard for scorching the earth to get ahead. You have massive incentive not to casually degrade the existence of your spouse. Your example isn't even a different ballpark it's a different game.
In my experience most arguments of political nature have nothing to do with finding the right answer. These arguments are social posturing. It's not about me being right it's about you not being right. Some of the worst argumentative know-it-alls I ever met were only that way almost as a form of preemptive strike. They were terrified that someone might socially dominate them so they had to dominate the other person first.
For that reason I'm deeply skeptical that Damore was trying to have a conversation in good faith. It seems much more likely to me that he saw a social justice culture that claimed to have a monopoly on what is right and that really got on his nerves. I bet Damore would have been an outspoken social justice advocate if his workshop came to him and asked "hey, do you think these gender initiatives are good?" Instead I bet he got something more along the lines of "this is why you think wrong."
In my experience most arguments of political nature have nothing to do with finding the right answer. These arguments are social posturing. It's not about me being right it's about you not being right. Some of the worst argumentative know-it-alls I ever met were only that way almost as a form of preemptive strike. They were terrified that someone might socially dominate them so they had to dominate the other person first.
For that reason I'm deeply skeptical that Damore was trying to have a conversation in good faith. It seems much more likely to me that he saw a social justice culture that claimed to have a monopoly on what is right and that really got on his nerves. I bet Damore would have been an outspoken social justice advocate if his workshop came to him and asked "hey, do you think these gender initiatives are good?" Instead I bet he got something more along the lines of "this is why you think wrong."
You and I are not even discussing the same thing. I am talking about discussions about Damore on the internet generally and on HN in specific. Discussion on HN can develop over hours, days, weeks, months even years. Some people here have known each other for years. In most cases, they can just walk away if things get too harried, regroup, rethink, conclude "that phrasing went super bad" and try something else.
I think your bar for good faith conversation is set unrealistically high. Outside of friends and family most people have no incentive to concede anything in a conversation if they don't want to. Some people don't care at all about burning bridges to "win." For anonymous conversations on the internet this is almost the rule rather than the exception.
Don't get me wrong, I wish most people weren't assholes just as much as you do but it's a race to the bottom. If one person values "being right" they will take your good faith argument and eat you alive in public with no mercy.
Don't get me wrong, I wish most people weren't assholes just as much as you do but it's a race to the bottom. If one person values "being right" they will take your good faith argument and eat you alive in public with no mercy.
I think my expectations align with HN guidelines and with a fair amount of observable behavior here. Granted, some folks can't be arsed. (shrug)
I guess you and I are reading a different hacker news then. I can hardly go one thread here that doesn't devolve into petty power jabs for internet points. I don't know how you can read the comments in this Damore thread and not agree that's the case.
Of course, that's against the HN guidelines, but it's not exactly hard to follow the letter of the guidelines while breaking the spirit of them.
Of course, that's against the HN guidelines, but it's not exactly hard to follow the letter of the guidelines while breaking the spirit of them.
If you notice people doing that you should flag the comments. How to do this is in the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html.
[deleted]
I just published a post about effective communication actually.
https://medium.com/@ioverthoughtthis/how-to-have-an-effectiv...
> Society benefits when people can find a safe sandbox to begin that communication process.
Totally agree. I would love some feedback from you given your stance on discussion!
https://medium.com/@ioverthoughtthis/how-to-have-an-effectiv...
> Society benefits when people can find a safe sandbox to begin that communication process.
Totally agree. I would love some feedback from you given your stance on discussion!
You have a lot of good points about techniques that are useful.
I would add that a debate does not need to be a battle. I am usually not looking to argue and win. I am usually looking to converse.
Also, minds and feelings change slowly. Expecting them to change this hour because you used pretty words and had great technique is unrealistic. My goal is to be heard, to be allowed to speak my mind. People can contemplate my words at leisure and draw conclusions later. I don't need acknowledgement that I "won" this round right this minute.
I would add that a debate does not need to be a battle. I am usually not looking to argue and win. I am usually looking to converse.
Also, minds and feelings change slowly. Expecting them to change this hour because you used pretty words and had great technique is unrealistic. My goal is to be heard, to be allowed to speak my mind. People can contemplate my words at leisure and draw conclusions later. I don't need acknowledgement that I "won" this round right this minute.
I'm not convinced that is the case.
Members seems to be expressing views that are intrinsic to their identities. To that end, no one has an open mind on the subject.
Even I genuinely don't have an open mind on the subject!
These discussions and disagreements will only serve to cement the existing views of members.
Members seems to be expressing views that are intrinsic to their identities. To that end, no one has an open mind on the subject.
Even I genuinely don't have an open mind on the subject!
These discussions and disagreements will only serve to cement the existing views of members.
Practicing the basics of diplomatic discussion is not about changing minds.
What is the intended outcome?
Emergent patterns don't begin with a stated goal. They begin with seeds and fertile ground and existing need. You look back on it later and see from whence it arose.
When this discussion was initially ignited a while back, I had wondered whether I should seek the opinion of my girlfriend regarding this topic.
She is a brilliant software engineer who switched out of CS into another major, despite having top grades.
I finally caved and asked her to read the original memo.
Whilst she found the memo interesting, she mentioned this is the view of a single person and found it ridiculous that it caused such an outcry.
She is all for diversity in tech (and for all industries for that matter) and pointed out that the hypersensitivity nature of CS causes much harm than good.
While we are busy doing roundabout discussions regarding a memo, personal data of millions of people are being leaked, privacy and security of people are in jeopardy because we fail to make high quality software.
It truly sadden both of us that the brilliant minds in our Industry are focused on what should/should not be written in a personal memo, than actually pushing the boundaries of software.
When a thought provoking community such as HN calls for arms every time this topic comes up and turns into a battlefield, I do wonder whether we have already lost the fight for TRUE diversity.
She is a brilliant software engineer who switched out of CS into another major, despite having top grades.
I finally caved and asked her to read the original memo.
Whilst she found the memo interesting, she mentioned this is the view of a single person and found it ridiculous that it caused such an outcry.
She is all for diversity in tech (and for all industries for that matter) and pointed out that the hypersensitivity nature of CS causes much harm than good.
While we are busy doing roundabout discussions regarding a memo, personal data of millions of people are being leaked, privacy and security of people are in jeopardy because we fail to make high quality software.
It truly sadden both of us that the brilliant minds in our Industry are focused on what should/should not be written in a personal memo, than actually pushing the boundaries of software.
When a thought provoking community such as HN calls for arms every time this topic comes up and turns into a battlefield, I do wonder whether we have already lost the fight for TRUE diversity.
Did the NLRB memo specify exactly which statements in Damore's memo were discriminatory and hostile? Is there a copy available?
The two statements they mentioned specifically were:
> Women are more prone to “neuroticism,” resulting in women experiencing higher anxiety and exhibiting lower tolerance for stress, which “may contribute to . . . the lower number of women in high stress jobs”;
> Men demonstrate greater variance in IQ than women, such that there are more men at both the top and bottom of the distribution. Thus, posited, the Employer’s preference to hire from the “top of the curve” may result in a candidate pool with fewer females than those of “less-selective” tech companies.
> Women are more prone to “neuroticism,” resulting in women experiencing higher anxiety and exhibiting lower tolerance for stress, which “may contribute to . . . the lower number of women in high stress jobs”;
> Men demonstrate greater variance in IQ than women, such that there are more men at both the top and bottom of the distribution. Thus, posited, the Employer’s preference to hire from the “top of the curve” may result in a candidate pool with fewer females than those of “less-selective” tech companies.
The second statement was not even in the memo
yes : https://www.nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-205351
you can also find the full damore memo online.
you can also find the full damore memo online.
Thanks.
I checked Damore's Twitter account, and he has not yet made a statement on this, perhaps wisely following his lawyer's advice.
from the NLRB Memo: "[Damore's] statements about immutable traits linked to sex—such as women’s heightened neuroticism and men’s prevalence at the top of the IQ distribution—were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, notwithstanding [his] effort to cloak comments with “scientific” references and analysis, and notwithstanding “not all women” disclaimers."
Interesting. The Board completely dismissed the scientific arguments, even going so far as to put quotes around "scientific". They didn't accept that he was making scientific statements at all! It's not clear whether they understood that Damore used "neuroticism" as a specific and uncontroversial psychological term, and not in the folk meaning of "crazy". I'm going to suppose no, since their qualifiers "heightened neuroticism" and "more prone to neuroticism" don't come from Damore's memo, and imply the "crazy" connotation.
I checked Damore's Twitter account, and he has not yet made a statement on this, perhaps wisely following his lawyer's advice.
from the NLRB Memo: "[Damore's] statements about immutable traits linked to sex—such as women’s heightened neuroticism and men’s prevalence at the top of the IQ distribution—were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, notwithstanding [his] effort to cloak comments with “scientific” references and analysis, and notwithstanding “not all women” disclaimers."
Interesting. The Board completely dismissed the scientific arguments, even going so far as to put quotes around "scientific". They didn't accept that he was making scientific statements at all! It's not clear whether they understood that Damore used "neuroticism" as a specific and uncontroversial psychological term, and not in the folk meaning of "crazy". I'm going to suppose no, since their qualifiers "heightened neuroticism" and "more prone to neuroticism" don't come from Damore's memo, and imply the "crazy" connotation.
I was also surprised that this was the part of memo quoted by the NLRB.
There are others that made me frown way more.
The neuroticism quote is not beyond reproach though.
The big five model has been heavily critiqued, it is not exactly an ironclad scientific caution for Damore's argument.
There are others that made me frown way more.
The neuroticism quote is not beyond reproach though.
The big five model has been heavily critiqued, it is not exactly an ironclad scientific caution for Damore's argument.
[deleted]
Would it be possible to rename the thread "Fired Google Engineer Who Authored Diversity Memo Withdraws NLRA Challenge."? I think that's quite a bit more accurate.
It's not though, because it wasn't withdrawn it was rejected.
I think the official case record is not in agreement with your understanding:
https://www.nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-205351
https://www.nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-205351
[deleted]
Real question: having seen that many good engineers are hesitant to work at a company with very limited diversity, we have endeavored to increase diversity by hiring qualified junior engineers from less represented groups. Is this acceptable?
These are completely qualified folks, for the job of junior engineer. We purposely, from the category of all qualified junior applicants, hired those that also were from less represented groups.
Is this perceived (by “you”, I suppose) as “acceptable”?
These are completely qualified folks, for the job of junior engineer. We purposely, from the category of all qualified junior applicants, hired those that also were from less represented groups.
Is this perceived (by “you”, I suppose) as “acceptable”?
If they are completely qualified, they should and would be hired by a system that completely ignores gender and race. While the morality of your system is up for debate, what is not up for debate is that your system is mathematically disadvantaged in terms of hiring the best engineers...because your system ignores the vast majority of the hiring pool (presumably white/Indian/east asian [straight?] men). A blind system favors/ignores nobody.
> If they are completely qualified, they should and would be hired by a system that completely ignores gender and race.
I can't believe you were downvoted for expressing that merit rather than race and gender should be use for hiring decisions.
I can't believe you were downvoted for expressing that merit rather than race and gender should be use for hiring decisions.
> I can't believe you were downvoted for expressing that merit rather than race and gender should be use for hiring decisions.
This is the new world we unfortunately live in. Words and their meanings are transformed to fit within the ideology ("it isn't discrimination if it favors women over men, or minorities over whites...")...
This is the new world we unfortunately live in. Words and their meanings are transformed to fit within the ideology ("it isn't discrimination if it favors women over men, or minorities over whites...")...
In your company, how much better merit-wise must a white/asian/male applicant be to get hired? Fifty percent better? My gut-feeling is that these well-intentioned policies don't weed out the upper echelons of the "over-represented" groups anyway - they'll just use position/elite network to get in the door. Instead, the policy weeds out the "working class" applicants who must rely on merit, but who have the wrong skin color.
+1
I have first hand experience with this. As a normal working-class white guy with poor parents and no connections (I worked my way through school), I had a hard time even landing an interview at first. As a social experiment, I changed my name/sex from Joe/male to Joanna/female, kept everything else on my resume the same, and reapplied to all the jobs that didn't want me previously. Every single company that rejected Joe was overjoyed when Joanna applied. In every case I got a email within the week wanting to meet and interview me. It was kind of eye-opening. I didn't follow through as "Joanna" because the sexist hiring policies were enough to put me off working at these companies entirely. I eventually found an employer that wasn't sexist and have been happy with them so far...
I have first hand experience with this. As a normal working-class white guy with poor parents and no connections (I worked my way through school), I had a hard time even landing an interview at first. As a social experiment, I changed my name/sex from Joe/male to Joanna/female, kept everything else on my resume the same, and reapplied to all the jobs that didn't want me previously. Every single company that rejected Joe was overjoyed when Joanna applied. In every case I got a email within the week wanting to meet and interview me. It was kind of eye-opening. I didn't follow through as "Joanna" because the sexist hiring policies were enough to put me off working at these companies entirely. I eventually found an employer that wasn't sexist and have been happy with them so far...
A similar thing happened to me, although unintentionally. At a previous job I discovered that I was given an interview because they thought I was black (based on my name). They would have otherwise passed on my resume.
Sorry to hear that...
> We purposely, from the category of all qualified junior applicants, hired those that also were from less represented groups.
IANAL, but from my understanding making hiring decisions based on race, gender or religion is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But I really don't know what I am talking about and would be interested in hearing a lawyer's opinion.
IANAL, but from my understanding making hiring decisions based on race, gender or religion is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But I really don't know what I am talking about and would be interested in hearing a lawyer's opinion.
I strongly disagree with what the guy said. But I also find it problematic that he was fired for saying it. That's crossing a line I'm not comfortable with.
There were other legitimate points in his claim that should be addressed too. You simply can't discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity. And if people are outright saying that, that's a problem.
Is he a jackass? Yes. Did he do something obnoxious with that memo? Yes. Fire him for that. Which they did. Totally fine with that.
But if the real culture at google is as described, that's something that needs to come to light in discovery. I would have preferred for this to move forward so we can see some light on things.
The problem here isn't with Damore's "theory." It's whether or not there is a pervasive, race-based bias.
My suspicion is that there isn't really anything in practice. Yeah, maybe some dude does some virtue signalling every once in a while. But in reality, I can't actually believe a competent HR team would let that happen on a systematic level.
The chances are he would've been shown to be wrong. So it's too bad this didn't go past this stage.
There were other legitimate points in his claim that should be addressed too. You simply can't discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity. And if people are outright saying that, that's a problem.
Is he a jackass? Yes. Did he do something obnoxious with that memo? Yes. Fire him for that. Which they did. Totally fine with that.
But if the real culture at google is as described, that's something that needs to come to light in discovery. I would have preferred for this to move forward so we can see some light on things.
The problem here isn't with Damore's "theory." It's whether or not there is a pervasive, race-based bias.
My suspicion is that there isn't really anything in practice. Yeah, maybe some dude does some virtue signalling every once in a while. But in reality, I can't actually believe a competent HR team would let that happen on a systematic level.
The chances are he would've been shown to be wrong. So it's too bad this didn't go past this stage.
If we are all honest with ourselves, we acknowledge that we have our opinions about how most men think and how most women think.
The difference between being cast out and being celebrated is that the latter keeps their opinions to themselves. This guy self-immolated for foolishness.
The difference between being cast out and being celebrated is that the latter keeps their opinions to themselves. This guy self-immolated for foolishness.
I've recently encounter Jordan Peterson. He speaks very eloquently about topics such as gender differences from (IMO) a rational and scientific point of view.
I'm linking an interview with him which I find fascinating: Both for the information he conveys and for the manner in which he manages to remain cool and clear-headed against a very aggressive interviewer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54&t=4m55s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54&t=4m55s
I looked up the Advice Memo [0] written by the NRLB (thanks tptacek for mentioning that document) so that I could try to see what exactly they found discriminatory about Damore's paper. This is the relevant section:
> The Charging Party’s use of stereotypes based on purported biological differences between women and men should not be treated differently than the types of conduct the Board found unprotected in these cases. statements about immutable traits linked to sex—such as women’s heightened neuroticism and men’s prevalence at the top of the IQ distribution—were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, notwithstanding effort to cloak comments with “scientific” references and analysis, and notwithstanding “not all women” disclaimers.
The "these cases" reference is talking about a KKK member and someone who "made debasing and sexually abusive remarks to a female employee who had crossed a picket line months earlier". I don't see how Damore's memo is at all relatable to these.
And more importantly, the content they found to be discriminatory were the studies on differences in IQ and psycological traits by gender? How can presenting science be discriminatory?
If you disagree with some study, you explain why the methodology it used is bad or find other studies that try to explain it. You don't just claim that it's findings are discriminatory. That makes it impossible to discover why it's wrong (if it is).
[0] (PDF) http://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45826e6391
> The Charging Party’s use of stereotypes based on purported biological differences between women and men should not be treated differently than the types of conduct the Board found unprotected in these cases. statements about immutable traits linked to sex—such as women’s heightened neuroticism and men’s prevalence at the top of the IQ distribution—were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, notwithstanding effort to cloak comments with “scientific” references and analysis, and notwithstanding “not all women” disclaimers.
The "these cases" reference is talking about a KKK member and someone who "made debasing and sexually abusive remarks to a female employee who had crossed a picket line months earlier". I don't see how Damore's memo is at all relatable to these.
And more importantly, the content they found to be discriminatory were the studies on differences in IQ and psycological traits by gender? How can presenting science be discriminatory?
If you disagree with some study, you explain why the methodology it used is bad or find other studies that try to explain it. You don't just claim that it's findings are discriminatory. That makes it impossible to discover why it's wrong (if it is).
[0] (PDF) http://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45826e6391
You've lost the context of the Advice Memo. The NLRB isn't saying Damore himself violated EEO laws by writing the memo. The NLRB didn't fire Damore; Google did. The NLRB is saying that although the NLRA protects concerted action to improve working conditions, those protections do not extend to action that might discriminate against protected classes, and, crucially, that because employers are required by state and federal law to comply with EEO laws, the NLRB will tend not to second-guess them about how they do that.
The important thing to remember is that in most of the US, there's a presumption that employers can fire you for any reason. Employment is at-will. Damore was appealing to a specific exception to that rule.
The important thing to remember is that in most of the US, there's a presumption that employers can fire you for any reason. Employment is at-will. Damore was appealing to a specific exception to that rule.
That would be a narrow and incomplete reading of Damore's memo based on prejudice. Damore's description that on average men and women are different is not itself discriminatory or harmful since it's backed up by quite a lot of biological and psychometric science.
The question should have been "What is Damore advocating?".
And if they read the entire document then it would be clear that Damore was suggesting methods to bring Google's gender balance to 50/50 by making Google (and tech in general) more attractive to women by altering the software engineering culture to leverage inherent strengths that women (on average) possess.
The question should have been "What is Damore advocating?".
And if they read the entire document then it would be clear that Damore was suggesting methods to bring Google's gender balance to 50/50 by making Google (and tech in general) more attractive to women by altering the software engineering culture to leverage inherent strengths that women (on average) possess.
No, the Advice Memo repeatedly notes that much of the memo is not objectionable. The problem Damore faced with the NLRB is that Google was careful to terminate him specifically and exclusively for the parts of the memo that would advocate policies problematic under EEO laws.
They read the whole memo (and indeed summarize a lot of it, not just the prejudicial bits).
They read the whole memo (and indeed summarize a lot of it, not just the prejudicial bits).
I read it. And I'm even more skeptical now:
> ~ statements about immutable traits linked to sex — such as women's heightened neuroticism and men's prevalence at the top of the IQ distribution — were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, notwithstanding~ effort to cloak~ comments with "scientific" references and analysis, and notwtihstanding "not all women" disclaimers.
"Effort to cloak" and quotation marks around "scientific" are giving something away about the author.
> Moreover, the Charging Party reasonably should have known that the memorandum would likely be disseminated further, even beyond the workplace.
Damore "reasonably should have known" someone else was going to violate workplace confidentiality and code of conduct by leaking the document to the media? This seems like a failure of the employer not the employee.
> Once the memorandum was shared publicly, at least two female engineering candidates withdrew from consideration and explicitly named the memo as their reason for doing so.
This is the evidentiary component of the argument - which pivots on the not-so-reasonable "reasonably should have known" assertion.
> ~ statements about immutable traits linked to sex — such as women's heightened neuroticism and men's prevalence at the top of the IQ distribution — were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, notwithstanding~ effort to cloak~ comments with "scientific" references and analysis, and notwtihstanding "not all women" disclaimers.
"Effort to cloak" and quotation marks around "scientific" are giving something away about the author.
> Moreover, the Charging Party reasonably should have known that the memorandum would likely be disseminated further, even beyond the workplace.
Damore "reasonably should have known" someone else was going to violate workplace confidentiality and code of conduct by leaking the document to the media? This seems like a failure of the employer not the employee.
> Once the memorandum was shared publicly, at least two female engineering candidates withdrew from consideration and explicitly named the memo as their reason for doing so.
This is the evidentiary component of the argument - which pivots on the not-so-reasonable "reasonably should have known" assertion.
Yeah I skimmed the comments and just read many of your replies. Thanks very useful. Guess I'll have to read it.
[deleted]
Can someone remind me, what was he trying to accomplish with this memo?
Only liberals are allowed to work at Google, and only liberals are allowed to express their political opinions on HN. The liberal-tech crowd groupthink enforcement is real.
His cardinal sin was saying that men and women are biologically different. He could've said a lot, but as soon as he tried to give a biological explanation for why girls prefer Barbies and boys prefer toy cars, he entered taboo territory. It's a thought crime because it implies that cultural influences aren't 100% responsible for why more men are interested in STEM than women.
Except he said women also lacked the abilities to be in tech and higher level management positions. This isn't just about children picking toys.
>I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.
>I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.
It is entirely uncontroversial and well-supported to say that there are many more extremely stupid, or criminal, or violent, or genetically ill men than women at the bottom of the bell curve.
Why is it so unbelievable that there are more men at the other end with extremely high ability? Just the fact that we have two different chromosomes X and Y is enough to increase our genetic variance (because if a gene on the X is faulty or extreme, we have no backup).
Why is it so unbelievable that there are more men at the other end with extremely high ability? Just the fact that we have two different chromosomes X and Y is enough to increase our genetic variance (because if a gene on the X is faulty or extreme, we have no backup).
It's not so much as unbelievable as in the burden of proof is not met for causation.
Observational correlation does not mean causation. It's analogous to how a racist would argue that because there are more african american men in U.S. prisons, they are there because they are biologically inferior - when in reality, socioeconomic factors are demonstrably one of the largest causes and there aren't links to genetics.
This is the argument that Damore was making, that there are less women in engineering and leadership positions not because of social constructs, but because of biological factors. The evidence he provided did not demonstrate ability differences. Sure, differences in preferences, yes, but those could be caused by the social constructs he was arguing against, and he didn't want to admit that.
Edit: Forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't you also the HN user that tried to argue for taking away reproductive rights from poor people?
Observational correlation does not mean causation. It's analogous to how a racist would argue that because there are more african american men in U.S. prisons, they are there because they are biologically inferior - when in reality, socioeconomic factors are demonstrably one of the largest causes and there aren't links to genetics.
This is the argument that Damore was making, that there are less women in engineering and leadership positions not because of social constructs, but because of biological factors. The evidence he provided did not demonstrate ability differences. Sure, differences in preferences, yes, but those could be caused by the social constructs he was arguing against, and he didn't want to admit that.
Edit: Forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't you also the HN user that tried to argue for taking away reproductive rights from poor people?
> It's not so much as unbelievable as in the burden of proof is not met for causation.
I agree that the burden of proof has not been met. From the studies cited on this Wikipedia page[0] it appears some studies have found this effect but it's not an accepted conclusion.
> Forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't you also the HN user that tried to argue for taking away reproductive rights from poor people?
Link? I don't recall posting that and I do not support reproductive coercion of any kind. Although I do believe that poor people having children are setting themselves and their children up for suffering and maybe I said they shouldn't do so?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesis
I agree that the burden of proof has not been met. From the studies cited on this Wikipedia page[0] it appears some studies have found this effect but it's not an accepted conclusion.
> Forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't you also the HN user that tried to argue for taking away reproductive rights from poor people?
Link? I don't recall posting that and I do not support reproductive coercion of any kind. Although I do believe that poor people having children are setting themselves and their children up for suffering and maybe I said they shouldn't do so?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesis
No, he tried to use unrelated data on the biological differences between men and women to justify why Google shouldn't try to reach out more to women to diversify their workforce.
The memo had a section dedicated to changing Google to make it more welcoming to women. It mentioned "pair programming" as one female-friendly culture change.
"We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming
and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how
people-oriented certain roles at Google can be and we shouldn't deceive
ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get
female students into coding might be doing this)."
Upvoted gray. I’ve observed at least one of my comments removed from HN. I was a liberal when I came to SF, but people shut me down constantly since coming here... I determined I am being bullied for the first time; as a 30+ yo man it is an interesting thing to learn to combat. Talking to homeless guys, I’ve no doubt what happened to some of them. Today I put out a substantial demo to address this in the way I know how, tweeted on same twitter handle.
I'm on Damore's side (if I had to pick a side) and yet I've been able to express myself fairly freely here on HN. I've also seen posts downvoted/killed consistently from both sides, and it's almost always well-deserved in my opinion.
myf01d(3)
orionblastar(2)
I don't agree with Damore's message. But Google cultivated an environment were open discussion were encouraged. So firing him for stating his opinion is truly, hypocritical bullshit.
People should get fired for not doing their jobs -- not for writing what they think. And I also want to say that before you blame "the Left" for Google's behavior... Had he been fired in "Socialist Europe," the firing would have been declared against the law and Google would have had to pay a hefty fine.
I can add why I'm so sure he wouldn't have been fired. In most (many?) European countries, you can be fired for only(!) two reasons; misconduct and labor shortage. Misconduct must be specifically related to your job performance. Like, a train conductor that always oversleeps or a cock who can't boil eggs. Something quite a bit more obvious than claiming gender differences between men and women. Labor shortage is if there is not enough work to do and then the company can let go of the surplus personnel.
The walkthrough of the US laws, that tptacek provides, shows that they are completely different and much less employee friendly.
People should get fired for not doing their jobs -- not for writing what they think. And I also want to say that before you blame "the Left" for Google's behavior... Had he been fired in "Socialist Europe," the firing would have been declared against the law and Google would have had to pay a hefty fine.
I can add why I'm so sure he wouldn't have been fired. In most (many?) European countries, you can be fired for only(!) two reasons; misconduct and labor shortage. Misconduct must be specifically related to your job performance. Like, a train conductor that always oversleeps or a cock who can't boil eggs. Something quite a bit more obvious than claiming gender differences between men and women. Labor shortage is if there is not enough work to do and then the company can let go of the surplus personnel.
The walkthrough of the US laws, that tptacek provides, shows that they are completely different and much less employee friendly.
No, here in "socialist Europe" he'd have been fired as well. He broke clear company rules and made the working environment hostile for others. That's not acceptable over here the same was as it's not in the US. However, had he written this out on a personal blog, or just has an adult conversation with HR I believe he'd had been safe on both sides of the pond.
People don't just get fired for not doing their jobs. If I bully a co-worker or start stating at work that I think someone is less capable for any reason linked to their biology, religion, sexuality or age I will be putting my job at risk. That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who's worked in a professional environment for any amount of time (or heck, even a fresh graduate who bothered to read the company handbook!).
People don't just get fired for not doing their jobs. If I bully a co-worker or start stating at work that I think someone is less capable for any reason linked to their biology, religion, sexuality or age I will be putting my job at risk. That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who's worked in a professional environment for any amount of time (or heck, even a fresh graduate who bothered to read the company handbook!).
Citation for rules and hostility?
> No, here in "socialist Europe" he'd have been fired as well.
That's an extremely strong claim that does not match my experience and will highly depend on the company, which country in Europe, etc. For instance I've seen explicitly sexist things happening in French companies, and have had many more related to me by friends and family. My mother works for a large European oil company, and has witnessed execs telling women in meetings to shut up and go back to being secretaries. None of these examples resulted in firing.
And honestly, while Europe is indeed socialist in many ways policy wise, in many places it is far from as progressive as the coastal US. I'd much rather be LGBTQ in San Francisco or New York than Paris or Barcelona. Hell, I have several European female coworkers who have explicitly told me that they do not intend on ever working there ever again because the culture is significantly more sexist than SF/LA/Seattle/NYC.
But again, Europe is big. Paris or Madrid are much more hostile than Berlin or Stockholm in these ways.
That's an extremely strong claim that does not match my experience and will highly depend on the company, which country in Europe, etc. For instance I've seen explicitly sexist things happening in French companies, and have had many more related to me by friends and family. My mother works for a large European oil company, and has witnessed execs telling women in meetings to shut up and go back to being secretaries. None of these examples resulted in firing.
And honestly, while Europe is indeed socialist in many ways policy wise, in many places it is far from as progressive as the coastal US. I'd much rather be LGBTQ in San Francisco or New York than Paris or Barcelona. Hell, I have several European female coworkers who have explicitly told me that they do not intend on ever working there ever again because the culture is significantly more sexist than SF/LA/Seattle/NYC.
But again, Europe is big. Paris or Madrid are much more hostile than Berlin or Stockholm in these ways.
> If I bully a co-worker or start stating at work that I think someone is less capable for any reason linked to their biology, religion, sexuality or age I will be putting my job at risk.
He didn't really say women were less capable, though (biologically or otherwise).
He said that there are differences not related to capability, and that the current environment in tech is such that the work environment is more acceptable to people on the "male" side of those differences, which makes capable women less likely to go into or stay in tech. To increase diversity he suggested that we need to make the tech environment more friendly to women.
For example, he said that men on average are more competitive, and women more cooperative, and that women tend to value work-life balance more then men, and men tend to value status more. There's a fair bit of scientific literature supporting those claims. (To what extent these differences are biological rather than learned is less clear--but does it actually matter?)
Currently tech tends to favor competitive status seekers who will make their career the focus of their life (especially for management and leadership positions). Cooperative people who want a good work-life balance get left behind. He suggested Google move toward more pair programming and other cooperative ways of doing things, and make it so that it is easier for employees to balance their outside life with work. That should get more women coming into tech and increase the retention rate.
It is worth reading the actual memo if you have not. A very large amount of the discussion of it has been based on what people imagined it said, not what it actually said.
He didn't really say women were less capable, though (biologically or otherwise).
He said that there are differences not related to capability, and that the current environment in tech is such that the work environment is more acceptable to people on the "male" side of those differences, which makes capable women less likely to go into or stay in tech. To increase diversity he suggested that we need to make the tech environment more friendly to women.
For example, he said that men on average are more competitive, and women more cooperative, and that women tend to value work-life balance more then men, and men tend to value status more. There's a fair bit of scientific literature supporting those claims. (To what extent these differences are biological rather than learned is less clear--but does it actually matter?)
Currently tech tends to favor competitive status seekers who will make their career the focus of their life (especially for management and leadership positions). Cooperative people who want a good work-life balance get left behind. He suggested Google move toward more pair programming and other cooperative ways of doing things, and make it so that it is easier for employees to balance their outside life with work. That should get more women coming into tech and increase the retention rate.
It is worth reading the actual memo if you have not. A very large amount of the discussion of it has been based on what people imagined it said, not what it actually said.
>He didn't really say women were less capable, though (biologically or otherwise).
Did you read the memo?
>>I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.
Did you read the memo?
>>I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.
That says nothing about the abilities of his female coworkers who are already working at Google and who are already in the minority there.
He's saying that going full steam ahead trying anything and everything to get to 50/50 may be impossible without lowering the bar for women which is bad for everyone.
He's saying that going full steam ahead trying anything and everything to get to 50/50 may be impossible without lowering the bar for women which is bad for everyone.
So which is it then? You're going from "He didn't say that about women" to "He said that about women but he didn't mean that about his women coworkers" - i.e. no true scotsman.
Even so, Damore did not specifically say that about "non-coworker women", he said it about women.
Even so, Damore did not specifically say that about "non-coworker women", he said it about women.
One is the distribution of the entire population, the other is a tiny and non representative sample. Take a probability class if that is hard for you to understand.
If :
A) For every woman in the general population who is qualified and wants to work at Google, there are two men (for whatever reasons)
B) the observed ratio at Google is two men per woman
Then, together, A and B are consistent with a belief that the women that currently work at Google are just as qualified and interested as the men.
A) For every woman in the general population who is qualified and wants to work at Google, there are two men (for whatever reasons)
B) the observed ratio at Google is two men per woman
Then, together, A and B are consistent with a belief that the women that currently work at Google are just as qualified and interested as the men.
That quote doesn't support the statement "women are less capable", since it refers to 'distribution of abilities'; whereas 'less capable' would usually be interpreted as a statement about averages.
> So firing him for stating his opinion
Do you think it's possible for his stating of his opinion to have side effects like creating a toxic work environment, which would be the antithesis of doing his job well?
Do you think it's possible for his stating of his opinion to have side effects like creating a toxic work environment, which would be the antithesis of doing his job well?
Google is a toxic work environment. He was fired for pointing that out.
Downvoted but true, look at direct physical threats to Damore in the lawsuit by people Google still employs. Yet he got fired for violating code of conduct...are threats not violations? It's a double standard, if you threaten people deemed conservative there are no repercussions, even though I consider that far more hostile than a doc.
And the “blacklists” maintained by Google managers and spread to other employers - that practice was found to be illegal in the U.K. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36242312
In reading the original article, I think this quote is the opening:
> Because companies have a duty to comply with equal employment laws and an interest in promoting diversity, “employers must be permitted to ‘nip in the bud’ the kinds of employee conduct that could lead to a ‘hostile workplace,’ rather than waiting until an actionable hostile workplace has been created before taking action," Sophir wrote.
If that is the case, the employees who create and talk about these blacklists - which appear to be well-documented according to HR - may be creating an ongoing hostile work environment long before this memo existed, which demonstrates Damore's point.
> Because companies have a duty to comply with equal employment laws and an interest in promoting diversity, “employers must be permitted to ‘nip in the bud’ the kinds of employee conduct that could lead to a ‘hostile workplace,’ rather than waiting until an actionable hostile workplace has been created before taking action," Sophir wrote.
If that is the case, the employees who create and talk about these blacklists - which appear to be well-documented according to HR - may be creating an ongoing hostile work environment long before this memo existed, which demonstrates Damore's point.
It says that the employee who made the threat was reprimanded:
>... email read, in relevant part: “You’re a misogynist and a terrible human. I will keep hounding you until one of us is fired. F[*] you.” The employee was issued a final warning for sending this email.
http://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45826e6391 (pdf)
>... email read, in relevant part: “You’re a misogynist and a terrible human. I will keep hounding you until one of us is fired. F[*] you.” The employee was issued a final warning for sending this email.
http://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45826e6391 (pdf)
Yet been the top place to work six years in a row. Nobody else done it even two years in a row. How can they be both?
http://fortune.com/best-companies/google/ Google: #1 on 100 Best Companies to Work For in 2017 | Fortune
http://fortune.com/best-companies/google/ Google: #1 on 100 Best Companies to Work For in 2017 | Fortune
> How can they be both?
Best place to work if you fit the culture. Toxic environment if you don't.
Best place to work if you fit the culture. Toxic environment if you don't.
This page isn’t working
fortune.com redirected you too many times.
Try clearing your cookies.
"No results found"
This year is 2018, and Salesforce is #1. I don't see Google.
'Top places to work' contests are internal marketing competitions.
You know they buy these awards right? Usually with ad sales.
This is not unique to Google. If you don't "vibe" with your company's culture, you are more likely to become a scapegoat. The outsiders leave or get fired, keeping the culture pure (people get fired for lack of culture fit). This mentality is indeed toxic, but the bottom line of any company benefits from harmony between all of the employees.
This mentality is indeed toxic, but the bottom line of any company benefits from harmony between all of the employees.
Not to excuse anything that's actually toxic, mind, but I think it's more subtle than that. Why is Google so inept at social media? Why are they so often blindsided by attention from regulators and tax authorities? Why Google Glass and the glassholes? Because in the pursuit of this harmony they have a limited kind of diversity based on race and gender, but they're all 20-something graduates of the same handful of universities - there's no diversity whatsoever on age or class axes. So things that are completely obvious to outsiders, they are organisationally incapable of understanding. Trapped in a local minima and unable to climb out.
Not to excuse anything that's actually toxic, mind, but I think it's more subtle than that. Why is Google so inept at social media? Why are they so often blindsided by attention from regulators and tax authorities? Why Google Glass and the glassholes? Because in the pursuit of this harmony they have a limited kind of diversity based on race and gender, but they're all 20-something graduates of the same handful of universities - there's no diversity whatsoever on age or class axes. So things that are completely obvious to outsiders, they are organisationally incapable of understanding. Trapped in a local minima and unable to climb out.
An environment in which you can be fired for having expressed scientific views which- while debatable- are certainly not fringe seems pretty toxic. Maybe only for those who don't fit in, but still..
You should not be put in prison for writing what you think - I think any company should be able to fire people for publicly making statements which are antithetical to the company's values.
This was _not_ public. It was internal for Google employees. It was made public by someone who disagreed and resorted to publicly sharing the memo.
The fact that Google has not addressed this is a more damning condemnation of their culture than anything else.
The fact that Google has not addressed this is a more damning condemnation of their culture than anything else.
Oh wow. Yeah, the person who leaked the internal email should have been fired. That's crazy. I feel for Damore.
I think google is responsible for encouraging an employee to voice opinions and then fire the employee for saying 'the wrong thing'.
I also believe all the google employees that physically threatened damore should receive jail time, and those that verbally did so to get the can.
I also believe all the google employees that physically threatened damore should receive jail time, and those that verbally did so to get the can.
I believe employers have a right to fire employees for speech. But as we see industry power condense to a few megacorps, ones that play gatekeeper to information access, we should look at why we value freedom of speech at the national level and be more open minded about freedom of speech and political expression in other contexts. I don't buy the cliche "it's not freedom from consequences" argument (government couldn't say jail is just a consequences, so freedom of speech does imply no consequences within its context) and I don't buy this "we can't tolerate intolerance" argument either, as there seems to be an increasingly narrow point of views that at least some people won't label intolerant (or more common, smear by association by implying your views are associated with intolerant ones)
You are very very wrong. In most of Europe (including here in France with their famously rigid labor code) you can be terminated for pretty much anything as well, with a few exceptions. In many cases the employer doesn't even need to justify the firing. The only difference is that in some countries they may have more paperwork with it than in others and that you may get severance or some other benefits in certain situations.
Moreover, what Damore got fired for would be very likely qualified as a gross misconduct here. He was advocating stuff that would go straight against the anti-discrimination laws which are standard Europa-wide. It could be perhaps qualified even as incitement to hate or discrimination against certain groups of population which is actually a crime - typically used to prosecute racism, antisemitism, hate speech against LGBT groups, etc. but not only.
Hate speech laws are MUCH stricter in Europe than in the US, lots of the stuff that is fair game in the US is routinely prosecuted here. And committing a crime (you don't even need to be convicted yet, being indicted is often sufficient) is a valid reason for termination pretty much anywhere in Europe.
Moreover, what Damore got fired for would be very likely qualified as a gross misconduct here. He was advocating stuff that would go straight against the anti-discrimination laws which are standard Europa-wide. It could be perhaps qualified even as incitement to hate or discrimination against certain groups of population which is actually a crime - typically used to prosecute racism, antisemitism, hate speech against LGBT groups, etc. but not only.
Hate speech laws are MUCH stricter in Europe than in the US, lots of the stuff that is fair game in the US is routinely prosecuted here. And committing a crime (you don't even need to be convicted yet, being indicted is often sufficient) is a valid reason for termination pretty much anywhere in Europe.
From: http://www.eurojuris.net/en/node/41566
"Employment at will does not exist in France. So, you may only dismiss an employee for specific reasons. The specific reasons must be recognized by French Law or French case law.
Employment at will does not exist in France. So, you may only dismiss an employee for specific reasons. The specific reasons must be recognized by French Law or French case law.
If the dismissal is challenged by an employee, the company will have to prove that dismissal was based on "genuine and substantive grounds".
Also, employers need to be careful about applicable dismissal procedures."
See also the sections POSSIBLE GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL and DISMISSAL BASED ON PERSONAL REASONS. Of course, it is still possible for companies to get rid of unwanted employees, they just have to be smart about it. Common methods include assigning only menial tasks to employees or setting up inconvenient work schedules so that they leave voluntarily. Or reorganizing departments so that they become redundant. But outright firing people for no justification is not possible.
Committing, or being indicted of, committing crime is generally not enough for terminating an employee either. For example, speeding is a crime but not grounds for dismissal.
"Employment at will does not exist in France. So, you may only dismiss an employee for specific reasons. The specific reasons must be recognized by French Law or French case law.
Employment at will does not exist in France. So, you may only dismiss an employee for specific reasons. The specific reasons must be recognized by French Law or French case law.
If the dismissal is challenged by an employee, the company will have to prove that dismissal was based on "genuine and substantive grounds".
Also, employers need to be careful about applicable dismissal procedures."
See also the sections POSSIBLE GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL and DISMISSAL BASED ON PERSONAL REASONS. Of course, it is still possible for companies to get rid of unwanted employees, they just have to be smart about it. Common methods include assigning only menial tasks to employees or setting up inconvenient work schedules so that they leave voluntarily. Or reorganizing departments so that they become redundant. But outright firing people for no justification is not possible.
Committing, or being indicted of, committing crime is generally not enough for terminating an employee either. For example, speeding is a crime but not grounds for dismissal.
The firing was over his methods (and the adverse impact they directly had on the broader organization), not his opinions.
As far as I know his methods were to post his document to an internal mailing list specifically for feedback on potentially controversial topics[1]. This seems a "by the book" method (although I am surprised such a mailing list exists).
Someone ELSE then disseminated it more widely (Internally and externally).
[1] I cannot find any citations on this right now though, google-fu appears to be failing me.
Someone ELSE then disseminated it more widely (Internally and externally).
[1] I cannot find any citations on this right now though, google-fu appears to be failing me.
Accompanied by all sorts of inflammatory dialogue and generally aggravating behavior.
It's worth keeping in mind that Europe certainly isn't one place when it comes to labour regulations. Some places you barely fire people at all (prevalent in the South, apparently getting reformed in France) and in some places it is significantly easier (several countries in the North), if not quite at will. The "easiness" generally has to do with the burden attached to showing insufficient performance.
Indeed, the laws are different. But in this case it doesn't matter much because the example is extreme.
Even if the employer could show that the manifesto caused a toxic work environment (hard), and that that was also Demore's intent (even harder), the employer would also need to show that they had tried to resolve the situation with other means. For example, by asking Demore not to publish similar manifestos in the future. Had he then refused to comply, their case would have been stronger.
Not even the examples I gave -- a cock not able to boil eggs, a train conductor always oversleeping or an active member of a Nazi party -- are completely clear cut in all countries. And Damore's manifesto is very, very far from it.
Even if the employer could show that the manifesto caused a toxic work environment (hard), and that that was also Demore's intent (even harder), the employer would also need to show that they had tried to resolve the situation with other means. For example, by asking Demore not to publish similar manifestos in the future. Had he then refused to comply, their case would have been stronger.
Not even the examples I gave -- a cock not able to boil eggs, a train conductor always oversleeping or an active member of a Nazi party -- are completely clear cut in all countries. And Damore's manifesto is very, very far from it.
That's the point. Under some of the more liberal legislations in eg. Denmark, you can fire people for "cooperation difficulties". The bar is higher than at-will, but it's not very difficult to meet. The employer just have to show that it has tried and failed to remedy the "difficulties" first (so you can't just fire people the next day). It's unclear that the statements found to constitute sexual discrimination could reasonably be meaningfully "remediated" (especially if the employer isn't in fact committed to it, it just have to show that it tried).
The employer must be able to document that the termination is due to cooperation difficulties. Google didn't provide any such documentation. Hence terminating Damore for the manifesto would have been illegal in Denmark. That's the point -- Damore's dismissal was so obviously unfair that it wouldn't have been allowed in any Western European country.
That's just a detail. Google didn't hire or fire Damore in Denmark, so obviously they didn't bother to follow Danish law. My point is that Google could most likely fairly easily have argued that the memo caused insurmountable cooperation difficulties and terminated him on that basis.
The exact steps, the time taken and the phrasing of the arguments would have been different, but the substance (he got fired for the memo) would have been the same.
The exact steps, the time taken and the phrasing of the arguments would have been different, but the substance (he got fired for the memo) would have been the same.
You are wrong. Read the link here: https://gettingthedealthrough.com/area/18/jurisdiction/52/la...
"Similarly, ‘conduct of the employee’ means that dismissals based on sickness absence, underperformance, etc, will usually be considered reasonably justified. In most cases, however, it will be a requirement that one or more written warnings have been given before the dismissal to allow the employee to remedy the situation and thus avoid dismissal."
Google didn't issue one or more written warnings. The dismissal would therefore have been judged unjustified.
"Similarly, ‘conduct of the employee’ means that dismissals based on sickness absence, underperformance, etc, will usually be considered reasonably justified. In most cases, however, it will be a requirement that one or more written warnings have been given before the dismissal to allow the employee to remedy the situation and thus avoid dismissal."
Google didn't issue one or more written warnings. The dismissal would therefore have been judged unjustified.
No, they didn't issue warnings because they didn't have to. If they did have to, they would have issued a warning, then found that no action he might take could have remedied the situation (the things in the memo that were considered harassment can't meaningfully be taken back), and then he would have been fired.
[deleted]
“But Google cultivated an environment were open discussion were encouraged.”
“People should get fired for not doing their jobs”
When you’re hired to write code all day and instead are writing a long sexist rambling memo at work during work hours and posting it to a work forum, you’re not doing your job.
“People should get fired for not doing their jobs”
When you’re hired to write code all day and instead are writing a long sexist rambling memo at work during work hours and posting it to a work forum, you’re not doing your job.
The memo was written as part of a company training event.
Damore attended a training and then wrote a response when asked for feedback. Very much doing his job.
I don’t see how circulating his feedback with coworkers about some training event was part of his job.
> “Much of" Damore’s memo was probably protected under the law. ... But ... Google discharged Damore only for his "discriminatory statements," which aren’t shielded by labor law.
Given how significantly many people have misunderstood Damore's claims, this seems to open up a hole for companies to mischaracterize someone as a racist/sexist/etc and then fire them over it.
Given how significantly many people have misunderstood Damore's claims, this seems to open up a hole for companies to mischaracterize someone as a racist/sexist/etc and then fire them over it.
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer.
People really did exaggerate how bad the memo really was. That said, it definitely has portions that brought up stereotypes without citing direct evidence, like how men have a higher drive to achieve status. Google considered these statements "discriminatory," which sounded reasonable enough to the NLRB. It doesn't matter whether these statements were actually discriminatory because they clearly fall outside the bounds of protected speech.
People really did exaggerate how bad the memo really was. That said, it definitely has portions that brought up stereotypes without citing direct evidence, like how men have a higher drive to achieve status. Google considered these statements "discriminatory," which sounded reasonable enough to the NLRB. It doesn't matter whether these statements were actually discriminatory because they clearly fall outside the bounds of protected speech.
He cited multiple academic sources to back up the claims made about gender. He also belabored the point that averages and general trends of a demographic should not be used to make judgements about individual members of the demographic.
Not all of them. He also misinterpreted several, and stretched the conclusions beyond what was reasonable.
Good of you to point then out for us then, thanks.
This is exactly what happens in academia all of the time, when you have factions who believe in competing ideas. Side A thinks that logic and rationality and the data is on their side, and that side B stretches the facts and don't have support for their claims, and vice versa for side B.
Are all of these issues in academia settled which you refer to? Or is it that, maybe, Damore accepted side Bs views, whereas you accept side As views, but this isn't settle in academia?
Could you point out, perhaps, the most offensive, non-supported statement that Damore had in his memo?
Are all of these issues in academia settled which you refer to? Or is it that, maybe, Damore accepted side Bs views, whereas you accept side As views, but this isn't settle in academia?
Could you point out, perhaps, the most offensive, non-supported statement that Damore had in his memo?
There's a good breakdown here, that was eventually run in Forbes:
https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-bio...
https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-bio...
Is it a good breakdown? The author seems awfully bought into the narrative of power structures being the dominant reason for sex differences, and is obviously extremely angry. Hardly an unbiased observer.
Yes, the author makes a point that Damore's memo 'makes repugnant attacks on compassion and empathy'. Does it really? That seems a bit silly and I didn't read anything like that in the memo. It makes me suspect other parts of the rebuttal.
He did cite evidence for his claims, but the most widely circulated copies of the memo removed his citations.
I mean the citations weren't particularly thorough, and he took some liberties with interpretation.
[deleted]
Not to mention cherry picking what to cite in order to support his arguments.
I agree Damore's sources were unconvincing, but I've searched for sources disputing one of his most controversial claims (that women are more "neurotic" - an unfortunately named Big Five personality trait - than men) and haven't found any.
Do you know of any?
Do you know of any?
The Big Five is getting outdated. It was a popular method in the 90's, but doesn't hold up today for biological factor analysis because its lexical nature opens it to social biases:
>And that is what the Big Five represents: a consistent model of how humans reflect individuality using language, no more. There were no considerations of findings in neuroanatomy, neurochemistry, experimental psychology, observations of behavior of people or animals in real situations – none of this was used at the research stage leading to the development of the Big Five. In this sense we can say that the Big Five does not represent the structure of temperament or the structure of biologically based traits, even though lexical perception reflects some elements of it.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3903487/
The big five can still be used for self-reported correlational analysis, but Damore used it in an argument against social constructs, when the method itself can be heavily biased by the social constructs he's arguing against.
>And that is what the Big Five represents: a consistent model of how humans reflect individuality using language, no more. There were no considerations of findings in neuroanatomy, neurochemistry, experimental psychology, observations of behavior of people or animals in real situations – none of this was used at the research stage leading to the development of the Big Five. In this sense we can say that the Big Five does not represent the structure of temperament or the structure of biologically based traits, even though lexical perception reflects some elements of it.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3903487/
The big five can still be used for self-reported correlational analysis, but Damore used it in an argument against social constructs, when the method itself can be heavily biased by the social constructs he's arguing against.
His statements were within the mainstream interpretations of modern clinical psychology and evolutionary biology. That doesn't make them certain facts by any means, but it's important that we not misrepresent things here.
Are you implying the lawyers in the case didn't read the citations? Please.
No, I'm responding to the claim in the comment above that Damore made statements "without citing direct evidence".
Though it is probably true that the lawyers in the case didn't read the citations. It wasn't their job to determine whether Damore's statements were scientifically accurate, and they stated that his statements were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, regardless of the scientific references and analysis.
Though it is probably true that the lawyers in the case didn't read the citations. It wasn't their job to determine whether Damore's statements were scientifically accurate, and they stated that his statements were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, regardless of the scientific references and analysis.
> Given how significantly many people have misunderstood Damore's claims, this seems to open up a hole for companies to mischaracterize someone as a racist/sexist/etc and then fire them over it.
No, it doesn't.
Because the interpretation of the firing company doesn't determine the legality. Whether, on the evidence, a firing is solely due to actually legally unprotected statements (not statements that the employer chooses to misconstrue as unprotected) is.
No, it doesn't.
Because the interpretation of the firing company doesn't determine the legality. Whether, on the evidence, a firing is solely due to actually legally unprotected statements (not statements that the employer chooses to misconstrue as unprotected) is.
Isn't employment in places where these companies operate at-will? Meaning they can fire you because you waved your hair funny in the morning?
Yes, but (IANAL) if the employee suspects that there was an illegal reason behind it, they can probably sue and subpoena documents revealing management motivations.
Like, sure, a manager could wake up and just fire you because they were grumpy. But if it is discovered that there was internal communications about their political opinions leading up to it, then there would be a case.
Like, sure, a manager could wake up and just fire you because they were grumpy. But if it is discovered that there was internal communications about their political opinions leading up to it, then there would be a case.
You can be fired for your political opinions.
There are certain legal limitations to that from the NLRA. tptacek goes into that in depth here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16396827
Yes, but there are still prohibited reasons for firing. Which labor organizing is one of; Damore charged that he was fired for organizing, the NLRB found that Google fired him for actions that fall outside of protected labor organizing.
Yes, but not if you're trying to organize to improve working conditions, because this is protected by the NRLA.
If the NRLA believes only parts of Damore's memo were working towards improving working conditions and other parts were working to discriminate against women, which part is which.
To someone that agrees with Damore, it looks like everyone mischaracterized his effort to improve working conditions as sexism. Then Google was able to use that as cover to fire him for protected organizing.
If the NRLA believes only parts of Damore's memo were working towards improving working conditions and other parts were working to discriminate against women, which part is which.
To someone that agrees with Damore, it looks like everyone mischaracterized his effort to improve working conditions as sexism. Then Google was able to use that as cover to fire him for protected organizing.
In an at-will state, I can fire you because I don't like how you did your hair, but I can't fire you because you belong to a protected class.
Allow me to suggest that both Google and the NLRB understood Damore's claim, and that any misunderstanding falls on the side of those who disagree with what they found.
That's possible of course.
But, I haven't read exactly what the NRLA found to be discriminatory. This would help anyone that is legitimately trying to improve working conditions and trying not to promote discrimination.
But, I haven't read exactly what the NRLA found to be discriminatory. This would help anyone that is legitimately trying to improve working conditions and trying not to promote discrimination.
The way we are talking to each other here is just toxic. Most of it isn’t even a conversation at all and I see very few attempts at understanding or empathy. It all just stinks of tribalism.
Every time the memo is brought up I see this same shit, and feel someone needs to call it out. I don’t care what side you are on; how we are going about this conversation is clearly not working. I wish I had a solution for this. I don’t. But understanding that there is a problem may be a good first step.
We must be better than this
Every time the memo is brought up I see this same shit, and feel someone needs to call it out. I don’t care what side you are on; how we are going about this conversation is clearly not working. I wish I had a solution for this. I don’t. But understanding that there is a problem may be a good first step.
We must be better than this
What use is calling it out when you "don't care what side you are on"?
You are ready to assign equal blame, when there are unequal incentives.
You are ready to assign equal blame, when there are unequal incentives.
> The Charging Party’s use of stereotypes based on purported biological differences between women and men should not be treated differently than the types of conduct the Board found unprotected in these cases.
This Advice Memo establishes the precedent that discussing biological differences between men and women constitutes sexual harassment, even if those differences are supported by scientific research.
This Advice Memo establishes the precedent that discussing biological differences between men and women constitutes sexual harassment, even if those differences are supported by scientific research.
Oh, so now men can wear short dresses to work? Or at least, shorts? When it's hot, it sucks to wear long pants. Sleeveless tees would be cool, too.
According to Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA, employees can't generally be disciplined for exercising the rights provided under Section 7 of the NLRA. These rights are commonly understood to be about unionizing (ie, you can't be fired for trying reasonably to organize a union), but are actually broader: the NLRA protects an employee right to almost arbitrary "concerted action" to improve working conditions.
Damore was terminated by Google for authoring his anti-diversity memo. During the time he was authoring and distributing internal copies of the memo, he worked with (apparently) a bunch of other engineers at Google that shared many of his viewpoints (the memo covers a lot of ground). He was terminated after the memo, an artifact of his concerted effort to change aspects of how Google was managed, was published. He and his lawyer mounted an 8(a)(1) complaint.
As a starting point --- people with real-world experience or understanding of the NLRA should correct me where I'm wrong --- NLRA complaints get filed with the National Labor Relations Board. The NLRB adjudicates claims internally. If a complaint is found valid, the NLRB will try to convince the employer to settle with the employee; if that goes nowhere, the NLRB will itself effectively sue the company. If the complaint is found invalid, the NLRB will inform the complainant that NLRB is done with the case.
Most of these cases (there are tens of thousands annually as you'd expect) are handled by grunts in DC. Novel or high-profile cases are escalated to a special department in the NLRB called the Advice Division. This particular case was not only escalated but apparently handled personally by the director of the division, an NLRB lawyer who'd been with the board since 1988.
The NLRB turned down Damore's complaint. I think he could theoretically still sue in civil court? I don't think that's commonly done? Either way, his complaint was denied.
The basis for the complaint is super simple and kind of obvious in retrospect: employers in the US are required by federal and usually state law to avoid discrimination against protected classes. To the extent that Damore's memo was about organizing against discrimination of conservative viewpoints --- a phenomenon that is almost certainly real in SFBA tech! --- it was protected. But to the extent that it attempted to organize around changes to Google management that might (might) themselves violate EEO laws (for instance, any kind of official recognition that men are better suited to software development at Google than women), they were not. You can't use the NLRA to organize in opposition to federal employment law. Wa-waa.
As it turns out, this was apparently super-apparent to Google legal and Google HR, who fired Damore precisely by the book, exclusively for promoting stereotypes about women and advocating for the inclusion of those stereotypes into Google's management processes.
I think an important thing to consider --- I'm no lawyer and am probably wrong about lots of this stuff --- is that if the memo had been exclusively about how SFBA tech discriminates against conservatives and could in a number of ways be made more accommodating to them, Damore would had been protected from retaliation. The Advice Memo says as much!
So for someone like me, who believes very strongly in both the importance of employee organizing rights (I think tech should organize into professional associations; "unions lite") and who believes strongly in the absolute innate equivalence in aptitude for our profession between men and women, this is the best possible outcome. There's a lot to take heart in here; we do in fact have the right to organize that we've been saying we have.