James Damore Suing Google for "Reverse Discrimination"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

erttheking:

Fischgopf:

BeetleManiac:

What would cause a bunch of white people to be racist to a bunch of other white people? If you're going to suggest that as a possible explanation for Damore's firing, then it's only fair that you explain what factors helped cause this attitude of internalized racial self-loathing among white people.

I'm not suggesting it was the case. I'm saying that it is silly to pretend that people can't take issue with their own race and that ertheking knows better.

image

If you're going to talk shit about me, I suggest you know the first thing about me. Though I am curious as to where you pulled that little concept, your ass would be my first bet.

And it's erttheking, not ertheking. Fuck's sake, if you're going to be making shit up about me, at least have the decency to spell my username right.

What the fuck?

So what, you DON'T know that people can hate their own Race!?

As I've said before, I've been aware of this guy and some people like him by reputation since before the scandal and if the rumors I've heard are true then the firing is probably going to turn out to be a "Straw that broke the camel's back" situation. Google, and companies in this sector in general, are not in the habit of frivolously firing their senior technical staff. Compared to the shit that male senior employees in the tech sector routinely get away with I just have a very hard time believing that this alone was what got him fired.

But that's purely speculative on my part. Hopefully the full facts will come out during the trial.

maninahat:
Well its a nice way to earn yourself an exclusive with Breitbart.

He was appearing on shows with Stefan Molyneux and (I think) it was either Black Pigeon Speaks or Sargon of Akkad after the firing. If he hasn't already been offered a Breitbart job I would be very surprised.

The whole things stupid. The guy was an idiot for wording the memo like he did. Whoever leaked it to the press is a complete prick. The media are idiots for jumping on one individual like he's Adolf fucking Hitler or something. Google are idiots for firing someone for having the temerity to post their thoughts on diversity on an internal diversity forum. And the guy is an idiot for suing them for discrimination as opposed to unlawful termination.

Can we let it die now?

Catnip1024:
The whole things stupid. The guy was an idiot for wording the memo like he did. Whoever leaked it to the press is a complete prick. The media are idiots for jumping on one individual like he's Adolf fucking Hitler or something. Google are idiots for firing someone for having the temerity to post their thoughts on diversity on an internal diversity forum. And the guy is an idiot for suing them for discrimination as opposed to unlawful termination.

Can we let it die now?

To be honest i found the wording of his memo quite diplomatic. The media pretended it wasn't and twisted his overall message and made it look 10x worse than it was. But he should have known better than to think he could spread a "controversial" opinion on an internal board even if it was a board where opinions are asked.

generals3:
To be honest i found the wording of his memo quite diplomatic. The media pretended it wasn't and twisted his overall message and made it look 10x worse than it was. But he should have known better than to think he could spread a "controversial" opinion on an internal board even if it was a board where opinions are asked.

Sorry, let me correct myself. He was an idiot to word it as he did in this particular day and age.

Fischgopf:

BeetleManiac:

Fischgopf:
I take it you've never heard of internalized racism?

What would cause a bunch of white people to be racist to a bunch of other white people? If you're going to suggest that as a possible explanation for Damore's firing, then it's only fair that you explain what factors helped cause this attitude of internalized racial self-loathing among white people.

I'm not suggesting it was the case. I'm saying that it is silly to pretend that people can't take issue with their own race and that ertheking knows better.

Okay, but WHY are you saying that? Because that's not a thing erttheking said or suggested.

Fischgopf:
Snip

Ok, I think I owe you an apology. I didn't see the reply you posted to me (Aren't broken notifications great?) and I only saw the reply you made to Beetle, which came off a bit like you saying that I was a self hating white person without the context of your first post.

That being said, I think implying that the creators of Google are self hating whites is an incredibly baseless claim that no one has anything to back up, least of all the little brat who's whining about being fired. Yes, internalized racism is a thing, but so are personal vendettas, and the existence of something doesn't automatically make it a likely explanation.

Two questions:

1. do we know what google says about why they fired him? I haven't found anything from google besides a general statement of confidence and that the reason they fired the other guy was that, according to google, he accused a muslim coworker of terrorism.

2. A lot of this suit is alledging things about the general culture at google. Things about a "protected, distorted bubble of groupthink" and similar things. Not good, if true and unexegerated, but does that help your case? Can such general matters be legally actionable or are only individual events of concern for a lawsuit like this?

this is what we have gotten to, workplace toxcicity being defended as free speech

CyanCat47:
this is what we have gotten to, workplace toxcicity being defended as free speech

It's not workplace toxicity to put forward views on an internal forum dedicated to putting forward views on that subject. It's not workplace toxicity to question initiatives being implemented in the workplace. That's part of being an open and inclusive company.

It is pretty toxic to throw views you don't like that were posted in a private company location for the purposes of discussion to the wider world with a call of "sic em". It is pretty toxic for the global media to rush to condemn one nobody because he said something unwise and they want to make an example out of him. It is pretty toxic to fire a non-public facing person for saying something in a company forum that somebody else then leaked to cause said universal condemnation - it is a complete betrayal of trust and will only lead to worse feelings throughout the company.

It's not about free speech, it's about bullshit and mob bullying.

Pseudonym:
Two questions:

1. do we know what google says about why they fired him? I haven't found anything from google besides a general statement of confidence and that the reason they fired the other guy was that, according to google, he accused a muslim coworker of terrorism.

2. A lot of this suit is alledging things about the general culture at google. Things about a "protected, distorted bubble of groupthink" and similar things. Not good, if true and unexegerated, but does that help your case? Can such general matters be legally actionable or are only individual events of concern for a lawsuit like this?

From what I've heard about number 1, the reason Google stated for firing James Damore was that his memo violated the Code of Conduct at Google, stating that it was "advancing harmful gender stereotypes at our workplace." The chief executive of Google, Sundar Pichai, was quoted after the news broke of the firing as saying that "much of what was in the memo is fair to debate, regardless of whether a vast majority of Googlers disagree with it." However, he added that "To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK. It is contrary to our basic values and our Code of Conduct, which expects 'each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination." BBC News

Now, it's up to you whether you accept this at face value, or feel that it is trying to justify an unlawful termination. I just thought it would be fair to bring up what Google actually said about the firing.

thebobmaster:
To be exact, the phrase he used stated the "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."

Well, since we're being exact, the phrase he used was "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". Being vaguely familiar with the current reporting standards of the BBC, I readily trust the curiously selective editing was theirs, rather than a personal choice of yours. But in any case, it should be clear that it serves to subtly remove all the nuance Damore was careful to include in his statement, going so far as to specifically walk the reader through a very basic explanation that these are statistical differences at the population level and should in no way be construed to describe individuals as a rule. What his point was that it's perhaps not necessarily the optimal strategy for increasing "diversity" to attribute any uneven "representation" to pure malice and continue to intensify beatings until said alleged malice subsides.

Pseudonym:
Two questions:

1. do we know what google says about why they fired him? I haven't found anything from google besides a general statement of confidence and that the reason they fired the other guy was that, according to google, he accused a muslim coworker of terrorism.

2. A lot of this suit is alledging things about the general culture at google. Things about a "protected, distorted bubble of groupthink" and similar things. Not good, if true and unexegerated, but does that help your case? Can such general matters be legally actionable or are only individual events of concern for a lawsuit like this?

This is a class action suit, though so far only involving two named individuals. The employee who allegedly "accused a muslim coworker of terrorism" was not Damore (and the claim is a little... dramatized, to say the least.)

For the viewing convenience of anyone interested, the full text of the 161-page complaint filed by Dhillon Law Group is right here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/f6p02fijxrd7c6m/20180108%20Damore%20-%20Complaint_fs.pdf?dl=0

I recommend at least a cursory perusal for some insight into the "general culture" at Google.

Edit: Apologies, it appears I missed that you were already aware of the the other individual involved. My excuse for such carelessness is that there's a lot to catch up on after a brief absence. Still, sorry.

generals3:
To be honest i found the wording of his memo quite diplomatic. The media pretended it wasn't...

Yes, it at face value worded neutrally.

Unfortunately, what he wrote had huge and unavoidable implications. The press accurately represented those implications. As did lots of people at Google see those implications, and Google itself, and a huge chunk of the general population who read about it.

That's thing about being diplomatic: you're putting across exactly the same message, just in a nicer way. If the problem is the message...

It's not workplace toxicity to put forward views on an internal forum dedicated to putting forward views on that subject.

It is toxic to imply some of your colleagues don't deserve to have their jobs/promotions on the basis that the company is operating discriminatory policies, though. Just because your organisation has a discussion forum to mull over stuff really doesn't mean you can leave tact and wisdom behind before posting.

And if you severely embarrass your company... chances are you get disciplinary action. I can even point to the relevant clause in my employment contract. Some people get unlucky and their misstep balloons where others never do... but c'est la vie.

Agema:
It is toxic to imply some of your colleagues don't deserve to have their jobs/promotions on the basis that the company is operating discriminatory policies, though. Just because your organisation has a discussion forum to mull over stuff really doesn't mean you can leave tact and wisdom behind before posting.

Suggesting that an absolute 50/50 gender split is not necessarily the natural outcome of equality is not saying that people do not deserve to have their jobs. That's hysterical extrapolation taken to the absolute extreme. The guys post was sufficiently caveated to make quite clear to anyone with any grasp of statistics that his pet theory was about averages, and that individuals could fall wherever.

Suggesting that certain diversity strategies are tantamount to positive discrimination is also a legitimate theory to put forward, considering that positive discrimination is pretty much universally illegal, and therefore any such assertion should be clearly dealt with by the company in question to lay out how it remains compliant with the law. You certainly shouldn't shoot any messenger that questions your strategies, that sends completely the wrong message.

I have said previously that I think his text was pompous, that he potentially misinterprets scientific findings, and that he doesn't convey his arguments in the best way. But all of these things should be dealt with through counterargument rather than excommunication.

One person saying something you do not like as a single posted memo is not a toxic environment - or if it is, every workplace is toxic to everyone. If it was a repeated statement, or one co-signed by a vast multitude of people, you could argue harrassment as an ongoing thing.

And if you severely embarrass your company... chances are you get disciplinary action. I can even point to the relevant clause in my employment contract. Some people get unlucky and their misstep balloons where others never do... but c'est la vie.

See, in my mind the person who spread this outside the company has committed a far greater offence than him, as they have breached the trust that a diversity forum should be after. They haven't attempted to deal with it internally, they've seen a quick story and been pricks about it.

Agema:

It is toxic to imply some of your colleagues don't deserve to have their jobs/promotions on the basis that the company is operating discriminatory policies, though. Just because your organisation has a discussion forum to mull over stuff really doesn't mean you can leave tact and wisdom behind before posting.

Leaving aside whether or not that's what he said. If a company was racist in its hiring for sales representative (say the company want to show that they have varied staff so they try and hire more people of color) and someone wrote a memo saying that some of the sales rep therefore don't deserves there job and only got it because of there skin color, would you consider that toxic?

Catnip1024:
It is pretty toxic for the global media to rush to condemn one nobody because he said something unwise and they want to make an example out of him.

It's also, sadly, business as usual with them these days.

Catnip1024:
But all of these things should be dealt with through counterargument rather than excommunication.

I really don't want to debate Damore's egotistical polemic for the same reason I don't want to debate Holocaust deniers: some ideas are simply not worth humoring. I have a general issue with this, "Everything must be publicly debated!" attitude. It's deployed as a defense less of actual ideas, arguments and concepts worth discussion, rather as a generic defense for bullshit that can't justify itself when exposed to the sun. If we all had to take the time out of our days to address everything Alex Jones claims, we'd never get anything done. If I had to indulge every Southerner in a debate about whether or not the Civil War was actually about slavery, nothing productive would come of it.

There has to be a point where we're allowed to say, "Yeah, this is bullshit," and just move on.

Maybe they found one of those silly Goolag shirts in his desk and realised he was a child masquerading as a grown up.

BeetleManiac:
I really don't want to debate Damore's egotistical polemic for the same reason I don't want to debate Holocaust deniers: some ideas are simply not worth humoring. I have a general issue with this, "Everything must be publicly debated!" attitude. It's deployed as a defense less of actual ideas, arguments and concepts worth discussion, rather as a generic defense for bullshit that can't justify itself when exposed to the sun. If we all had to take the time out of our days to address everything Alex Jones claims, we'd never get anything done. If I had to indulge every Southerner in a debate about whether or not the Civil War was actually about slavery, nothing productive would come of it.

There has to be a point where we're allowed to say, "Yeah, this is bullshit," and just move on.

There's a fine line between a large company not doing enough for equality in the workplace and engaging in illegal practices. It's worth debating where that line is so that everyone is clear on what is going on.

But no, compare it to slavery if that helps avoid dealing with complex issues.

Agema:

generals3:
To be honest i found the wording of his memo quite diplomatic. The media pretended it wasn't...

Yes, it at face value worded neutrally.

Unfortunately, what he wrote had huge and unavoidable implications. The press accurately represented those implications. As did lots of people at Google see those implications, and Google itself, and a huge chunk of the general population who read about it.

That's thing about being diplomatic: you're putting across exactly the same message, just in a nicer way. If the problem is the message...

What was toxic about it? He merely stated that according to him in general men and women are different and consequently end up making different life choices which is what leads to women being underrepresented in tech. Which lead him to suggest that instead of using discrimination to get more women google should actually adopt certain changes which would make it more attractive to women (according to his analysis). What's toxic about that?

As far as I know discrimination when hiring is something self proclaimed progressives often boast about, they just call it "positive discrimination","quotas" or "promoting diversity". So it can't be that. And i find the examples of discriminatory practices he brings up a tad too precise to be made up or based on speculation. Like classes only for people of a certain race or gender. I'm not even sure how a company even dares to do that?! I'd file an instant complaint at HR if I ever heard of classes accessible only if you have the right skin color or genitals.

Catnip1024:
But no, compare it to slavery if that helps avoid dealing with complex issues.

Technically, I compared it to denial of genocide first and after that compared it to people whitewashing slavery from American history, but sure. Here's the thing, dude. I've heard Damore's arguments before. I researched them, he's talking out of his ass, and Addendum Forthcoming can provide you with a crash course in why he's full of shit if you just ask nicely. I mention Addendum because his education in this topic hilariously surpasses my own and he could do a much better and more thorough debunking than I could.

As for the line with corporate, if your company is facing a lawsuit regarding gender-based pay discrimination and one of your senior staff circulates a memo attempting to pseudo-scientifically explain why female brains are inferior at computer science and thus not deserving of the same wages as their be-testicled counterparts, the bigot is already an unsympathetic defendant and I can't say that the company's reason for cutting him loose is unsound because of the liability his actions create. What more would you have me say? What complexities am I overlooking? In what way does his lawsuit have merit and Google is in violation of the law? You want me to stop running my mouth and listen right? I'm listening now.

He is sexist. I hope he loses.

Why it's a super idea to put a cult in charge of Internet search results:

image

"The published science is WrongThink! Can we fix that, so people looking for the truth won't be able to see it? Plz?"

StatusNil:
Why it's a super idea to put a cult in charge of Internet search results:

image

"The published science is WrongThink! Can we fix that, so people looking for the truth won't be able to see it? Plz?"

are we just gonna post facebook comments with like 10 likes posted by irrelevant people as evidence of massive corruption now?

because boy howdy am I going to have fun with this

undeadsuitor:

StatusNil:
Why it's a super idea to put a cult in charge of Internet search results:

image

"The published science is WrongThink! Can we fix that, so people looking for the truth won't be able to see it? Plz?"

are we just gonna post facebook comments with like 10 likes posted by irrelevant people as evidence of massive corruption now?

because boy howdy am I going to have fun with this

You do what you think is appropriate. Me, I'll stick to relevant stuff. Like the people at Google discussing altering their search algorithms to hide research data that doesn't fit their cult beliefs.

Fischgopf:

And why quote you? The same reason you'd ever ask a question, because I cared to get a answer. While I consider you often times unnecessarily wordy, I still think you are worth hearing out. I simply don't typically converse with you directly, so the brevity thing has never come up.

Fair dos?

Problem is that if I were to treat it as flippantly, I'd be no different from Damore.

There are reasons why he is wrong. There is reasons why evo-psych and behavioural genetics has been largely debunked for the evaluation of particular behaviour traits. And the only reason why we can't say totally debunked is simply because chances are there won't be that quantitative amount data and research to say as such for another generation of people in order to conclusively make that statement. Because frankly, we know for a fact that environmental conditions and the interplay psychosocial environment of the home are a far more likely cause of behaviour and personality differences than liable to ever draw together or make more uniform.

You know that cliche of how familial hardship brings a family closer together? Yeah, not really. At least not empirically observable concerning how personalities diverge and how personality disorders may emerge through psychosocial forces that might not at all be relevant or apparent even in monozygotal twins.

To put it simply, the problem with Damore is the same problem scientists have warned us about essentialism for years now.

The brain activiely 'rewires' the way it stores, uses and learns information all the time. And a lot of that happens at the youngest of ages, and goes on to inform us of total cognitive qualities in how we use our brains.

At the age of 6 and up your brain actually actively 'prunes' neural connections it had made by that poiint in an elabourate system of effectively 'updating the hardware' to make it concretely moreadaptive to the learning processes they are now undertaking. And a lot of this pruningand reshapingof thoughts, feelingsand cognitive performance happen through examining our world around us.

We think differently solely because of our environment. Changes in social dynamics alter the fundamentals of how we think of ourselves and the nature and strengths (and flaws) of that interaction with reality. There are key observable developmental differences in neural activity for children who grew up with rampant access to their tablets and mobile phones compared with someone like me, who didn't have the internet until they were 11-12 (because mid 90s).

That's happened only in a matter of decades and it's a big fucking change. And it's also perfectly observable, perfectly relevant, empirically testable in neurosci. Essentially, the way Damore uses evo-psych and behavioural genetics is the reason why the consensus is that both are tautological ...

And all of this has an observable basis even in the fields of history and historiography...

For example, the printing press radically altered and often standardized how we conceptualize and wrote of the physical world. Even how we recounted memories and logged them, and transmitted them through books. Our relationship to the written word, and how we record memory, the weight that we give, the shape and matter of its prose, differed from largely vocal systems of information transferral between people.

It's why there seems such an immediate and noticeable jump in the quality and systems of writing, and the value and method of prose that we attribute when one writes of the nature of their memories and the discourse and exchanges with other people and the environment pre-printing presses and post-printing presses. There is no biological essentialist argument for that altering idea of zeitgeist that societies transfornm under when they exchange vocal systems of information parsing to the written word as the king of discourse.

It even alters how we think, how we weigh things, how we find and transmit coded ideas of hatred or beauty.

People's brains actively change through life experience and how we use them, and this passage of re-purposed brains also informs us of the cognitive qualities it will display, and these are the true measures ofdifference between people.

That printing press would have changed your brain and cognitive capabilities, and how you use it, far more than the 'science of difference'.

Because evo-psych and behavioural genetics cannot accommodate or answer for the built environment and its evolution, which is kind of problematic when you use it to describe a whole lot of people asif having universal qualities for which do not have an evidential basis in empirical examination of the issue.

Behavioural genetics is an answer that there is a genetic aspect to how we process thought and emotion on the basis of who we are related to ... it says nothing about how two women, distantly unrelated, are somehow comparable. Moreover it cannot even begin to comment beyond verify that social forces and experience play a role in creating divergent personalities and cognitive abilities.

I mean the most interesting thing about behavioural genetics is it discovered that twins separated by birth had more in common than ones risen in the same home (in terms of personality disorders, quirks, etc). One of the explanations or theories behind that is precisely because a twin might share similar macrological cultural aspects and be influenced by various genetic predictors of behaviour in their larger nature of their society, they didn't share a history together... and it is through that history, that social interaction and series of conflicts, that helped birth mutually exclusive attitudes, mutually exclusive cognitive differences, mutually exclusive personality disorders.

There is a reason why we don't use behavioural genetics to look at commonality or even to suggest similarity. Genetics is not destiny if it can be so easily changed by hanging around a certain person.

Ever feel like you might be adopted? You're not alone. Families are an exercise in differences chaotically honed and sharpened into a knife's edge by mutual loathing, open hostility and emotional turmoil... and the life decisions-come-lifetime scars that are influenced by these factors.

And these will shape you more than bits of polypeptides you share in likeness for the overwhelming number of humanity.

Quite frankly, anybody that is discouraged by it wasn't leader material to begin with.

That's nonsense, however. We weren't talking small discrepancies of pay difference for comparable work, no small discrepancies of being passed over for leadership.

It's pretty stressful being passed over for leadership or being paid less despite doing the same work with someone who youare supposed tohave equivalence of seniority. Because in the economic model we have, there's no escaping the idea that money is personal entitlement (because how else could it be seen) and if you're routinely passed over for promotion, you're not going to go anywhere regardless of your leadership skills.

Pretending like the answer to women being passed over for leadership is based on behavioural genetics rather than being routinely passed over for promotion because their work is undervalued despite comparable duties and performance is an inherently stupid argument to make.

It's manufacturing an answer even when the theory is debunked by the phenomena it is trying to explain. No scientist does that. At least no scientist that can truly call themselves a 'free thinker and advocate of ending unconscious bias' ... or whatever clinically stupid shit he wants to spew.

What's the point of being leadership material if you're not given the means to be seen as equally valid employment and equally valid labour?

His argument just doesn't pan out when you start looking at the variance you see in other industries and in other places. Moreover you can explain precisely why this phenomena emerges through competing theorem.

Surely that should be the prerequisite of a 'free thinker'...?

If I was working at Google, I'd probably leave after experiencing half the shit that they are recorded as experiencing. Go freelance or start my own tech solutions firm. Pretty sure by someone like me lieaving for those reasons doesn't remove me from having decent leadership abilities.

BeetleManiac:
As for the line with corporate, if your company is facing a lawsuit regarding gender-based pay discrimination and one of your senior staff circulates a memo attempting to pseudo-scientifically explain why female brains are inferior at computer science and thus not deserving of the same wages as their be-testicled counterparts, the bigot is already an unsympathetic defendant and I can't say that the company's reason for cutting him loose is unsound because of the liability his actions create. What more would you have me say? What complexities am I overlooking? In what way does his lawsuit have merit and Google is in violation of the law? You want me to stop running my mouth and listen right? I'm listening now.

Because in amongst his bullshit, there are legitimate discussion points. Discrimination is wrong. Positive discrimination is wrong.

He alleges that there are classes / talks at Google where availability is dependent on gender / race. That is discrimination, and if true that is illegal (which is likely why Women in Engineering in the UK make their talks open for everyone, despite being primarily targetted at women).

He questions recruitment practices. Now, he may not be in an ideal place to be launching into an in depth discussion of Google recruitment, but again there are points that can be reasonably discussed here. If 20% of interviewees are women but the company wants 50% of new hires to be women, that smacks of driving towards positive discrimination. The only genuine way to solve that issue is right at the root, where people are picking their school / university subjects.

And, technically, going back to something you mentioned, saying that the current set-up of a company and the jobs within it may be optimised for men not women is not an inherently sexist thing to say at all. If a woman had said it, it would have been considered worthy of investigation. And it rightly should be, because considering the historical male dominance of the industry, it is a legitimate potential concern. The same way that the company culture of big finance institutes is set up for male, privately educated bell-ends.

People have two options with all these things. They can ignore the tone and pick out the actual argument, or they can dismiss the argument because of the tone. They all seem to choose the one that requires the least work, for some reason.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Through psychometric data and comparing standardized test data.

For starters, I see what you're doing here. There are obviously differences between men and women in general, but that's not the argument he was making. He was making the argument of evolutionary psychology that women in tech and leadership positions are inherently psychologically different to not be able to succeed in those fields.

Did he just say that though? To explain the gap in leadership positions held he mentioned some psychological reasons but also that men are more likely to do the necessary efforts to get there, the latter being undeniably true based on working hours statistics. Heck not too long ago a study came out which suggested that women who went from full time to part time felt more satisfied while men who did the same felt less satisfied. Which supports the idea that on average men get more satisfaction from working more or less from being at home, but whatever it is it drives them to work more which is a key factor to reach senior management positions. CEO's don't tend to work 5 days a week and from 9 to 5.

We could have some debate about the inherent psychological factors. But it seems that where most of the problems lie in the skills or traits which tend to be valued and lead to senior management positions.

Which is wrong on numerous fronts... namely the fact that only in visuospatial capabilities differences do not account for the discrepancy, and even then not for the extent of the discrepancy that we see.

Which is reflected in the fact that women seem to be doing better of worse depending on where they are in the world...

Which is normal, I don't think anyone not even Damore claims that a person's abilities are entirely dependent on biological factors.

Secondly comes to the question of leadership...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270278/

The fact remains, however, that the problem is even more galling when you begin to analyse it in terms of leadership capabilities. Not only do women tend to exceed the scoring weights of all academic disciplines (including science and mathematics), and despite having higher capacities of delegation and communication, they are even less represented in core leadership positions that place emphasis on effective communication.

Unfortunately what determines whether or not someone will reach a senior management position is not whether or not he or she has the skills but whether they can convince people they can do the job. For that assertiveness and hard work are key.

And once again, there is the discrepancy itself that women in leadership positions is not static and highly dependent on where you are in the world...

So not only are women scoring higher on standardized testing (due to a greater capacity of representing data and presenting it to others as well as a statistically significant advantage in fluid reasoning intelligence), that researchers are noting obvious psychosocial forces at play why exactly women are not represented in leadership positions. In fact, with the advent of latter model cross-general intelligence tests women were found to have an advantage over men as they grew older despite, funnily enough, not finding reciprocal success amidst the ranks of CEOs, CFOs, COOs, or boardmembers.

I'm going to quote the study you linked:
" Despite these successes, females score significantly lower on many (though not all) ?high stakes? standardized tests used for admissions to college and graduate school, including both the Verbal and Mathematics sections of the SAT (previously called the Scholastic Aptitude Test) and the Graduate Record Examination (GRE). Females also score lower than males, on average, in science and mathematics when the tests are not closely related to material that has been taught in school (despite getting higher grades in school-based exams),"

Now we could have some discussions as to why that is the case or even if that even matters but you contradicted your own source there.

Essentially ... the data is in ... there is no conclusive reason for this discrepancy, and if anything women should excel in leadership positions if there were inherent differences in psychology. That if the be all and end all of women participating in corporate America was solely down to evolutionary psychology, then women should be making up the grand number of corporate officer roles...

But all the psychological data so far points to the fact that while certain aspects of psychology show differentiations, it's incredibly marginal and utter fantasy to pretend they can be applied so broadly to fucking everyone (because only an idiot would do that). No one could make that claim that Silicon Valley represents an accurate depiction of how much women can participate in these fields.

If people are going to run with that logic, then men should quit being corporate officers, because they are innately inferior to women at communication and as they grow older prove less intellectually capable as their counterparts. Of course that would be a fucking unfair judgment call to make, wouldn't it? Because no actual psychologist would say men are innately crappy at being communicators and delegators ... precisely because these differences mean little when you take all people everywhere.

If you're interested and if you have access to university library databases...

Keith, T. Z.; Reynolds, M. R.; Patel, P. G.; Ridley, K. P. (2008). "Sex differences in latent cognitive abilities ages 6 to 59: Evidence from the Woodcock-Johnson III tests of cognitive abilities". Intelligence. 36 (6): 502-25.

I agree with the first 13 words but afterwards I have to disagree. Again, having a successful career is more dependent on convincing others you have the skills rather than having them (although having them does help, but you have plenty of skilled men and women who are undervalued due to their lack of assertiveness and networking). And also a "skill" you omit is the willingness to go through the extra mile.

Even you say that a lot of the research is inconclusive, largely when it comes down to pinpointing and quantifying the effect certain variables have on the existing gaps. This doesn't actually disprove Damore's points beyond reasonable doubt and as such I think his opinion has the "right" to exist and be part of their internal discussions. Just like i'm fairly certain plenty of other google employees shared opinions based on shoddy arguments and research (or none at all) without being fired for them.

Catnip1024:
Suggesting that an absolute 50/50 gender split is not necessarily the natural outcome of equality is not saying that people do not deserve to have their jobs. That's hysterical extrapolation taken to the absolute extreme.

Trying reading the whole memo and seeing it holistically.

It has a whole section on Google's allegedly discriminatory policies. If you argue that Google runs discriminatory policies to hire/promote women (and other minorities) to posts, then you are de facto arguing people got jobs they did not deserve. There are ways that criticising potentially discriminatory policies can be addressed sensitively. Appended to a long and iffy scientific claim of women's biological inferiority, it has very little hope of sensitivity.

One way or another, every woman who works with Damore is in the position of wondering whether he thinks she's a neurotic, substandard engineer / manager who got the position through special favours. And potentially not just Damore, but other Google workers who might read it and be inspired to start judging their co-workers according to the memo's stereotypes.
It means those women might constantly feel they have something to prove. Or maybe they read the memo and just think he's an arsehole and hate him. Whatever - it is the stuff of uncomfortable workplace relations and environments.

Now, I do agree Damore is potentially unlucky. If someone had caught it earlier, taken him aside and at least persuaded him to some amendments, he'd probably still have his job. Blown up into a huge furore...

See, in my mind the person who spread this outside the company has committed a far greater offence than him

Of course you do, because you don't see how the memo was problematic. Fair enough, you don't get it - we're all in that position sometimes and we can't all be rocket scientists or brain surgeons, and we don't have to be ashamed of the fact.

generals3:
What was toxic about it?

See above.

Meiam:

Leaving aside whether or not that's what he said. If a company was racist in its hiring for sales representative (say the company want to show that they have varied staff so they try and hire more people of color) and someone wrote a memo saying that some of the sales rep therefore don't deserves there job and only got it because of there skin color, would you consider that toxic?

Depends how you did it. Employees in an organisation should work together as smoothly as possible in a team. So if you think policy needs to be queried, the onus is on you to do that in a way that does minimal damage to work relationships. A company-wide memo basically calling several of them substandard appointees would not be the way to do it.

Catnip1024:
People have two options with all these things. They can ignore the tone and pick out the actual argument, or they can dismiss the argument because of the tone. They all seem to choose the one that requires the least work, for some reason.

His argument nevertheless is that many of the women being hired don't deserve those jobs because they're biologically less equipped to do this than their male counterparts and even the ones who do earn the jobs don't deserve the same pay because they can't do the job as well. That's still a bullshit point. This isn't about the tone, it's about the content and intent of his message. If you want to continue discussing the corporate infrastructure of the tech sector, by all means. Nobody's stopping you. But you don't get to decide what everyone else wants to talk about.

Agema:

Trying reading the whole memo and seeing it holistically.

It has a whole section on Google's allegedly discriminatory policies. If you argue that Google runs discriminatory policies to hire/promote women (and other minorities) to posts, then you are de facto arguing people got jobs they did not deserve. There are ways that criticising potentially discriminatory policies can be addressed sensitively. Appended to a long and iffy scientific claim of women's biological inferiority, it has very little hope of sensitivity.

One way or another, every woman who works with Damore is in the position of wondering whether he thinks she's a neurotic, substandard engineer / manager who got the position through special favours. And potentially not just Damore, but other Google workers who might read it and be inspired to start judging their co-workers according to the memo's stereotypes.
It means those women might constantly feel they have something to prove. Or maybe they read the memo and just think he's an arsehole and hate him. Whatever - it is the stuff of uncomfortable workplace relations and environments.

Now, I do agree Damore is potentially unlucky. If someone had caught it earlier, taken him aside and at least persuaded him to some amendments, he'd probably still have his job. Blown up into a huge furore...

And what if those policies are actually enforced? As I said I find some of the examples of sexist policies oddly specific to be made up or unfounded accusations. Surely an employee wouldn't be stupid enough to make up sexist class registration requirements in a memo meant for internal use where everyone knows that to be true or not. It is however more difficult to prove recruitment standards are sexist or not unless you have written or audio recordings of (senior) management giving sexist guidelines to HR. And how do you suggest one addresses discriminatory practices "sensitively"? Because he has done no worse than 99% of feminists and progressives when they target discrimination against women, where the implication is also that men are put into positions they do not deserve.

And you are the one who uses the word "inferiority". He merely mentioned that based on some research women are more likely to exhibit certain traits and men others. That doesn't make someone inferior or superior. And considering he always discussed things in terms of "trends", if someone feels targeted its up to them. His argument has never been that all women exhibit a certain behavioral pattern but that there are trends which result in the current trends in employment. And in a company doesn't every employee feel like they have something to prove?

StatusNil:

undeadsuitor:

StatusNil:
Why it's a super idea to put a cult in charge of Internet search results:

image

"The published science is WrongThink! Can we fix that, so people looking for the truth won't be able to see it? Plz?"

are we just gonna post facebook comments with like 10 likes posted by irrelevant people as evidence of massive corruption now?

because boy howdy am I going to have fun with this

You do what you think is appropriate. Me, I'll stick to relevant stuff. Like the people at Google discussing altering their search algorithms to hide research data that doesn't fit their cult beliefs.

Was that a person who works at Google?

undeadsuitor:

Was that a person who works at Google?

So I was led to believe by the person who provided the quote. Also note the proprietary tone of "is Search wrong" vs. "is Google wrong?", and whether "we" should link to such heresy. The linking discussed being the results of the search.

Oh good, unverified sourcing. That's safe on the internet.

This is a vey easy win for Google, seriously.

Damore is a very clueless person and his firing from Google only contributed for him being even more clueless.
He's a guy who spent his entire life shelthered in a bubble of privilege and feels that even the tiniest problem in his life is the equivalent of being gay in the 50's or a jew on the holocaust.
And like your garden variety conservative he uses of a variety of excuses to conserve (lol) his precious staus quo. Trying to hire more womman and people of different ethinicities to your workplace? You're discriminating against white cis straight man and letting people not suited from the job enter in the tech world!

This disgust me in a visceral level.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here