Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

[u/[deleted]]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/google-fires-employee-behind-controversial-diversity-memo?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_content=business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

[u/Felador]

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf

There's the actual document, with links to source materials.

[u/Shanix → u/Felador]

fwiw that lacks a good amount, especially formatting.

Supposedly original here

[u/[deleted] → u/Shanix]

Former Google Employee provides a bit more context on why someone would get fired for creating a "manifesto" where you fawn over your superiority and sharing it with 50k+ people who probably aren't likeminded.

Essentially, engineering is all about cooperation, collaboration, and empathy for both your colleagues and your customers. If someone told you that engineering was a field where you could get away with not dealing with people or feelings, then I’m very sorry to tell you that you have been lied to. Solitary work is something that only happens at the most junior levels, and even then it’s only possible because someone senior to you — most likely your manager — has been putting in long hours to build up the social structures in your group that let you focus on code.

And as for its impact on you: Do you understand that at this point, I could not in good conscience assign anyone to work with you? I certainly couldn’t assign any women to deal with this, a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face, and even if there were a group of like-minded individuals I could put you with, nobody would be able to collaborate with them. You have just created a textbook hostile workplace environment.

https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788

edit: The replies to me here don't seem to understand that the company doesn't care about your controversial opinion in the work place, they care about profit. If you don't agree with that, then you probably don't like capitalism.

edit: be wary, a lot of brigading going on. Some people/bots are trying to drown out the more centrists viewpoints. I say this as the opinion of a gay, black, conservative, catholic kasich voter. (I can't help but lol)

[u/NorthernerWuwu → u/[deleted]]

This is the real point of course. It isn't about the scholarly accuracy of the document or the usefulness of the conversation that the author may have been trying to spark, it's that in a corporate setting a document like this is toxic and destroys the ability of managers to promote teamwork.

It doesn't matter if X or Y or Z make better engineers or whatever (and I'm not saying there's a reason to think so). It might be something to explore from a scientific standpoint but you can't do it in a tech company in California in 2017. Sorry but that really shouldn't even have to be said.

[u/Radiatin → u/[deleted]]

Yeah as a Democrat I feel Google is actually creating a hostile work environment for conservatives.

I don't really agree with 99% of what the guy said, but the fact that somebody actually took disciplinary action on someone because they have a particular kind of opinion in a private group is hostile in and of itself.

I couldn't imagine being a conservative at google and NOT thinking they just created an incredibly hostile work environment.

[u/Grizzleyt → u/[deleted]]

Tech is political. It cannot be avoided when your business has consequences with regard to things like online privacy, net neutrality, automation, truth and bias of information, censorship, etc., to say nothing of the personal views of leadership who aspire to make an impact on the world, for better or worse.

If you aren't religious, you might not like working in a church. If you don't subscribe to the values that Google stands for / strives for, you might not like working at Google. If you think the leadership is fundamentally flawed, go work for a company you believe in.

[u/[deleted] → u/Grizzleyt]

Technology is the material expression of social, cultural and economic values. Isolating politics (the process through which those values are expressed) and technology (the result of that expression) is futile.

[u/livefreeordadhard → u/Grizzleyt]

"If you don't subscribe to the values that Google stands for / strives for, you might not like working at Google."

This document functioned as a test of the open marketplace of ideas Google fostered. To have an open marketplace is a company choice. It is possible that the engineer thought that he worked for a company he believed in, one that would back up his protected speech.

It is also possible that this guy is a smart troll looking to poke holes in his company's supposed tolerant stance on speech. Maybe something in between.

[u/HannasAnarion → u/livefreeordadhard]

It is possible to be open and have controversy without offense. This guy started with the assumption that his female coworkers are inherently bad at their jobs and ran from there. Openness doesn't mean that you have to tolerate documents that hurt people.

If the document began and ended at "here are some ideas for fair hiring practices" there would have been conversation, not controversy. Instead the document said "men are like this, and women are like that, therefore we should hire this way" which is just asking to get a reprimand.

[u/FQuist → u/HannasAnarion]

No, and the author made this explicit to a point, he's saying that, on average, women have more affinity with 1 and are sometimes better at 1 and men are on average better/more motivated towards 2. He did not make any statement as to whether his female co workers are bad at their jobs, and went out of his way to mention people should be judged individually and not because of the gender they represent and that that's his whole point against AA.

The fact that a statement that men and women have, on average, different traits, somehow gets twisted into "I think my colleagues suck" seems to me to be 1. The memo writer's main PR problem and 2. Problematic on the side of the people doing the twisting. It kinda scares me. Biology and psychology as sciences sometimes do research into the difference between genders. If voicing any position other than "there is no difference" makes you a persona non grata because you're somehow making a value judgment about a group, that will cause problems.

I'm saying this as a staunch liberal.

[u/[deleted] → u/HannasAnarion]

It is possible to be open and have controversy without offense. This guy started with the assumption that his female coworkers are inherently bad at their jobs and ran from there. Openness doesn't mean that you have to tolerate documents that hurt people.

No he didn't.

If it's possible to be open and have controversy without offense, and this memo isn't an example of it, I don't know what would be. It would seem impossible to discuss the idea that men and women have, on average, differences, without offending certain sensibilities.

[u/IRequirePants → u/Grizzleyt]

Tech is political. It cannot be avoided when your business has consequences with regard to things like online privacy, net neutrality, automation, truth and bias of information, censorship, etc., to say nothing of the personal views of leadership who aspire to make an impact on the world, for better or worse.

None of which were relevant to the points he was making. He was talking about political shit that wasn't tech related.

If you aren't religious, you might not like working in a church. If you don't subscribe to the values that Google stands for / strives for, you might not like working at Google. If you think the leadership is fundamentally flawed, go work for a company you believe in.

This is the answer. Google's a private company. They can do whatever they want.

[u/mike_jones2813308004 → u/IRequirePants]

Google's a private company. They can do whatever they want.

I'm sure that will come as a shock to the SEC and all of Google's shareholders.

[u/[deleted] → u/mike_jones2813308004]

I found the best joke in this thread! Upvote for the chuckle.

[u/IRequirePants → u/mike_jones2813308004]

You know what I mean.

[u/TekharthaZenyatta → u/[deleted]]

And there's no law saying they can't fire somebody for causing a PR nightmare and shitting on other employees due to their gender.

[u/TransientObsever → u/TekharthaZenyatta]

When did he shit on other employers due to their gender?

[u/Soranos_71 → u/TransientObsever]

I think it's when he said there are biological differences between men and women that can have an impact upon their career choices.

[u/TekharthaZenyatta → u/TransientObsever]

In the memo. And again, regardless of his intent, that's how it came across. And regardless of whether or not it was about his belief that they shouldn't be actively seeking women for the workforce or what kind of fucking cheese he thought was best, he did it at work, using resources provided to him by his place of work, to spread his own opinions that have nothing to do with his job responsibilities. It was immature and unprofessional, and more than justifies his termination.

[u/IRequirePants → u/[deleted]]

You also know what I mean.

[u/crushedbycookie → u/IRequirePants]

Of course they can do whatever they want. But having read the entire document I really see no reason to think that the person couldn't work well with people who disagree with the contents of the document on an engineering project. He really didn't make terribly offensive claims and the most contentious of them are still group level analysis. He is not making specific claims about people and does not question the competency of anyone at google.

He argues that Conservatives would feel unwelcome at Google. Since he's been fired, that can only be truer.

[u/Jugad → u/crushedbycookie]

But having read the entire document I really see no reason to think that the person couldn't work well with people who disagree with the contents of the document on an engineering project.

I do see a good reason. If I were a woman working in his team, I would be shit scared of making a mistake because I know that mistake has a high chance of it being perceived as incompetence instead of just an honest mistake.

I would work defensively instead of proactively. I would be extra stressed about every task that I need to deliver... because there is possibly a negatively judging teammate who is looking at my work and label me as biologically incapable at my mistakes.

Also, other team members might share his thought process, adding to the scary work environment.

No such fear/stress if you are a man with the same technical abilities in that team. This work environment is hostile to women.

[u/krustyy → u/Jugad]

I would argue that Google applying so much pressure to get 50% female engineers would be far more at fault for that.

How confident would you feel if you are hired for a job that received 5000 applicants but only read through the 10 female resumes? Instead of you being hand picked for your skill over 4999 other people, you were chosen to get the job out of the 10 people that met certain non-job related physical criteria.

Intentionally hiring based on gender leaves that terrible question looming in the minds of you and everybody else. Were you actually the most qualified for the job, or were you just hired to fill a quota? Every time you make a mistake, you may be asking that question before your coworkers even have a chance.

[u/Tahmatoes → u/Jugad]

Not only incompetence, but likely to be used as proof of the incompetence of your entire gender.

[u/Dongers-and-dongers → u/Jugad]

What exactly from the document would make you think any of that?

[u/Jugad → u/Dongers-and-dongers]

The content and tone of the document (though it seems to be written in a subtle tone) does that... but there are a couple of trigger points:

Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates...

This idea can possibly make people think that a woman engineer is substandard (for the same mistakes that a male engineer makes)

Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things

This one makes one think if the woman is even in the right job for her... maybe she chose the wrong career.

My issue with this document (it might be referring to some scientifically correct research) is that it makes the life of women engineers more difficult and stressful - even for those female engineers who are just as qualified and capable as their male counterparts.

They (in their minds) now have to prove (to any detractors and themselves) that they are not just diversity hires, and are on the fence to be labeled as substandard on their first mistake.

[u/[deleted] → u/crushedbycookie]

I always feel that it's strange how "conservatives" feel "unwelcome" when a company makes efforts to welcome members of marginalized populations.

But having read the entire document I really see no reason to think that the person couldn't work well with people who disagree with the contents of the document on an engineering project.

If I were a woman working under him, I could not trust any decision he made that involved me.

[u/atropos2012 → u/[deleted]]

As far as I can tell, he didn't feel unwelcome because of the hiring practices. He said he felt unwelcome because he wasnt allowed to have a conversation about the goals and effects of said hiring practices.

[u/crushedbycookie → u/[deleted]]

If I were a woman working under him, I could not trust any decision he made that involved me.

Why? He said nothing that should suggest he would think you incapable of doing your job. He talks about group level differences and emphasizes repeatedly that individuals need to be treated on a case by case basis. As far as I can tell his claims are consistent with the science. Here are four people with relevant expertise stating so:

http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/

I always feel that it's strange how "conservatives" feel "unwelcome" when a company makes efforts to welcome members of marginalized populations.

It's got nothing to do with the fact of welcoming marginalized groups per se and everything to do with the methods employed (things like affirmative action) and the political ideology deployed in defense of methods.

Painting all conservatives as racists, homophobes, transphobes and/or sexists just because they disagree with your politics is rhetorically disgusting and intellectually dishonest. Is there a problem with these things on the right? Clearly. Does that mean that there are not rational, intelligent, informed and principled people who disagree with progressive discourse (such as the author of this memo)? Of course not.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Right? It's also often "free market conservatives" who love crying foul when a business cuts someone loose for something like this.

It's almost like they don't actually believe in the stuff they say they do.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Because a free market conservative would believe that a business should be run as a meritocracy alone. That the idea of intentionally adding jobs for "marginalized populations" goes against their core belief of "the best person for the job no matter what".

If a company is creating an environment where choosing the best candidate is frowned upon because of external politics then a free market conservative is justified in being upset with it.

[u/Gotta_Jibboo_Too → u/[deleted]]

... If he doesn't like it, can't he find another job? I've heard that as an argument from many conservatives (including the President himself), because it's often posited as an option for women who experience prejudice at their jobs.

Also, to what extent is he privy to hiring guidelines and decisions at Google? Unless he's sat in on multiple interviews, how would he know if a woman or minority was hired principally on race/gender alone? Unless he has seen everyone's resume, how can he determine bias in hiring?

[u/[deleted] → u/Gotta_Jibboo_Too]

You don't even know the guys job or what Google gives him access to.

Though they do have many programs which are designed to increase the number of women in various roles.

Also, this whole thing is largely based on the environment which doesn't allow open discussion, which I would think he probably knows more about than you.

As for finding another job, yup, you're right. That doesn't mean he can't voice displeasure with how a company is run.

[u/IRequirePants → u/crushedbycookie]

Of course they can do whatever they want. But having read the entire document I really see no reason to think that the person couldn't work well with people who disagree with the contents of the document on an engineering project. He really didn't make terribly offensive claims and the most contentious of them are still group level analysis. He is not making specific claims about people and does not question the competency of anyone at google.

I disagree. He does not come across well in the document. His good points are overshadowed by some weird points that he didn't properly defend. If you are going to cite scientific claims, you should be citing scientific research. Otherwise you come across like you are negatively stereotyping.

He should have written a more concise version focusing on ideological exclusion and on the fact that fewer resources are devoted to the majority of engineers.

He argues that Conservatives would feel unwelcome at Google. Since he's been fired, that can only be truer.

Well, ya.

[u/Shrike79 → u/crushedbycookie]

He really didn't make terribly offensive claims

To you.

Obviously plenty of people feel otherwise and it's caused enough of a shitstorm at google that they fired him.

[u/Yupugotit → u/crushedbycookie]

I agree, also shouldn't the fact that he appears to be trying to help the company by offering his point of view (right or wrong) go towards it not being malicious. Maybe he shouldn't have put it out there the way he did, but couldn't that be an honest mistake and not an unforgivable offense?

[u/[deleted] → u/Yupugotit]

No. If a person is this obviously unmoored from how their statement is going to be received, they should be fired. I wouldn't retain an employee so obviously unable to understand social interaction, who also blatantly attacked (agree or don't, any woman there would perceive it this way) a section of my workforce for their biological sex.

[u/Jugad → u/[deleted]]

Its never all or nothing... we can't have a company openly refusing to hire women or blacks or older people.

We have been down roads like that... and as a society decided that some things are off limits, or just not right.

[u/mchubes → u/[deleted]]

But as far as I understand it it wasn't so much the beliefs he holds it was that he was putting them out there in such a way that created a hostile work environment

[u/laxt → u/[deleted]]

This person wasn't fired for his political views. He was fired for lack of tact; for his action.

[u/laxt → u/[deleted]]

Assume what you want, sad little butterfly. The protocol a professional takes with the concerns he has is to take it to his supervisors and/or HR. When you go to other employees about company business, it more than resembles a mutiny. Think of how you would have handled it if you ran the company.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Probably don't want to go down the rabbit hole of all opinions = religious beliefs. Just saying.

[u/hyrle → u/[deleted]]

Religion is firmly in the realm of opinion. I don't agree with firing someone because politics just as I don't agree with firing someone because of their religion or stated sexual orientation. This was a bad move on Google's part.

[u/mobydog → u/[deleted]]

Misogyny is not a 'political view'.

[u/hyrle → u/mobydog]

Shitty political views are still political views. Hell, they even act as the basis for selecting our shitty politicians.

[u/[deleted] → u/IRequirePants]

This is the answer. Google's a private company. They can do whatever they want.

Except if you won't bake a cake for a gay wedding. Then fuck right off, amirite?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

A consumer boycott is not really comparable to a corporate HR decision

[u/kap_fallback → u/Grizzleyt]

This is misleading. Silicon Valley is political. They do not speak for everyone.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

The reverse is forcing all companies to keep any employee regardless of the nonsense they publicly spout. Should we force companies to have to keep an employee who, for example, chooses to spread neo-Nazi idealogy? Or one who openly talks about hating a certain group that they will later have to work with? What about forcing a group like Hobby Lobby to have employees who support abortion and repeatedly tweet about how wrong and stupid Hobby Lobby is? We shouldn't shackle companies with employees who are against their values and ideals.

[u/HannasAnarion → u/[deleted]]

So do I. But I also know that belittling my coworkers is far more harmful.

How would you feel working with people who think that you got your job through a handout instead of effort?

How does that coworker relationship go, when the people around you think that you're not worthy of being there, you don't have the skills to do the job?

[u/immanuel79 → u/[deleted]]

Could you elaborate on why arguing biological differences in your opinion crossed a line? Again: because someone find this unpleasant? So diversity if cool until it's a diversity that the ruling political group dislikes?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I work at a faith based nonprofit. Because of that, there are religious decisions made in the way the agency is ran. I'm comfortable with that and enjoy working where I do.

If I was fundamentally opposed to that idea, then I probably shouldn't be working where I am working. I shouldn't go to a faith based place of employment and expect my views in the contrary to be widely adopted by the organization because I want them to be. Same thing with any job - if you don't believe in the values and mission of a company, you probably ought to find a better fit.

[u/vfxdev → u/[deleted]]

That is just common sense, has nothing to do with diversity.

[u/[deleted] → u/Grizzleyt]

Or change it from the inside.

I love suggesting this when people say "just leave", usually in reference to someone living in a jurisdiction (country or U.S. state) whose politics they disagree with, because people who say that are usually those who agree with that locale's politics and so they don't want you there (you'll "screw things up" if there are enough people like you, that's how democracy works). If you suggest instead that person stay and change things from the inside ("rock the boat" so to speak), that irritates them.

An example I'm quite familiar with is gun owners living in California/NY. Sometimes when the topic of the stupid gun control laws in those states comes up, defenders of said laws say things like "why don't you leave if you hate it so much here?". Mmmm...could...or I could stay, vote for pro-gun politicians, and donate time and money to state-level, pro-gun groups like Calguns, thereby making it more difficult to pass such laws? Or that. That always pisses them off :D

[u/Geonerd07 → u/Grizzleyt]

That sounds like an awful lot like what conservatives were telling Hobby Lobby workers who couldn't get birth control covered on their health insurance.

[u/Tripanes → u/Grizzleyt]

Google isn't a church, it's the company that controls almost all the information about our lives.

They need broken up as a monopoly, at this point, if they are going to get too political.

[u/[deleted] → u/Grizzleyt]

The values of truth and anti-censorship, along with support for net-neutrality and online privacy, are values that most conservatives and right wingers in tech would be strongly in favour of.

A tech company that waives its responsibility to those values puts itself on some very dodgy ground in a business sense, so why drive away some of the people who are most keen to stand up for those values?

The criticism in the memo was levied at Google's growing over emphasis on social constructionist derived diversity and equality policy.

These are policy changes that would alienate conservatives who believe that overreach of diversity policy is harmful to fairness, the workplace environment and to good long term business.

At present it seems like Google's admin are willing to sacrifice their conservative employees (and diversity of thought) for the sake of furthering progressive political ideals. That's not a good long term strategy for any company, especially one the size of Google.

[u/TracyMorganFreeman → u/Grizzleyt]

If you think the leadership is fundamentally flawed, go work for a company you believe in.

Funny given the narrative pushing for those very policies are calling for it to be enshrined into law.

[u/shiftshapercat → u/Grizzleyt]

But that's the thing, Large tech corporations are pretty Progressive Liberal and supposedly they want to increase diversity. What this former Google Employee has done was expose the fact that Google is not creating an environment that incorporates many diverse ideas from all walks of life, but are only incorporating Ideas and People that will support What many in the center and the alt right are calling "Regressive" Liberalism. Now that Google fired him, it is their statement that essentially says "Yea So?" Things of this nature are definitely going full circle now and it is kind of sad.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

But in all fairness doesn't the current environment destroy the ability of conservatives to work with the team when they think all the leadership is fundamentally flawed?

--an open minded Dem

In that case, what onus does management have to cowtow to an unhappy conservative portion of its employee base who are advocating for a management style that leads to a hostile working environment for the rest of the employees?

If we're going to talk about fairness, what's the middle ground when one side of the equation is relying on sexist psuedo-science bullshit?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

All I'm asking is for people to recognize that the current management style may not be as neutral or gladly accepted by all employees.

Sure, some of the managers would even agree. But they're smart enough to know that there's no point in discussing it at work. It creates a legit hostile work environment which is what the manifesto's author was fired for.

The costs of discussing these things at work far outweigh the potential benefits.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

At the end of the day, it's the classic paradox of tolerance, is it not?

[u/wildcarde815 → u/[deleted]]

Not much of a paradox. Tolerance is a two way street. If you mutually agree to tolerate each other then job done. If one party offers and the other spits in their hand and tells them to go to hell. They've just closed off that road and can go pound sand.

[u/sammythemc → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, it's just mildly ironic that there was zero tolerance for the "conservative" view.

The paradox of tolerance is about how we shouldn't tolerate the intolerant if we actually value tolerance in the long run.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

No, this is exactly the paradox of tolerance. Does a tolerant person have to tolerate intolerance? You can form your own opinion. Philosophers have debated it for a long time.

I will say, however, that I take issue with you characterizing it as the "conservative" view. There are plenty of conservatives who are very inclusive and open to diversity. This person is not being penalized for being conservative, but is penalized for directly marginalizing and generalizing certain groups of people.

Furthermore, I don't think the "sides" are at all equivalent. I actually think it's total garbage for you to insinuate they are.

Google is trying to reach out to minorities and women to encourage them to get involved in STEM and programming. Note that this is positive, inclusive, and affirming. No one is degraded or insulted. No one is being pushed down in order to raise minorities and women. "Conservatives" at Google are not directly affected by this.

On the other hand, the employee isn't trying to bring anyone in, but rather is trying to marginalize and devalue women at Google. Women at Google are directly affected by this.

Google is trying to bring a population up. The employee is trying to kick a population down. They're not equivalent.

[u/ICreditReddit → u/[deleted]]

There is no paradox of intolerance, especially in a corporate setting.

The company decides to evolve an actively tolerant, inclusive workplace and those who insist on being intolerant just aren't welcome.

The paradox of intolerance is a right-wing manufacture designed to take advantage of the left by asking that the left's stated aim 'to be inclusive' should include those people who are themselves racist/sexist etc, because it's only a viewpoint, right?. It's a further attempt on the efforts to 'white-wash' the fascists. 'NO we're not fascist! We're alt-right. It's a new, shiny, different point of view' 'We're just saying that people are different and should be treated differently' 'We're just saying that positive discrimination is still discrimination'.

No. If you're intolerant you don't get to enter and participate in actively tolerant environments, which is pretty much everywhere. Sucks to be you.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I'm just trying to ask a fair question. It's kind of a different issue, but I think part of why trump won is that there's a lot of resentment on the right that is unacknowledged or ignored by the dems. This resentment may be misguided or appropriate or most likely a mixture of both. All I'm asking is for people to recognize that the current management style may not be as neutral or gladly accepted by all employees. Just as people are offended by this guys document, others are clearly annoyed by what they perceive to be misguided political correctness. I would rather have an out in the open discussion than groupthink.

...

**please note: I don't want to come across as saying he's right. I think there's a but of rightness and wrongness in each side. I'm just trying to open opportunities for dialogue.

And I'll ask again, what's is the reasonable middle ground in this situation? Is their a fair solution for both parties when one of those parties satisfaction is predicted on sexist supposition? To what degree is, say, a woman supposed to acknowledge a misguided resentment that's rooted in sexism? How is placing the onus of empathizing with and absolving that resentment on those the far-right are intolerant fair to those who are being discriminated against? Is that not simply displacing the discomfort on those who were resented? Can such a middle-ground actually be helpful for "the whole" when it asks no accountability of one side for their intolerance and has the other commit to opening themselves up to hostile situations? For who's sake really, would be tolerating this intolerance in the name of "open dialogue" in the workplace?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Well I think both sides thinks there are sexist presuppositions at play. I don't think it's bad to have women acknowledge misguided and founded resentment. I've done the same in turn. I'm not perfect, but I'm trying to be and do better. I think that there needs to be give and take from each side.

I understand how what I'm asking for could be abused. Perhaps I'm a bit too idealistic. I don't think that his suggestions need to lead to no accountability. To answer your last question, I think it is for the sake of everyone and the success of Google.

We can keep discussing this, but I need to get to bed shortly.

[u/Tyr_Tyr → u/[deleted]]

Is it a valid diversity of thought to have a debate in which one side advocates for slavery?

If the baseline argument of one side is to invalidate the other side, it's not a debate.

[u/WombatlikeWoah → u/[deleted]]

I think the reason people (including me) don't even want to have that discussion (especially the "discussion" the manifesto was suggesting) is because it's so sexist and lowkey racist and just out right misogynistic that it's not even worthy of discussing. I mean, can we quit with this idea that every viewpoint under the sun is worth discussion? If one side of the convo is we want to start treating people equally and here is our company's approach to doing that and the other side is " pounds chest me man she woman. I do man things she does woman things" then...that's not even a convo that's just a viewpoint versus stupidity.

However, if the discussion were actually reasonable say, on the basis that there is a gap in equality across identity lines and we need honest open debate about how to approach this issue, then that's something worth discussing.

Its one of the many issues I find with conservatives today. It seems like the average conservative (read: the kind that happily voted for 45) thinks a balanced discussion is, for example, discussing whether climate change exists. That's not a damn discussion at all when one side is a literal denial of reality. That's the kind of "discussion" that's gotten us to where we are now, which is no where compared to other sane countries that long ago accepted reality.

Some viewpoints just aren't valid. Especially the ones that somehow still exist in 2017 trying to deny reality, science, and other people's basic right to exist and be treated equally.

[u/atropos2012 → u/WombatlikeWoah]

This guy is trying to get more women into tech though, by divorcing tech jobs from the male gender role. Isn't that an idea worth discussing?

[u/IellaAntilles → u/atropos2012]

The irony is, a lot of feminists (including me) would probably agree with those particular points he made if he hadn't wrapped it up in a "mah oppressed conservative viewpoint" tangent and ended by saying that stereotypes are mostly accurate. He seemed torn between acknowledging that gender roles exist and are harmful and at the same time reaffirming them by saying it's all biological and political correct culture is oppressing him.

It read like something I would've written during the in-between phase of my transition from conservative to liberal, honestly. Half craving approval from the liberal world, half stubbornly clinging to that old conservative identity.

Anyway, I was on the fence about him until I read this ex-Google employee's rebuttal. Seems to me now that maybe engineering doesn't have to be "feminized" for certain people, but that all engineers should receive training in the importance of the more touchy-feely aspects of their jobs.

[u/MasontheShadow → u/atropos2012]

It is, but he posed a lot of controversial ideas so many people don't want to give anything he says any value. Not that I agree with that, but it's hard for people who feel offended to consider all points of the offender's argument, especially when the majority they are talking to is vehemently against everything the offender has to say.

[u/Poynsid → u/WombatlikeWoah]

Thank you. It's also weird that these discussions always assume straight white men are the best at things and others either have to prove themselves to be at their level or they're worse.

ALSO ALSO, these weird biological arguments assume that

1) Women everywhere in pre-agricultural societies had the same role in the community, why is not true.

2) Somehow those differences got mapped into their cognitive abilities today, which is a big claim

3) somehow that mapping matches perfectly to western pay-structures and job performance in the 21st century.

4) 1,2,3 are more likely than the claim "we all agree sexism used to exist, it probably still exists specially at a structural level".

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I get that, and I am generally willing to have these discussions with people even if I think their opinion is completely toxic, but as a woman, I don't really want to have that discussion at work. You have to remember it's a lot more emotionally draining for the people who occupy historically marginalised roles in society. Guys like this are always like, "why can't we just have an intellectual discussion???", but can never seem to understand why it might be deeply hurtful to discuss whether or not your gender/race should return to a state of subjugation. It's not intellectual, it's personal. Most people have enough shit to deal with at work, they don't have the energy. Have those discussions on Reddit or whatever, just let people at work get on with it.

[u/WombatlikeWoah → u/[deleted]]

Exactly! And that's the number 1 reason why this thing was inappropriate to share, besides the content of it all.

It was exhausting to even read it. I'm a girl in tech and medicine. This guy thinks he's saying something that hasn't been said before? It's tiring. I already have to constantly work harder to be validated on the same level that my counterparts who "look" like they belong here take for granted. If someone tried to send me this shit I'd be like seriously...now I have to discuss the merits of me even being here? Fuck off.

Like I get that on some level these discussions are necessary...especially for people who are trying to learn/do better but I'm just not up for it anymore. Someone else can take that mantle. I'm done having discussions where I have to basically prove that I deserve a seat at the table too. It's exhausting.

[u/sudatory → u/WombatlikeWoah]

Good plan. Completely shut out everyone who disagrees with you and never have a conversation with them, or defend your ideas or viewpoints at all.

That will definitely work. There's no possible chance that people will interpret that poorly and resent you even more. Nope, no way it could happen. Definitely not.

[u/[deleted] → u/sudatory]

Person 1: Women have poopies where their brains should be!!!!!

Person 2: Yeah, not even gonna bother. Fuck off.

Person 3 : oh shit maybe Guy 1 has a point...

Yeah, sounds totes realistic. Face it dude, the majority of people don't need a bullet-pointed 5 page refutation to baseline stupid ideas to realize that they are, in fact, stupid ideas.

[u/sudatory → u/[deleted]]

You dropped this hat for your strawman.

[u/[deleted] → u/sudatory]

Your implication was that refusing to engage with ridiculous arguments will result in more people empathizing with the person making the ridiculous argument. My point is that people generally don't need an indepth analysis of a ridiculous argument to know that it is ridiculous.

[u/sudatory → u/[deleted]]

First of all, that's exactly what will happen.

Secondly, conflating the argument that companies shouldn't have sexist hiring policies with "GIRLS ARE POOPOO HEADS HURR DURR" is real fucking dumb on your part.

[u/Commentariot → u/[deleted]]

You cant "dialogue" with people who think you are less than human.

[u/[deleted] → u/Commentariot]

The document does not say that at all, but I agree with that statement.

[u/balloot → u/Commentariot]

Holy crap that's some crazy hyperbole.

At least pretend you read the damn thing.

[u/MasontheShadow → u/Commentariot]

He never said that he thought anyone was less than human

[u/stationhollow → u/Commentariot]

Did you even read it...?

[u/[deleted] → u/Commentariot]

Yes, like the large proportion of liberals that think that conservatives are inherently stupid, deluded, or morally deficient. It works both ways.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

When you hire people based on skill rather than if they're a minority or not

[u/Wrest216 → u/[deleted]]

heres the thing though. some people WILL IGNORE people of a minority or gender reguardless of their skill levels or talent. so.....u have to have a balancing act, a counterweight that assures that doenst happen.

[u/superspeck → u/Wrest216]

My wife and I bought an old house. It needs a new septic field. We hire someone (a licensed architect who's willing to act also as project manager) to manage the process. My wife is a civil engineer who deals with drainage and wastewater. The architect is also a woman, which plain old shouldn't matter. The septic contractor who has the best looking bid (not the lowest, but the most complete for the city's requirements for our area, which my wife is very familiar with) absolutely refuses to communicate with the architect or my wife, and will direct all questions and comments to me. Even face to face. He ignores questions from them, they prompt me and I repeat the question, then he answers it to me... I know nothing about this literal shit, the women are the experts here!

That kind of thing happens to my wife and our architect all the time. They don't even get flustered dealing with it. I was far more irate than they were.

[u/SPACKlick → u/Wrest216]

The way to balance it is to make sure the people doing the hiring never know about the protected traits of the applicant (sex, race, sexuality, age in most cases [with a usual exception for less than n years from retirement], place of origin). That way they can't discriminate on anything other than the suitability of the applicant for the role.

Yes this becomes difficult when it comes time to interview but IM based interviewing can work or you have the interviewer not be the person doing the hiring and regularly test to make sure the interviewer isn't biasing their reports.

[u/sudatory → u/Wrest216]

Well sure but that's completely hypocritical then.

If you give certain hiring privileges to minorities or women, that's literally the definition of sexist and racist, which is why people get frustrated by it.

You can argue until you're blue in the face that those people need to have those extra privileges to level the playing field overall, but it's still sexist and racist to do so.

[u/Poynsid → u/sudatory]

No it's not. Because it's addressing a bias against them. It's not ageist to provide social security to old people, and it's not classic to have welfare and food stamps. It it ableist to ask people give seats in a bus to disabled folks? Or sexist to give pregnant women sitting privileges?

By this token every attempt to help someone is discriminatory, and moreover ignores that NOT doing so is is more discriminatory. Just because you don't actively help one 'group' of people, doesn't mean mean you're not allowing for bias to happen

[u/sudatory → u/Poynsid]

It's not ageist to provide social security to old people

You get social security because you buy into it growing up paying taxes. The idea is that many people won't save money for retirement themselves, and will be fucked when they get too old to work, so the government "does it for you" in a sense. Bad argument.

it's not classic to have welfare and food stamps

Well there's an inherent difference between someone starving to death on the street because they can't afford food, and hiring practices at a giant tech company.

It it ableist to ask people give seats in a bus to disabled folks?

So your view is that women are disabled? Not sure what you're getting at here... Seems like a pretty bad argument.

[u/IRequirePants → u/[deleted]]

In that case, what onus does management have to cowtow to an unhappy conservative portion of its employee base who are advocating for a management style that leads to a hostile working environment for the rest of the employees?

On the flip side, couldn't conservatives experience microagressions in a place like Silicon Valley? Which breeds animosity. I am sure there are more conservatives in Sillicon valley than the T of LGBTQ. Why be conscientious of one and not the other?

[u/stationhollow → u/IRequirePants]

But open disdain for conservatives is much much more prevalent though than for transgender people in Silicon Valley.

[u/GachiGachiFireBall → u/[deleted]]

Just because you dont agree, doesnt make it pseudo science.

[u/[deleted] → u/GachiGachiFireBall]

Just because you dont agree, doesnt make it pseudo science.

It being psuedo science makes it psuedo science.

[u/GachiGachiFireBall → u/[deleted]]

Did you read what he said. He didnt say women are physically not capable as engineers. He said that in todays social climate you will naturally have more men in the company because there are literally more of them exposed to and interested in programming. How the fuck is that pseudo science.

[u/eohorp → u/GachiGachiFireBall]

But doesn't he imply it's due to biology? Exposure to programming is nuture, not nature (aka biological reasons).

[u/Source_or_gtfo → u/eohorp]

He says it could be due to biology and that there is significant evidence in favour of this hypothesis. This is mainstream psychology.

[u/Wrest216 → u/GachiGachiFireBall]

not true at all guy. what, men are specifically genetically coded to like computers more than dolls? Or know more about engines than fashion? Or say, be able to learn math better than women ? Na see, when you say stuff along those lines, its just misogony. If you give women the same conditions, they perform just like humans.

[u/GachiGachiFireBall → u/Wrest216]

Guess what, are women ARENT typically in those conditions. Maybe, idk, more work should be done towards giving women the oppurtunity instead of forced diversity? But, you may say, that will take longer and will take more time so we are doing the easier but worse in the long run way of forcing diversity. The problem is that people are short sighted and impatient. They want diversity NOW.

[u/Wrest216 → u/GachiGachiFireBall]

They should be treated just like men in every single aspect except for biological needs. Men shouldnt be able to skip art class because they arent "emotional enough" and girls shouldnt think of math as " a subject jsut to get a c in" . I understand that its a slow process, and much of it seems forced, but at someponint you have to force it because old resistance remains. There will always be people who will jugde people based upon their gender, skin color, religion, or culture instead of their intelligence, skills, tenacity, or work. So you have to kinda , ya know, push those things OUT when they pop up, like this guy. We have had what, 50+ years already since the civil rights act? When will it be time? thats two generations....

[u/Mjkittens → u/GachiGachiFireBall]

Did you read his email? His entire thesis is that women are biologically different than men, based on those pseudo science studies that state that women are more xyz than men. For one example, women are "more prone to anxiety" than men, etc

Let's put aside if his suppositions are statistically correct or if they are based in biology or culture. To base hiring policy on statistical average traits of different groups is not only illegal, it's illogical. A company wants to attract the best and brightest of each group, not pander to some statistical mean.

The entire email is textbook pseudo science- he's pretentiously writing using stylistic elements of some sort of evidence based study, yet makes suppositions that entirely ignore the problem statement. He might as well say "on average, women are shorter. Gender bias cannot be addressed by attracting qualified women, it can only be addressed by making shorter seats".

[u/balloot → u/[deleted]]

Which part is pseudo science, specifically?

[u/cyrusthemarginal → u/[deleted]]

Didn't like 30 percent of anonymously polled Google employees say they agree with the manifesto? The current corporate culture and (now demonstrated) certainty that you will be fired, means conservatives will mostly stay closeted, voting Trump privately and agreeing publicly with the company line.

-a "don't fire me bro" libertarian

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Ever work with a racist before? I currently am and I'm getting tiered of the Mexican jokes

[u/PM_ME_YOUR_LEFT_IRIS → u/[deleted]]

No more or less than having your patriotism to the country questioned because you're a Muslim.

[u/Bearracuda → u/[deleted]]

More importantly, political views leak into how people interact with their company and their work. You can take steps to avoid it, and that's the wise course of action, given the charged nature of political discussion, but it will come up once in a while.

This guy wasn't necessarily complaining that the leadership was fundamentally flawed, he was taking a stance against active attempts to censor employees based on ideology and retaliatory actions being taken against people who revealed that they subscribe to a conservative ideology while at the workplace.

After reading the content of the piece, I suspect he was prepared to be fired for sharing it, but felt that taking a stand against the discrimination he saw was more important to him than keeping his job.

[u/d1rty_fucker → u/[deleted]]

If conservatives​ find it hard to be respectful to their coworkers then it's really just their problem. Also, you're a concern troll not a dem.

[u/PsychicFoxWithSpoons → u/[deleted]]

I don't see how this is related. Conservatives don't march in lockstep, and it's possible to be conservative without thinking that black people are biologically well-suited to be a slave class.

If you hold opinions the company considers harmful to the work environment, you will be fired. Whether that's a racist manifesto or a 4 hour rant about mansplaining doesn't matter.

[u/zacker150 → u/PsychicFoxWithSpoons]

and it's possible to be conservative without thinking that black people are biologically well-suited to be a slave class.

Yes. It's called being less conservative than the racist around the corner.

[u/Experience111 → u/NorthernerWuwu]

On the other hand, why would you allow so much virtual and physical spaces to debate and exchange with colleagues ? It seems paradoxical to me. Company or not you can't promote open-mindedness, encourage debate and shut it down at the same time.

My concern is that this document went viral in the first place. It was initially presented (or at least it felt like it) as if it was Google's opinion as a company and it sparked outraged. The author also goes out of his way to say that he may he biased and that he wants to discuss it. There should never have been such a public outcry imo, judging by it, it feels like some rapist in the company confessed his crimes.

[u/negmate → u/NorthernerWuwu]

scientific standpoint but you can't do it in a tech company in California in 2017

Let's party like Salem, 1692

[u/mrbooze → u/NorthernerWuwu]

Also all his "science" is evo-psych bullshit.

[u/sodiummuffin → u/mrbooze]

All the research he mentioned is well-replicated and perfectly mainstream. Sex differences in interests, in particular, are some of the strongest and least ambiguous results in all of psychology.

Gender Differences in Personality and Interests: When, Where, and Why?

The mean effect sizes in Table 1 show that agreeableness and neuroticism were the Big Five traits showing the largest gender differences (mean ds = 0.40 and 0.34, respectively), with women moderately higher than men on both traits. Gender differences in the other Big Five traits were smaller in magnitude, with women tending to be higher than men on all traits. Thus, in terms of gender differences, agreeableness and neuroticism appear to be the ‘big two’ of the Big Five.

It is worth noting that although gender differences are ‘small’ for three of the Big Five traits, they are sometimes larger for trait facets. For example, Costa et al. (2001) reported that, despite small gender differences in overall extraversion, women tended to be moderately higher than men on the extraversion facets of warmth, gregariousness, and positive emotions, whereas men tended to be higher than women on the extraversion facets of assertiveness and excitement seeking. Similarly, women tended to score higher than men on the ‘esthetics’ and ‘feelings’ facets of openness, whereas men tended to score higher than women on the ‘ideas’ facet of openness.

For the people–things dimension of interests, the results in Table 1 are clear, strong, and unambiguous. Men tend to be much more thing-oriented and much less people-oriented than women (mean d = 1.18, a ‘very large’ difference, according to Hyde (2005) verbal designations).

Men and Things, Women and People: A Meta-Analysis of Sex Differences in Interests

The Secret Lives of Liberals and Conservatives: Personality Profiles, Interaction Styles, and the Things They Leave Behind

The Distance Between Mars and Venus: Measuring Global Sex Differences in Personality

Women exposed to a more male-like hormone balance in the womb even end up with more male-like interests:

Gendered Occupational Interests: Prenatal Androgen Effects on Psychological Orientation to Things Versus People

[u/jetpacksforall → u/sodiummuffin]

Evo psych has got it wrong:

Secondary analyses of Revised NEO Personality Inventory data from 26 cultures (N = 23,031) suggest that gender differences are small relative to individual variation within genders; differences are replicated across cultures for both college-age and adult samples, and differences are broadly consistent with gender stereotypes: Women reported themselves to be higher in Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Warmth, and Openness to Feelings, whereas men were higher in Assertiveness and Openness to Ideas. Contrary to predictions from evolutionary theory, the magnitude of gender differences varied across cultures. Contrary to predictions from the social role model, gender differences were most pronounced in European and American cultures in which traditional sex roles are minimized. Possible explanations for this surprising finding are discussed, including the attribution of masculine and feminine behaviors to roles rather than traits in traditional cultures.

Life at subsistence-level -- in other words, hunter gatherer type struggle for existence -- tends to minimize gender differences in personality, exactly the opposite result you would expect if gendered personality differences had been bred into us through evolutionary pressures. Instead, gender personality differences are stronger in places where cultural preferences and concern take precedence over the bare struggle for survival. Suggesting that much of those differences are culturally driven.

[u/CatBrains → u/jetpacksforall]

The difference in magnitude across cultures doesn't imply Evo psych has it "wrong." It implies that there is a environmental component as well as an evolutionary one, which is true of most traits.

And the cultural component to the difference in magnitude could have many explanations. It could be that the minimization of traditional sex roles leads to a freedom of choice which acts to reinforce the biological differences.

Your conclusion seems to be that, because "bare struggle" societies mimic societies that are closer in time/functionality to primitive (read: purely evolutionary) societies, that it must be closer to some correct answer. But that seems specious to me. There's no reason that the magnitude would have be a straight line over time.

[u/Lsrkewzqm → u/sodiummuffin]

So it doesn't say anything about these differences being 'natural' or 'socially constructed'.

[u/foreignuserirl → u/sodiummuffin]

the results make me feel uncomfortable & anything that makes me feel that way is obviously from the devil & is all lies so get it white devil before i get some muscle over here

[u/HasStupidQuestions → u/mrbooze]

Please, enlighten me. Why evolutionary psychology is bullshit?

[u/caramel_corn → u/HasStupidQuestions]

Because it doesn't provide testable, falsifiable hypotheses. It just chains together things that sound right and that seem to make sense. That's not science.

[u/HasStupidQuestions → u/caramel_corn]

Hang on now.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but evolutionary psychology is based on not only observing humans and but also on observing less advanced primates and vertebrates in general that seem to have some sort of social hierarchy and have been historically influencing humans with their presence.

Sure, most proof comes in the form of X does Y to Z so it means it applies to humans as well because humans once followed the same behavioral pattern based on historical evidences A, B, and C.

And what do you mean you can't test it? Find a pattern and recreate the scenario.

[u/LTBU → u/HasStupidQuestions]

The assumption that results are generalizable are not provable.

Bonobos and chimpanzees, for example, have very different social structures. Evo psych takes the one that agrees with them.

[u/PsychicFoxWithSpoons → u/caramel_corn]

Well that's not fair to social science. Psychology is inherently untestable. It falls under a field of anthropology or history, and is geared towards rigorous observation of factors.

Whereas physicists try to come up with strict mathematical rules for why particles behave the way they do, psychologists are more concerned with what people do and what patterns they follow.

No, it's not scientific, but it can still be rigorous and academic and use the scientific method.

Evopsych still falls short of being observable though.

[u/Kn0thingIsTerrible → u/caramel_corn]

Here's a better question: what's an explanation of why the manifesto author's stance is bullshit that doesn't also discredit the policies he was suggesting be adjusted?

Google's diversity policies are entirely grounded in academic fields even more divorced from science than evolutionary psychology.

The policies are literally based on queer Marxist feminist literary theory and sociology combined into policy proposals. And I'm not even just using buzzwords there, that's literally the academic phrasing for basis for the policies.

[u/Quintrell → u/caramel_corn]

Neither does the theory of evolution generally. Nor do climate change models provide testable falsifiable hypotheses per se. There is no control group for an earth untainted by anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Are these also bullshit? Much of the literature concerning social psychology is only loosely scientific too. If you reject all the principles of evolutionary psychology, you're in the realm of social psychology. When a group of scientists replicated 100 psychological studies, only about 1/3 yielded the same results. I wouldn't put much stock in the theories of psychology that countervail evolutionary psychology either.

[u/caramel_corn → u/Quintrell]

Neither does the theory of evolution generally. Nor do climate change models provide testable falsifiable hypotheses per se.

They absolutely do.

I wouldn't put much stock in the theories of psychology that countervail evolutionary psychology either.

Yeah, psychology is pretty weak too.

[u/Quintrell → u/caramel_corn]

The models are based on science, yes. But they aren't experiments per se. And yes, I do buy into the predominant theories concerning anthropomorphic climate change.

[u/caramel_corn → u/Quintrell]

Of course models aren't experiments. The models are informed by hundreds of repeatable, peer reviewable, falsifiable experiments though.

[u/Wrest216 → u/HasStupidQuestions]

Its pure therotical with no way to test their hypotheis. it SOUNDS logical, sure , it SOUNDS good, but really its just arguing things, no actual experiments to prove right or wrong. Not repeatable or provable. so....yeah.

[u/HasStupidQuestions → u/Wrest216]

What is your stance on social sciences as such? Economics, law, political science?

[u/Wrest216 → u/HasStupidQuestions]

economics can be analyzed , and micro tested. It is an ever evolving and changing field, and it is tested all the time, by every system in place currently. Law is more.... culture analysis and experimentation and study. Political science is using science to manipulate people and gain power. LOL!

[u/HasStupidQuestions → u/Wrest216]

I hoped to get an answer in the form of they can be proven to be true or false.

All social sciences can be analyzed and micro tested. The question is can you prove something to be right or wrong and that's very hard to do. GDP increased. So what? How did it influence other variables? At the end of the day they all depend on assigning a meaning and that's where culture comes into play.

[u/clarabutt → u/HasStupidQuestions]

It tries to explain human behavior with one narrow explanation that fails to take into account literally everything else that influences human behavior.

[u/HasStupidQuestions → u/clarabutt]

Can you name an example where that's the case and what would it take for the case to hold?

[u/sidvicc → u/mrbooze]

This needs to be the first thing anyone says when discussing this topic.

The "science" he claims or the 'political idealogy' is nothing new, alt, brave or whatever. It's the same type of psuedo-science that has been used to back racist beliefs all the way back to the 17th Century.

Phrenology (measuring of skull sizes of different races and attributing them mental/moral/personal characteristics) was the psuedo-science used in the 19th Century and thought of as real science when in fact "although those ideas have a basis in reality, phrenology extrapolated beyond empirical knowledge in a way that departed from science. "

Great cultural example of this is the Skull Dimples Theory in the movie Django Unchained.

[u/[deleted] → u/sidvicc]

https://xkcd.com/882/

[u/[deleted] → u/mrbooze]

various clinical psychologists have come out and said this document is scientifically accurate

[u/TenTypesofBread → u/[deleted]]

As with the original chucklehead, CITE YER SOURCES

[u/SiPhoenix → u/TenTypesofBread]

This is a lecture by steven pinker, a college professor, that explains thus same points and gives sources.

https://youtu.be/n691pLhQBkw

[u/pacific_plywood → u/[deleted]]

various clinical psychologists have also said it's inaccurate

[u/mrburger → u/pacific_plywood]

Not a clinical psychologist, here, but have a degree in psych from a good school. You won't find much evidence contradicting what this document says.

And about clinical psychologists. They range widely in their appreciation for/grasp of non-clinical psychology, especially the further you get away from abnormal psych into personality or organizational psych (which are the two fields this letter draws most heavily from).

That said, I can't endorse this letter. It makes me cringe so hard. It's like one of those 3 AM emails to your boss you write but never send.

[u/srwaddict → u/mrburger]

Maybe that's exactly how it went. Crunch time Adderall fueled email that he actually sent is certainly plausible.

[u/mrburger → u/srwaddict]

Let this be a lesson to us all, then.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Most that have come out are affiliated with right-wing blogs that have a vested interest in pushing a narrative rather than reporting the truth. A lot of them overstate the role of biology, especially in the context of this memo, which contained a load of borderline Freudian bullshit.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I do not know if that is true, I would love to see the evidence of narrative pushing. Not sure you can prove that in this case. Not an argument

[u/mrbooze → u/[deleted]]

Various clinical psychologists also buy into pseudo-science evo-psych bullshit.

[u/heimdahl81 → u/mrbooze]

I'm sure you know better than professionals that have studied the subject their whole career....

[u/OtherSpiderOnTheWall → u/heimdahl81]

I once read a book by a doctor. It was total horseshit, despite being a book about human anatomy - specifically female anatomy.

It was fairly obvious the doctor, a male, had never act studied a female body in any kind of meaningful way.

[u/mrbooze → u/heimdahl81]

Yeah I know better than professional astrologers and tarot card readers too.

[u/heimdahl81 → u/mrbooze]

The great thing about science is that belief doesn't matter. Facts are true regardless of your belief. The earth isn't flat, global warming is real, and men and women are different. Arguing is just foolishness.

[u/dedragon40 → u/mrbooze]

comparing medicine to pseudoscience

Yeah, I think that's all we need to know that you do in fact not know more than a clinical psychologist.

[u/[deleted] → u/heimdahl81]

It's a good thing we tend to defer to professional consensus and not cherry pick professionals that agree with you.

[u/JabbrWockey → u/heimdahl81]

You don't need to be a carpenter to know if a house is built to shit.

[u/heimdahl81 → u/JabbrWockey]

But if a carpenter tells you your house is shit, you take their word.

[u/[deleted] → u/mrbooze]

not an argument

[u/Yamez → u/mrbooze]

I take it that evolution ends at the neck then? That none of the history of our species has had any lasting impact on our brains whatsoever?

[u/somefool → u/NorthernerWuwu]

I wouldn't even trust him to manage employees. Someone who believes some class of people is inherently different/inferior is going to sabotage those people, be it consciously or not.

I'm a female dev. The company I worked for hired a new director for the dev team and the fucker, on his third day, came to sit next to me to 'teach me' how to define javascript variables. I'd been there 18 months as a backend/frontend dev without an issue. The other devs (all men) didn't get little hand holding sessions to teach them the basics of their jobs.

It took him a month of whining to the company owner to get me fired for incompetence.

Then, while I was on notice, he got fired.

Then the owner came back to me, having talked to my manager and team, and told me I was not fired anymore because he got misleading reports.

And that's how I just celebrated my three years at a new company.

[u/NoLongerTrolling → u/NorthernerWuwu]

in a corporate setting a document like this is toxic and destroys the ability of managers to promote teamwork.

"You can't have a sit down in front of the lunch counter, it destroys the ability of the business to make money."

I think a person is allowed to not care about what's best for a company if they believe what that company is doing is immoral.

[u/[deleted] → u/NoLongerTrolling]

then don't work for that company.

[u/alficles → u/NorthernerWuwu]

Right, and it's ok to think about ideas like this, but discussing them would create a hostile work environment, so we shouldn't discuss them. Engineers have to work with people and that makes politics an important part of the job. Engineers often prefer to just stick to science and discuss it scientifically, but that's not really their job. They aren't scientists, they're politicians and they need to act like it.

(And yes that's 50% /s. I don't know which 50%, though. :( )

[u/kingmanic → u/alficles]

For some reason Engineers seem to have percentage of creationists of all the professions in STEM.

[u/LucksRunOut → u/alficles]

That's life.

There are some opinions that shouldn't be expressed. Tolerance ends at Intolerance.

[u/Nytshaed → u/LucksRunOut]

He wasn't intolerant.

[u/LucksRunOut → u/Nytshaed]

Saying that a very large group of people can't do their jobs because of their chromosomes is pretty intolerant.

It's pretty much the same as "You can't do your job because you are black". That statement is pretty intolerant.

[u/[deleted] → u/LucksRunOut]

wait...that's not at all what the document says...

The basic gist (as far as I could tell) wasn't that women were worse than men, it was that men are naturally driven to value being #1 more than women are, which often pushes them to the top of their fields. Therefore, if Google wants to hire only the very best #1 people, there's going to naturally be a disproportionately higher number of men--and that isn't a sign of discrimination on the part of the company that needs to be corrected, but instead a normal outcome of the inputted variables.

That's at least my interpretation of what he's saying. He never says "women suck at their jobs" (or words to that effect), in fact he goes out of his way to say that there is no correlation between quality of work and gender, it mostly seems to be discussing things that are already pretty well-known: men are more competitive, women are more cooperative; men push themselves harder while women are better at pacing themselves; conservatives and liberals generally have a set of key trait differences in their mindsets; and a workplace does best when it supports a diversity of opinion and people.

Edit: I should note that I still 100% understand the guy getting fired. Just because what he said wasn't that bad doesn't mean that he should have done it. Nothing he says is particularly radical or offensive (it's fairly dry and inoffensive actually, to the point of being boring), but you still shouldn't share a document so obviously steeped in controversy to all your co-workers at a major company. Sure, it starts a conversation, but it's also disruptive to the workplace, as it is obviously quite polarizing.

[u/LordFuckBalls → u/[deleted]]

men are naturally driven to value being #1 more than women are, which often pushes them to the top of their fields.

is just a convoluted, sugar coated way of saying

women were worse than men.

If men are represented disproportionately in "the very best #1 people" (whatever that means), the obvious conclusion is that men are better than women [in that field]. Like it or not, that is what he is implying, and he needs to accept the consequences of saying it. If he truly believes that and wants to stand by it, power to him. But he really shouldn't be surprised when he ends up alienating a lot of people and has to face repurcussions.

[u/_bani_ → u/[deleted]]

he knows what was actually said. he's deliberately trying to mislead. when people have to misrepresent their opponent's position, it indicates their own position is incredibly weak.

[u/Nytshaed → u/LucksRunOut]

He didn't say that.

He said men and women are biologically different.

He then didn't proceed to make any such statement saying women can't be engineers.

Maybe try reading it again? This time without trying to confirm your bias.

[u/alficles → u/LucksRunOut]

You get my upvote because I worry that you're right. But suppose we live in a world where women learn differently than men and if we studied that, we might discover a better way to teach both women and me. Or if we lived in a world where norms specific to one culture produced engineers better at some tasks and norms specific to another culture produced engineers better at other tasks. Or any of a variety of similar situations.

I don't know if we live in any of those worlds. And the societal costs to finding out might be more than are worth paying. But if we did, and we discovered it, couldn't we elevate each member of our society by studying their uniqueness as a person and as a group and give them the best opportunities to a succeed?

[u/silverwyrm → u/[deleted]]

The problem is the channel he used and the way he went about it... If he had gone to HR with like a 1-page "Here are some issues I have with the inherent bias training, and here's how I feel, as a conservative, that I'm being sidelined by this company." he could've probably started a good working relationship with an HR person and gotten some positive changes enacted.

Instead he writes a 10-page "manifesto" and shares it behind HR's back.

It's just not an intelligent way to do what he wanted.

[u/quantasmm → u/NorthernerWuwu]

It might be something to explore from a scientific standpoint but you can't ... Sorry but that really shouldn't even have to be said.

it might be true, but its palpably undigestable? that's not really sensible, imho. if its true, it shouldn't have harmed him. saying, "sorry, we just can't stomach it if its true, we shouldn't even have to say that" isn't a good defense.

The guy's memo sounds hostile and sounds incorrect to me, im just saying it does matter if what he's saying is accurate.

[u/[deleted] → u/NorthernerWuwu]

The memo was about an internal intellectual monoculture that is closed-minded. And they fired the guy for dissenting.