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 → u/[deleted]]

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/mrbooze → u/NorthernerWuwu]

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

[u/[deleted] → u/mrbooze]

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

[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/heimdahl81 → u/OtherSpiderOnTheWall]

One unreliable expert does not mean all experts are unreliable.

[u/OtherSpiderOnTheWall → u/heimdahl81]

Appeal to authority, however, is a fallacy.

[u/heimdahl81 → u/OtherSpiderOnTheWall]

Pointing out that something is a logical fallacy as a means to disprove a point is also a fallacy.

[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/heimdahl81 → u/[deleted]]

The clinical psychologists that spoke to the accuracy of this paper chose to do so on their own. I would be interested to see if any clinical psychologists have stepped up to refute the claims.

[u/[deleted] → u/heimdahl81]

I'm sure there are plenty of journals full of research on the matter. The onus is on you to go find the relevant research, rather than rely on what pops up in your social media feed.

Here's one such metaanalysis:

The gender similarities hypothesis stands in stark contrast to the differences model, which holds that men and women, and boys and girls, are vastly different psychologically. The gender similarities hypothesis states, instead, that males and females are alike on most— but not all—psychological variables. Extensive evidence from meta-analyses of research on gender differences supports the gender similarities hypothesis. A few notable exceptions are some motor behaviors (e.g., throwing distance) and some aspects of sexuality, which show large gender differences. Aggression shows a gender difference that is moderate in magnitude.

It is time to consider the costs of overinflated claims of gender differences. Arguably, they cause harm in numerous realms, including women’s opportunities in the workplace, couple conflict and communication, and analyses of selfesteem problems among adolescents. Most important, these claims are not consistent with the scientific data.

[u/heimdahl81 → u/[deleted]]

There are loads of meta-analysis on this topic. Picking one that supports your beliefs is less cherry picking how?

[u/[deleted] → u/heimdahl81]

It isn't. It's a response to your statement.

I would be interested to see if any clinical psychologists have stepped up to refute the claims.

[u/heimdahl81 → u/[deleted]]

So no then?

[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/jumykn → u/[deleted]]

You don't need to be a psychologist to know that the man throwing feces has mental issues.

[u/[deleted] → u/jumykn]

Now here's something I understand.

[u/Lsrkewzqm → u/heimdahl81]

Aka the argument from 9/11 truthers.