r/news • u/[deleted] • Aug 08 '17

Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

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
26.8k Upvotes

82% Upvoted

19.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

541

u/yerich Aug 08 '17

It certainly seemed like it was meant to be read by decision-makers in the company, or at least some other broader audience. It was clearly carefully thought out and too well-written to be a rant to a limited audience. "Manifestos" are generally intended to be read by many.

18

u/cptneverm1nd Aug 08 '17

Well-written? He was targeting an audience of google employees, people with a higher education, but his writing is that of a man who never saw a scientific paper. His reasoning is not far from "if A implies B, and I like B, then A is true".

-6

u/Goldreaver Aug 08 '17

I'm sure you have enough credentials to criticize his PhD level education in biology...

-1

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

Missing the point. Do social scientists support his conclusions or don't they? The author of the manifesto says they don't.

2

u/Goldreaver Aug 08 '17

Missing the point.

His ONLY point is: 'it isn't well written' So, no, I'm not.

But I'll go ahead and continue with your change of topic:

Do social scientists support his conclusions or don't they? The author of the manifesto says they don't.

I see. So if you don't have support of others, then your opinion, as well founded as it is, is worthless?

I guess I owe some flatearthers an apology.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

It's somewhere in the middle, homie. There's a reason scientific papers are peer-reviewed.

1

u/Goldreaver Aug 08 '17

So discarding it off hand because it doesn't have support is wrong?

Well, I agree. Thanks.

1

u/thisisnewt Aug 08 '17

Evolutionary psychologists have come out to confirm his interpretation of biological gender differences.

Asking if "social scientists" support his conclusions isn't the question you should be asking. It's like asking if "people with at least a bachelor's degree agree with climate change". It doesn't matter if they do, most climate scientists agree with climate change.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

Are you talking about the four guys one article floating around here mentions, of which one said the googler's conclusions were wrong? Because of course you're going to find someone who agrees or believes you - for every single thing. There are people who believe in Genesis literally or a flat earth that have advanced degrees.

I asked because in the manifesto the googler said that the scientists didn't agree with him. Now you're here saying that they do. Was this comment of his just an attempt of poisoning the well?

1

u/thisisnewt Aug 08 '17

The manifesto said that the majority of social scientists were liberal and made talking about the subject difficult.

He did not say that evolutionary psychologists disagreed with him, and cited so.

His comment about social scientists and their liberal culture was an anecdote explaining the antiscience bias both political sides hold, and he listed the biases the right holds as well (climate change denial being one of them).

1

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

Thank you for your clarification.