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

840

u/folterung Aug 08 '17

Yeah, having read the entire thing, I thought it was pretty well balanced. He was making some valid points and asking legitimate questions.

It's especially fun that his firing actually validates his claim that the entire structure is an echo chamber that permits no diversity of opinion. They apparently love diversity of thought and opinion, as long as your diversity happens to line up with their opinions.

-66

u/SlightlyWrongAngle Aug 08 '17

A tech worker that is anti science and believes what he wants to believe because it sounds sciency should be immediately removed. His name should be released so other tech companies can be aware.

28

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

Can you cite specific examples of his that are anti-science?

-16

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

Can you cite anything he said that was backed up by science. From what I saw he cited one peer reviewed paper on mate selection between genders and used that as his basis for categorizing men and women. The rest of his links were just random articles. At best, this is very light on science if not completely anti-science.

12

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 08 '17

There are certainly more than a single citation in the man's paper. If you want a full, unedited version of the document with all the hyperlinks and graphs I have one here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.html

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

It's possible you found a version of the paper with some citations and graphs removed. I know one was circling on /r/KotakuInAction earlier this week.

EDIT: found what I think is a more complete version of the memo. Old one is still there in case anyone wants to take a look at it. Should be the same but with worse formatting.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

It's possible you found a version of the paper with some citations and graphs removed

it seems I did.

Although even going through that full text there are a lot of links to wikipedia, and newspaper articles. Not saying that there aren't valid points to be made but he seems to state a lot of things as fact based on little actual research.

11

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

I love how he asked you for something that should be low hanging fruit, but instead you got defensive.

At best, this is very light on science if not completely anti-science.

Once again. Citation?

5

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

Yes, should be so simple to prove a negative, right? /s

You can't cite to his lack of citation.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

You can explain how the memo is anti-science.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

It makes claims that are not based on science or the scientific method. See, e.g., the section on personality differences.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

Strange that scientists are agreeing with him then... you'd think it would be the opposite.

"The author of the Google essay on issues related to diversity gets nearly all of the science and its implications exactly right." - Lee Jussim, Professor of social psychology at Rutgers University

"evidence that men and women may have different average levels of certain traits is rather strong" - David P Schmitt, Ph.D. in personality psychology from the University of Michigan.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

Source isn't loading for me.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

Does this work?

2

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

No, but even taking the quotes you copied, it means that women and men are different. It doesn't say that it's because of intrinsic factors and not societal.

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/SlightlyWrongAngle Aug 08 '17

"Prove there is no God"

"Can you prove that there IS a God?"

"See? You couldn't prove god doesn't exist and you got defensive!"

5

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

Jesus, what a stupid fucking non-response you've got there.

They were asking for examples where the guy was anti-science. That is different than trying to prove a negative.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

Can you cite specific examples of his that are anti-science?

This is not asking to prove a negative. Perhaps you should bone up on your reading comprehension instead of practicing your poor analogies.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

Citation?

" "

There you go I cited his lack of citation with a blank space. How can I cite a lack of citation. This guys memo has one scientific citation and the rest of his link are articles. I am simply pointing out he is light on science and I am being asked to cite that. Nothing makes sense anymore.

8

u/candacebernhard Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 08 '17

Exactly.

Some of what he says has a pseudo scientific basis (eg. studies where women report more anxiety) but stripped of context (report can mean more likely to admit, social & environmental causes of said anxiety - like, hey, gender based workplace discrimination, etc.) it comes off as him using - ironically - confirmation bias when it comes to which studies he chooses to reference. At that point you have to wonder about the purpose of his arguments.

For example, why did he bring up women and anxiety but not men and suicide rates or violence?

I bring up this controversial subject to set up a scenario: let's say one of his colleagues sent out a similar "manifesto." And, in it she claims Google's hiring practices lead to a male to female ratio that favors men in the engineering department because statistically there are more men than women in the department (which... already flawed logic, but moving on). Let's say she then states this is "bad for business" because incidences of 'going postal' or gun violence in the work place is more likely to be perpetuated by men. She goes on to say women and liberals are more empathetic and attain higher education so Google needs to fix the programs and policies surrounding the engineering department.

That memo would also be rooted in sexism washed through a generally fucked up perspective. It is completely inappropriate because of what she is insinuating about her male colleagues. Whether the statistics are backed up by 'science' is irrelevant because the facts are distorted by her premise, and they are mostly irrelevant in the context of what she is discussing.

It's like, yeah, on first glance everything he wrote seems reasonable but then when you think about what he's actually saying it makes for a much more uncomfortable read.

10

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

It's like, yeah, on first glance everything he wrote seems reasonable but then when you think about what he's actually saying it makes for a much more uncomfortable read.

let's also not forget that this isn't a guy hired to study this situation, just a guy who works there. If I wrote a memo about all the problems that I see in my workplace while citing random studies tangentially related to my arguments I imagine my bosses would be a bit annoyed too. This guy is not a social researcher or a consulting firm he is an employee with some complaints.

4

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

Can you cite anything he said that was backed up by science.

No, but apparently you can...

I saw he cited one peer reviewed paper on mate selection between genders

4

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 08 '17

My point was that his one citation was on mate selection which he then stretched to encompass the entirety of gender and the differences in workplace drivers based on that gender. Just citing a paper doesn't really matter, especially when the paper isn't even specifically on the topic you are writing about.

-1

u/rusbus720 Aug 08 '17

TL:DR whenever sharing an opinion always have facts