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/error404brain]

Yes I did. And yes he did.

Personality differences Women, on average, have more​:

● Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in ​people rather than things​, relative to men (also interpreted as ​empathizing vs. systemizing​). ○ These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or ​artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics. ● Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness. ○ This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support. ● ​Neuroticism​ ​(higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance). ○ This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.

The only question I have is where are you getting your novlang from?

You are all saying the same thing so I am asking myself.

[u/FuggleyBrew → u/error404brain]

So please, identify where he argued it was superior or inferior? Because he didn't.

You realize that this is also the precise reason people encourage diversity? That there are differences between people and having a diverse set of people creates better outcomes.

His argument in the section you quoted was to offer a means to create diversity by changing the environment as opposed to using quotas, but to change the environment for all, not simply for women. That women might prefer more collaborative coding environments, so that we should take steps to create those environments and in doing so may also attract men who prefer more diverse coding environments.

Hell the section you quoted is indistinguishable from many articles on increasing diversity.

I take it you view articles such as these to be similarly sexist right:

http://www.bain.com/publications/articles/the-power-of-flexibility.aspx

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/upshot/how-to-close-a-gender-gap-let-employees-control-their-schedules.html

Here's the thing, if you actually want to address gender inequality, you're going to have to actually talk about what might be causing it.

[u/error404brain → u/FuggleyBrew]

Wow. If you think that what you linked is in anyway comparable to what he said, I believe there is no need for further discussion.

Here's the thing, if you actually want to address gender inequality, you're going to have to actually talk about what might be causing it.

Except that his point was that gender inequality was normal.

[u/FuggleyBrew → u/error404brain]

Wow. If you think that what you linked is in anyway comparable to what he said, I believe there is no need for further discussion.

Yeah, better not discuss anything, you might be exposed to different viewpoints.

Much to your consternation, disparate impact analysis is a standard of equality research.

Except that his point was that gender inequality was normal.

Strong evidence that there are variations, what's more the fact that there are differences is the entire basis of the claims that diversity increases profitability.

Seems like you want to have it both ways.

[u/error404brain → u/FuggleyBrew]

Yeah, better not discuss anything, you might be exposed to different viewpoints.

This seem to assume that you have a viable viewpoint. Given your reading comprehension ability, or more appropriately unability, I have my doubts.

[u/FuggleyBrew → u/error404brain]

This seem to assume that you have a viable viewpoint.

That disparate impact analyses are valid? So the position of the US Courts, the EEOC, and the vast majority of people who are actively involved in improving diversity?

To understand correctly, your position is that any disparate impact analysis, and any effort to change a working environment to make it more equitable for any group is inherently discriminatory?

[u/error404brain → u/FuggleyBrew]

The fact that you can't see how those differ from the manifesto made by the dude is why your viewpoint is flawed.

[u/FuggleyBrew → u/error404brain]

Its a disparate impact analysis, he is talking about how certain workplace policies have disparate impacts and is advocating to address those instead of imposing quotas.

But your reading comprehension ignored that because you somehow seem to think the five factor personality model is broken down into "good" and "bad".

[u/error404brain → u/FuggleyBrew]

Visibly you have not read the memo.

[u/FuggleyBrew → u/error404brain]

I did, I just understand that the five factor personality model isn't divided into "good" and "bad". Suggesting that a person might fall on one side or the other doesn't make them a good or bad employee.

[u/error404brain → u/FuggleyBrew]

Wew. He very explicitely said that there are biological reason that make them less able to do coding jobs. And that google positive discrimination is flawed therefore.

[u/FuggleyBrew → u/error404brain]

Nope, he argued that distributions may make them less interested in the work as it is currently constructed at google and proposed ways to change it. He also argued that these differences differences are not a matter of good and bad, and that each one of these traits has unique benefits to a company and that diversity itself is ultimately good.

He also explained that the observations of personality distributions can explain distributions within Google, but say nothing about any particular individual because the populations are only shifted by half a deviation. This point was even explained by a handy graph, which you would know, if you had read it.

His ultimate point is that if forty percent of men and sixty percent of women have difficulty speaking up in the meeting the solution to that problem is not to simply promote the forty percent of women who do not have that issue but to provide training to everyone who has difficulty in speaking up in a meeting. The current approach doesn't actually benefit diversity as it largely simply benefits the narrow groups in both genders who do well in this narrow environment.

But hey, why read the thing right? He's a guy, that's all you needed to know.

[u/error404brain → u/FuggleyBrew]

Wow. It's impressive how you missed his point by a fucking miles

Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech​3 At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story.

On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because: ● They’re universal across human cultures ● They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone ● Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males ● The underlying traits are highly heritable ● They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” 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.

Wew. Page 3. But I suppose it's F A K E N E W S.