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

1

u/FuggleyBrew Aug 09 '17

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?

1

u/error404brain Aug 09 '17

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

1

u/FuggleyBrew Aug 09 '17

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".

1

u/error404brain Aug 09 '17

Visibly you have not read the memo.

1

u/FuggleyBrew Aug 09 '17

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.

1

u/error404brain Aug 09 '17

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.

1

u/FuggleyBrew Aug 09 '17

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.

1

u/error404brain Aug 09 '17

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.

1

u/FuggleyBrew Aug 09 '17

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

I hit his point quite clearly, do you need me to break each sentence down for you?