Google fires diversity critic

[helebelemon]

Are you trying to prove you didn't do any source checking or any reading of the source material?
Because everything I mentioned is easily available for anyone on the public parts of the internet.

I think this is really the problem here or what causes these huge divides between people.

You shouldn't just form an opinion based on reading the title of an article and some hasty conclusions and one-liner generalized feelings you have on a subject.

No, this isn't about a man who is against diversity.
No, this isn't about a man who criticized his company.
No, this isn't about a man who said women are inferior to men.

This is about a guy who said diversity is great and preferred, but that people should think about how they seek to approach that - and then an entire mob of blue haired screeching lunatics crying they can't go to work because of 'violence' and being attacked by an opinion on social media because someone dared to have a nuanced opinion on social studies.

This is literally the hallmark of a mentally ill society.

Intriguingly unrelated response. I'm asking you to provide internal G+ convos for the sake of Google perspective. No clue why you're so defensive about it.

Why? Because you're a Google employee. I've seen some from colleagues and they're actually quite defensive of his right to speak.

[Livnthedream]

It's rather interesting to read the reactions to this particular document, most people don't even want to entertain a discussion of any of the data that backs some of what he says (even if he didn't select the best way to say it).

Having said that:


[/FONT][/COLOR]
if diversity was as much of a problem for Google as the company apparently claims, they could easily resolve it within their own walls. If they aren't actually carrying that out, then they're just full of shit, and pushing platitudes. Let's take a look!

Name	Board Relationships	Title	Age
Sundar Pichai	12 Relationships	Chief Executive Officer	44
Sergey Brin	12 Relationships	Co-Founder, Director and President of Alphabet	43
Lawrence Edward Page	23 Relationships	Co-Founder, Director and Chief Executive Officer of Alphabet	44
Eric E. Schmidt Ph.D.	197 Relationships	Executive Chairman	61
Ruth M. Porat	47 Relationships	Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President	59
Philipp Schindler	No Relationships	Senior Vice President of Global Sales and Operations	--
Lino Cattaruzzi	No Relationships	Managing Director of Middle East and North Africa	--
Willa Chalmers	No Relationships	Head of gTech Finance	--
Fuencisla Clemares	No Relationships	Managing Director for Spain & Portugal	--
John Giannandrea	25 Relationships	Senior Vice President for Search	--
Diane B. Greene	40 Relationships	Senior Vice President of Enterprise Business and Director	62
Ronan A. Harris	5 Relationships	Managing Director for the UK & Ireland	45
Hiroshi Lockheimer	No Relationships	Senior Vice President for Android, Chrome and Chromecast	--
Fionnuala Meehan	No Relationships	Head of Site for Dublin Based Office Facility	--
Neal Mohan	No Relationships	Senior Vice President	--
Kent Walker	10 Relationships	Senior Vice President and General Counsel	56

Only 5 out of 16 are women. Weird!

Here is there overall demographics too

[jibberbox85]

It's rather interesting to read the reactions to this particular document, most people don't even want to entertain a discussion of any of the data that backs some of what he says (even if he didn't select the best way to say it).

Having said that:


[/FONT][/COLOR]
if diversity was as much of a problem for Google as the company apparently claims, they could easily resolve it within their own walls. If they aren't actually carrying that out, then they're just full of shit, and pushing platitudes. Let's take a look!

Name	Board Relationships	Title	Age
Sundar Pichai	12 Relationships	Chief Executive Officer	44
Sergey Brin	12 Relationships	Co-Founder, Director and President of Alphabet	43
Lawrence Edward Page	23 Relationships	Co-Founder, Director and Chief Executive Officer of Alphabet	44
Eric E. Schmidt Ph.D.	197 Relationships	Executive Chairman	61
Ruth M. Porat	47 Relationships	Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President	59
Philipp Schindler	No Relationships	Senior Vice President of Global Sales and Operations	--
Lino Cattaruzzi	No Relationships	Managing Director of Middle East and North Africa	--
Willa Chalmers	No Relationships	Head of gTech Finance	--
Fuencisla Clemares	No Relationships	Managing Director for Spain & Portugal	--
John Giannandrea	25 Relationships	Senior Vice President for Search	--
Diane B. Greene	40 Relationships	Senior Vice President of Enterprise Business and Director	62
Ronan A. Harris	5 Relationships	Managing Director for the UK & Ireland	45
Hiroshi Lockheimer	No Relationships	Senior Vice President for Android, Chrome and Chromecast	--
Fionnuala Meehan	No Relationships	Head of Site for Dublin Based Office Facility	--
Neal Mohan	No Relationships	Senior Vice President	--
Kent Walker	10 Relationships	Senior Vice President and General Counsel	56

Only 5 out of 16 are women. Weird!

Give them credit where credit is due. It's much more fun to talk/enforce "diversity" at the lower end of the spectrum.

[Barnabas]

If you are unaware, a few days ago there was a controversy sweeping Twitter regarding a leaked internal memo written by a Google engineer who wrote a manifesto complaining about Google's efforts to increase diversity in its workforce.

The employee complained that conservatives were either ignored or ridiculed, that there is a liberal bias and that women are biologically unsuitable for certain technical roles. This created a shit storm with Google's vice president for diversity (seriously) condemning the memo telling employees that these views will not be tolerated and the author of the document would be tracked down and disciplined.

Right wing bloggers were outraged saying the author is entitled to view his opinions regardless of how controversial they are. The author was being held up as a hero of free speech and anti PC.

Of course Google tracked down the author and promptly fired him. So much for free speech and freedom of views. Diversity is not diversity when everyone has to sing from the same song sheet and individual thought is forbidden.

Story here:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...diversity-memo

Full story backdrop here:
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/08/e...lly-at-google/

Adding direct link to manifesto:
http://diversitymemo.com/
(thanks Archmage BloodElf4Life)

Kinda goes without saying how easy it for google to track you.

[Grapemask]

Now that I actually have time to read this thing, I see that it's pretty much exactly what I had said earlier in the thread, when I was mentioning the centuries of fallacious 'science' employed to rationalize discriminatory behavior. Just because it speaks scientifically, doesn't rage with hate, and cites sources, does not mean it is an accurate representation of anything.

For starters, he provides sources for trivial information - such as the differences in values of genders - but then comes to a conclusion for which he provides no data to support. More criminally, he follows these trivial bits each and every time with much more important assertions (the actual workings of the female mind, as well as neuroticism), but provides no source at all while again providing a conclusion that is now doubly-damned by both a lack of source for his claim and a lack of supporting evidence for that conclusion.

I'm not even going to touch that a significant number of his sources are Wikipedia, that at least two sources that I checked were opinion articles, that another two came from deeply conservative news outlets that severely misrepresented their headlined claim, or even that one did not appear to have anything to do with the paragraph he introduced it in other than to deceptively suggest he has a supported and valid point (alright, I suppose this technically counts as touching on these things).

Does any of this mean he's wrong? Not necessarily. I would suggest that, just from my own research that I've had to do in the past, the paragraphs where he is suspiciously lacking a cited source for very large leaps are likely lacking because evidence directly refutes his claims - for example, as it's still on hand from another post where I mentioned it, Harvard researchers found that women don't negotiate not because of some sociological need to be "agreeable" or "gregarious," but because they are actually punished by male superiors for doing so at a significantly higher rate than men.

What it does mean is that yeah, while the left has perhaps demonized the document a bit more than it deserved, the right has praised it far, far, far more than it deserves as well. It's an opinion piece trying hard to present itself as more. This would've gotten a C at best in a college foundational writing class based on his source work; it would've utterly failed if it was presented as an argumentative term paper.

[Livnthedream]

Remember kids, only Silicon Valley is biased.

[spanishninja]

Now that I actually have time to read this thing, I see that it's pretty much exactly what I had said earlier in the thread, when I was mentioning the centuries of fallacious 'science' employed to rationalize discriminatory behavior. Just because it speaks scientifically, doesn't rage with hate, and cites sources, does not mean it is an accurate representation of anything.

For starters, he provides sources for trivial information - such as the differences in values of genders - but then comes to a conclusion for which he provides no data to support. More criminally, he follows these trivial bits each and every time with much more important assertions (the actual workings of the female mind, as well as neuroticism), but provides no source at all while again providing a conclusion that is now doubly-damned by both a lack of source for his claim and a lack of supporting evidence for that conclusion.

I'm not even going to touch that a significant number of his sources are Wikipedia, that at least two sources that I checked were opinion articles, that another two came from deeply conservative news outlets that severely misrepresented their headlined claim, or even that one did not appear to have anything to do with the paragraph he introduced it in other than to deceptively suggest he has a supported and valid point (alright, I suppose this technically counts as touching on these things).

Does any of this mean he's wrong? Not necessarily. I would suggest that, just from my own research that I've had to do in the past, the paragraphs where he is suspiciously lacking a cited source for very large leaps are likely lacking because evidence directly refutes his claims - for example, as it's still on hand from another post where I mentioned it, Harvard researchers found that women don't negotiate not because of some sociological need to be "agreeable" or "gregarious," but because they are actually punished by male superiors for doing so at a significantly higher rate than men.

What it does mean is that yeah, while the left has perhaps demonized the document a bit more than it deserved, the right has praised it far, far, far more than it deserves as well. It's an opinion piece trying hard to present itself as more. This would've gotten a C at best in a college foundational writing class based on his source work; it would've utterly failed if it was presented as an argumentative term paper.

Judging from someone who didn't think he should have been fired, I do believe he should have focused more on differences in career preference rather than aptitude between men and women. It's clear that an motivated enough individual, regardless of what he/she is told they are suitable to do, will inevitably work toward their career of choice. The real question is why do women have a tendency on average to CHOOSE different occupations and fields of study than men, because that is an observation that is clearly true.

[fengosa]

to use an analogy to more clearly explain this, let's say you are an ER doctor and a gunshot victim gets brought in. You clearly see that there is a bullet in the dude's leg. But you also notice that he has another life threatening condition that had gone unnoticed previously. You note to the other doctors "hey, I don't think it's enough to just treat the bullet wound, we have to look at this other condition as well", and you get fired for it. How would you feel about this?

In this case, the problem we have is lack of diversity. Popular opinion suggests that only sexism is involved. This engineer noticed that there are other contributing factors. Instead of castigating him for it, or even worse, misrepresenting what he said as "denying sexism", Google should have been curious to learn what those other factors are, if they were truly interested in actually solving the bigger issue. But nope, they did not.

This is a horrible analogy.

The authors point was more like the patient might die from a genetic disorder so we shouldn't treat the wound at all. He overemphasized the genetic differences between men and women but failed to point out the social problems that may also occur to diversity bias in the workplace. The thing is you can't change the biological differences while you can change the social bias so the thing you can change is what you should focus on.

There is an actual argument that the workforce is skewed towards males and employee representation shouldn't be proportional. Trying to rationalize between personality traits between sexes is what got him in trouble along with his conservative victim syndrome of which he provided no documented evidence.

[spanishninja]

This is a horrible analogy.

The authors point was more like the patient might die from a genetic disorder so we shouldn't treat the wound at all. He overemphasized the genetic differences between men and women but failed to point out the social problems that may also occur to diversity bias in the workplace. The thing is you can't change the biological differences while you can change the social bias so the thing you can change is what you should focus on.

There is an actual argument that the workforce is skewed towards males and employee representation shouldn't be proportional. Trying to rationalize between personality traits between sexes is what got him in trouble along with his conservative victim syndrome of which he provided no documented evidence.

I don't think the author mentioned anything about doing away with diversity hiring at all. He simply suggested supplementing it with other factors that will also help to address disparities.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

This is a horrible analogy.

The authors point was more like the patient might die from a genetic disorder so we shouldn't treat the wound at all. He overemphasized the genetic differences between men and women but failed to point out the social problems that may also occur to diversity bias in the workplace. The thing is you can't change the biological differences while you can change the social bias so the thing you can change is what you should focus on.

There is an actual argument that the workforce is skewed towards males and employee representation shouldn't be proportional. Trying to rationalize between personality traits between sexes is what got him in trouble along with his conservative victim syndrome of which he provided no documented evidence.

No. If you'd bother reading the text - original one, not gizmodo's - you'd see why your analogy is blatantly wrong.

The author's point is that the patient might die from a genetic disorder, but the medication he's taking is causing severe side effects that could become as threatening. He offers an alternative route which would gradually alleviate the symptoms over time.

Yes, he may not be entirely right with how he present the information, but the evidence is still there: the diversity issue cannot be fixed sorely through quotas. It hurts the employees and the company.

[fengosa]

Remember kids, only Silicon Valley is biased.

None of your infographics matter. There are clearly different representations of gender and race in a variety of fields. That doesn't excuse the author of the memo from perpetuating the stereotypes he did even if he tried to mask it behind passive aggressiveness.

He might as well have said "statistics show african americans are less education that the average person. In order to provide a non racist solution to this problem, we should dumb down the requirements for the job in general." which ironically enough the alt-right would have a field day if a progressive said this.

[Livnthedream]

The authors point was more like the patient might die from a genetic disorder so we shouldn't treat the wound at all.

That wasn't his point. But even if it were, so what? As Norway so blindingly shows we lack the understanding to 'fix' the so called problem, while currently doing "harm" with our attempts to. Unless you are actually stating that if you were that person in the emergency room with a gunshot that you care far more about the gender/skin color of the doctor treating you than their ability to save your life with as few complications as possible?

[fengosa]

No. If you'd bother reading the text - original one, not gizmodo's - you'd see why your analogy is blatantly wrong.

The author's point is that the patient might die from a genetic disorder, but the medication he's taking is causing severe side effects that could become as threatening. He offers an alternative route which would gradually alleviate the symptoms over time.

Yes, he may not be entirely right with how he present the information, but the evidence is still there: the diversity issue cannot be fixed sorely through quotas. It hurts the employees and the company.

If this is what the author is trying to claim he did a horrendous job of doing so. He provided no documented evidence of negative side effects.

[jibberbox85]

Hard to feel sorry for someone whose views on women would fit in more back in the 20s.

How were the views of women in the 20's? Also, how does it fit into what was mentioned in his memo?

[Livnthedream]

None of your infographics matter.

Data doesn't matter, only feelings!

That doesn't excuse the author of the memo from perpetuating the stereotypes

Who cares why things are the way they are, they must be changed because we said so!

He might as well have said "statistics show african americans are less education that the average person. In order to provide a non racist solution to this problem, we should dumb down the requirements for the job in general." which ironically enough the alt-right would have a field day if a progressive said this.

That is absolutely nothing like what he said. And if you actually listened to some alt Right sources you wouldn't be claiming that they were. You are coming awfully close to being ignorant to the point of stupidity.

[jibberbox85]

Now that I actually have time to read this thing, I see that it's pretty much exactly what I had said earlier in the thread, when I was mentioning the centuries of fallacious 'science' employed to rationalize discriminatory behavior. Just because it speaks scientifically, doesn't rage with hate, and cites sources, does not mean it is an accurate representation of anything.

For starters, he provides sources for trivial information - such as the differences in values of genders - but then comes to a conclusion for which he provides no data to support. More criminally, he follows these trivial bits each and every time with much more important assertions (the actual workings of the female mind, as well as neuroticism), but provides no source at all while again providing a conclusion that is now doubly-damned by both a lack of source for his claim and a lack of supporting evidence for that conclusion.

I'm not even going to touch that a significant number of his sources are Wikipedia, that at least two sources that I checked were opinion articles, that another two came from deeply conservative news outlets that severely misrepresented their headlined claim, or even that one did not appear to have anything to do with the paragraph he introduced it in other than to deceptively suggest he has a supported and valid point (alright, I suppose this technically counts as touching on these things).

Does any of this mean he's wrong? Not necessarily. I would suggest that, just from my own research that I've had to do in the past, the paragraphs where he is suspiciously lacking a cited source for very large leaps are likely lacking because evidence directly refutes his claims - for example, as it's still on hand from another post where I mentioned it, Harvard researchers found that women don't negotiate not because of some sociological need to be "agreeable" or "gregarious," but because they are actually punished by male superiors for doing so at a significantly higher rate than men.

What it does mean is that yeah, while the left has perhaps demonized the document a bit more than it deserved, the right has praised it far, far, far more than it deserves as well. It's an opinion piece trying hard to present itself as more. This would've gotten a C at best in a college foundational writing class based on his source work; it would've utterly failed if it was presented as an argumentative term paper.

His memo is in no way perfect, but also far from being sexist.

[spanishninja]

This is a horrible analogy.

The authors point was more like the patient might die from a genetic disorder so we shouldn't treat the wound at all. He overemphasized the genetic differences between men and women but failed to point out the social problems that may also occur to diversity bias in the workplace. The thing is you can't change the biological differences while you can change the social bias so the thing you can change is what you should focus on.

There is an actual argument that the workforce is skewed towards males and employee representation shouldn't be proportional. Trying to rationalize between personality traits between sexes is what got him in trouble along with his conservative victim syndrome of which he provided no documented evidence.

if you believe there are absolutely no biological factors that affect career choice, can you explain why practically every field in society has a disparity, some with a female bias? And do you feel that there's a need to correct every one of these disparities (e.g. more female garbagemen, male nurses and HR specialists, etc)?

[Zandalarian Paladin]

If this is what the author is trying to claim he did a horrendous job of doing so. He provided no documented evidence of negative side effects.

He did, repeatedly. For instance, his whole paragraph on "The Harm of Google's Biases", with at least three directly sourced claims.

The thing is that people would read and focus on some sentences, patch them together and then act as though they're what the memo meant. That's a lie. Or they'd read gizmodos, who's completely ommiting sources. This has the document in an almost original slate, and the document itself is available from that page: https://diversitymemo.com/

[fengosa]

Data doesn't matter, only feelings!

Data is important when it's relevant. He wasn't fired for provided data. He was fired for jumping to improper conclusions from that data.

[Livnthedream]

Data is important when it's relevant. He wasn't fired for provided data. He was fired for jumping to improper conclusions from that data.

"Improper" based on what? He is an actual scientist, with many other scientists coming out and stating that his conclusions weren't incorrect.

I always find it funny when the 'science' party is so horribly anti-science.