Page 45 of 80 FirstFirst ...
35
43
44
45
46
47
55
... LastLast
  1. #881
    Quote Originally Posted by Livnthedream View Post
    "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.
    what's worse is that even those four scientists were silenced...the site hosting their review of the original memo was DDOSed big time.

  2. #882
    Quote Originally Posted by spanishninja View Post
    what's worse is that even those four scientists were silenced...the site hosting their review of the original memo was DDOSed big time.
    The individual stories printed in other outlets weren't. What I think is particularly hilarious is all of these #ListenToWomen people shitting all over the woman that came to his defense.

  3. #883
    The Lightbringer fengosa's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Canada, Eh
    Posts
    3,612
    Quote Originally Posted by Archmage BloodElf4Life View Post
    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/
    Some of his claims are documented, others aren't. For example he claims there is

    A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates

    but doesn't provide specifics at all beyond that bullet point. He also makes complains about conservative views being suppressed but provides no evidence of that at all.

  4. #884
    Quote Originally Posted by fengosa View Post
    Some of his claims are documented, others aren't. For example he claims there is

    A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates

    but doesn't provide specifics at all beyond that bullet point. He also makes complains about conservative views being suppressed but provides no evidence of that at all.
    Probably because it was an internal memo, and those who are in company would know to what he was referring. Though that second part is rather obvious given the entirety of how this was handled.

  5. #885
    Funny how we pass so many laws to prevent companies from discriminating against employees for religion, skin color, sex/gender, etc. etc, but when it comes to political or personal views people are suddenly okay with a large corporation pushing around the little guy. I personally didn't find anything wrong with the memo. Was he given prior warning? If not then this is pretty ridiculous.
    Last edited by Speaker; 2017-08-09 at 04:59 AM.

  6. #886
    Quote Originally Posted by fengosa View Post
    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.


    According to the CEO he wasn't fired for "Improper Conclusions from the data."



    Email bits from the CEO

    "However, portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace."


    "To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK"



    "to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination.”


    "The memo has clearly impacted our co-workers, some of whom are hurting and feel judged based on their gender. "




    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Those were the main parts to why the author was fired, and had nothing to do with "conclusions from improper data." Also, to my knowledge, there has not been anything mentioned from anyone at Google that he was fired based solely off of "Conclusions from improper data." Also, the CEO not one time refuted his data outright and went right to the big words of "Code of Conduct."




    Source link from the above quotes

    http://fortune.com/2017/08/08/google...pichai-letter/
    Last edited by jibberbox85; 2017-08-09 at 05:02 AM.

  7. #887
    The Lightbringer fengosa's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Canada, Eh
    Posts
    3,612
    Quote Originally Posted by spanishninja View Post
    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)?
    This is largely irrelevant. I don't think googles should have a 50-50% gender split if the field they work in is skewed towards males.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by jibberbox85 View Post
    According to the CEO he wasn't fired for "Improper Conclusions from the data."



    Email bits from the CEO

    "However, portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace."


    "To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK"

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Those were the main parts to why the author was fired, and had nothing to do with "conclusions from improper data." Also, to my knowledge, there has not been anything mentioned from anyone at Google that he was fired based solely off of "Conclusions from improper data." Also, the CEO not one time refuted his data outright and, went right to the big words of "Code of Conduct."




    Source link from the above quotes

    http://fortune.com/2017/08/08/google...pichai-letter/
    That's the important bit. He reached an improper conclusion from the data he provided to suit his own bias and perpetuate a negative stereotype. He violated their code of conduct and it's not OK because he tried to use false reasoning to do so.

  8. #888
    Quote Originally Posted by Boomzy View Post
    It's still hilarious to me that women are counted as minorities when they are 51% of the population.
    You're including white women. Those are only partial minorities.

  9. #889
    The Lightbringer fengosa's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Canada, Eh
    Posts
    3,612
    Quote Originally Posted by Livnthedream View Post
    Probably because it was an internal memo, and those who are in company would know to what he was referring. Though that second part is rather obvious given the entirety of how this was handled.
    Fair enough, I noticed one of the links was to a google group I didn't have access to so who knows whats been said there.

  10. #890
    The Lightbringer fengosa's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Canada, Eh
    Posts
    3,612
    Quote Originally Posted by Speaker View Post
    Funny how we pass so many laws to prevent companies from discriminating against employees for religion, skin color, sex/gender, etc. etc, but when it comes to political or personal views people are suddenly okay with a large corporation pushing around the little guy. I personally didn't find anything wrong with the memo. Was he given prior warning? If not then this is pretty ridiculous.
    Political opinion isn't the issue here. He wasn't fired for being conservative or voting for a specific person.

    I'm not going to argue whether or not what he said was proper. I think people are pretty stuck on that but this thing will probably go to court so we'll see there.

    Edit - actually there's a pretty good chance this thing gets settled before it goes that far.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Boomzy View Post
    I wish we could live in a country where people were not judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

    Guess I'm just an alt-right neo-nazi :'(
    So what your take on his statement that woman are more prone to anxiety than men? Sure, he provided evidence that this occurs in the general population but is it fair to apply that standard to woman as a whole? I think the individuals should be judged on experiences such as in school, the workplace or the interview process.
    Last edited by fengosa; 2017-08-09 at 05:16 AM.

  11. #891
    Quote Originally Posted by Boomzy View Post
    I wish we could live in a country where people were not judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

    Guess I'm just an alt-right neo-nazi :'(
    Impossible. What skin color you are matters more than who you are as a person. If it didn't, the privelege argument crumbles and all those years of telling gays, women and minorities they are special just for existing would be invalidated.

  12. #892
    Quote Originally Posted by fengosa View Post
    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.
    More like a patient comes in with a gunshot wound and an 18th century doctor steps up and says "We have to amputate the leg before the gangrene sets in!", meanwhile the author is trying to explain how you can extract the bullet and disinfect the wound....

  13. #893
    Quote Originally Posted by fengosa View Post
    Political opinion isn't the issue here. He wasn't fired for being conservative or voting for a specific person.

    I'm not going to argue whether or not what he said was proper. I think people are pretty stuck on that but this thing will probably go to court so we'll see there.
    He was fired for having his own opinion and letting others know. His opinion didn't line up with his bosses so they ousted him. It's terrible. I would understand if they told him what to write in the memo and he went against that, or that he had been warned prior. But there isn't any indication of that. The reasons for firing him are extremely shaky, and I don't think they will hold up in court.

  14. #894
    Quote Originally Posted by fengosa View Post
    So what your take on his statement that woman are more prone to anxiety than men? Sure, he provided evidence that this occurs in the general population but is it fair to apply that standard to woman as a whole? I think the individuals should be judged on experiences such as in school, the workplace or the interview process.
    The population as a whole is where they're trying to recruit from though. This is about initiatives meant to get women into tech that previously weren't, not recruiting from an already existing population of STEM women.

  15. #895
    Quote Originally Posted by fengosa View Post
    This is largely irrelevant. I don't think googles should have a 50-50% gender split if the field they work in is skewed towards males.

    - - - Updated - - -



    That's the important bit. He reached an improper conclusion from the data he provided to suit his own bias and perpetuate a negative stereotype. He violated their code of conduct and it's not OK because he tried to use false reasoning to do so.

    If you believe that he came to an improper conclusion based off the data he pulled please feel free to debunk it. Also, I've yet to have seen anything from Google stating that he was fired due to an, 'Improper conclusion from the data."
    Last edited by jibberbox85; 2017-08-09 at 05:46 AM.

  16. #896
    The Lightbringer fengosa's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Canada, Eh
    Posts
    3,612
    Quote Originally Posted by Speaker View Post
    He was fired for having his own opinion and letting others know. His opinion didn't line up with his bosses so they ousted him. It's terrible. I would understand if they told him what to write in the memo and he went against that, or that he had been warned prior. But there isn't any indication of that. The reasons for firing him are extremely shaky, and I don't think they will hold up in court.
    That's not what happened. As far as not getting warning he likely signed off or acknowledged the terms of his code of conduct which means he had be been briefed on acceptable behaviour in the workplace. Further, if they are citing workplace discrimination as the reason for firing him than the legal standard is typical whether he reasonable should have known that his comments were decisive and unwelcomed.

  17. #897
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    36,799
    Considering how google has been the biggest innovator of technology for the last couple of decades, I find it funny that people are whining that they're hiring certain people "just to fill a quota". Apparently the people they hire for diversity's sake are FAR more qualified than most think.

    But I get it, people see diversity pushes and think companies are hiring dunces. It's just that this almost never turns out to be true, and the people they hire are perfectly qualified.

    I also get a chuckle from the fact that so many of the people who are bitching about this, are the same people who whenever a business fucks over a customer or employee because they're gay (or whatever other form of discrimination the deplorables think is perfectly fine), are now super dooper pissed. Whatever happened to "the free market will fix it!" I take it that line is only valid when discriminating against gays and minorities?
    2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
    2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"

  18. #898
    Quote Originally Posted by fengosa View Post
    That's the important bit. He reached an improper conclusion from the data he provided to suit his own bias and perpetuate a negative stereotype. He violated their code of conduct and it's not OK because he tried to use false reasoning to do so.
    Except that statement is libelous, the author did not reach this conclusion about any Google employees. The closest it gets is "traits which make people inclined to work in the current tech culture occur less often in females"

  19. #899
    The Lightbringer fengosa's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Canada, Eh
    Posts
    3,612
    Quote Originally Posted by Aurrora View Post
    The population as a whole is where they're trying to recruit from though. This is about initiatives meant to get women into tech that previously weren't, not recruiting from an already existing population of STEM women.
    I disagree. Google hire top level people in a tech heavy field. Drawing conclusions about that subset of people from the general public is likely to be problematic.

  20. #900
    Quote Originally Posted by Jedi Batman View Post
    Considering how google has been the biggest innovator of technology for the last couple of decades,
    Which is meaningless when the pushes have really only been in the last ~5 years. With thing like the $500m they are throwing at 'diversity initiatives'.

    I also get a chuckle from the fact that so many of the people who are bitching about this, are the same people who whenever a business fucks over a customer or employee because they're gay (or whatever other form of discrimination the deplorables think is perfectly fine), are now super dooper pissed. Whatever happened to "the free market will fix it!" I take it that line is only valid when discriminating against gays and minorities?
    Such as? I gotta know if there are some specific hypocrites you have in mind or whether this is just a piss poor attempt to virtue signal/poison the well.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •