Google fires diversity critic

[spanishninja]

I dunno how many people work at google, but I'd need that and the number of women in programming for that argument to be worthwhile. Besides he's also arguing "your methods of finding and creating them are discriminatory" but if there aren't enough and you want more what are you supposed to do besides make it happen? There's an abundance of A and B, not enough C, we need to find more C and if we cant find them, train them. His argument is that finding training more C is discriminatory against A and B, but since the numbers arent equal how can it be. It'd only be if there was a similar number of applicants, and we already know there isnt so beyond A and B feel bad what's the argument?

The point is if there aren't enough QUALIFIED C and you want to just bring in as many Cs as you can find, even to the extent of relaxing the qualification requirements that A and B are subject to, that is discriminatory. It should be pretty logical that if there aren't enough women WANTING to go into STEM, not as many will be going to school and training in it, and thus it's harder to find as many qualified ones to join google. Remember that intelligence and talent are only part of the job. You also have to have education and training in the field you are entering.

- - - Updated - - -

Not all white men, majority white men, whats the other 73% of leadership? Does that percentage grow or shrink when we move from middle to upper management? Do you have some information as to whether google is more or less effective than they used to be? I dont, you dont, because aside from just not having data we dont know what metrics they're using anyway, I would hope he might but he hasn't presented any - to defend his positions he'd need a compelling case that this has made things worse and he doesnt have one beyond some conjecture and "conservatives feel silenced"

That's exactly my point. There is certainly more diversity in representation today than when Google was founded, but even you admit that you cannot find evidence to show whether the company is better for it.

And just as Damore could not defend his argument without demonstrating that Google has gotten worse with higher diversity, you also lack the evidence to prove that increased diversity has been beneficial. Based on this, why would you not even consider reexamining the practice of diversity hiring and its true consequences? And why are you so adamant in supporting it?

The answer of course is: it's all just political. Google doesn't want to go against mainstream society any more than most individual Google employees are willing to go against Google. Social engineering.

[grexly75]

Here is another take on the matter that is a quite interesting read..

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/th...rticle/2630916

Quoted from the article..

"Perhaps the most common response people offer to stories about political correctness and censorship on college campuses is, "Can you imagine what will happen when these students enter the workforce?" With the Google memo, we no longer have to imagine that scenario."

[Rooflesstoofless]

Proper channels for all that stuff. He's an employee and there to do a job; he not entitled to any kind of culture beyond what the company wants to project to sell their product.

I thought this is something that a conservative would understand.

[BreakerOfWills]

The point is if there aren't enough QUALIFIED C and you want to just bring in as many Cs as you can find, even to the extent of relaxing the qualification requirements that A and B are subject to, that is discriminatory. It should be pretty logical that if there aren't enough women WANTING to go into STEM, not as many will be going to school and training in it, and thus it's harder to find as many qualified ones to join google. Remember that intelligence and talent are only part of the job. You also have to have education and training in the field you are entering.

- - - Updated - - -



That's exactly my point. There is certainly more diversity in representation today than when Google was founded, but even you admit that you cannot find evidence to show whether the company is better for it.

And just as Damore could not defend his argument without demonstrating that Google has gotten worse with higher diversity, you also lack the evidence to prove that increased diversity has been beneficial. Based on this, why would you not even consider reexamining the practice of diversity hiring and its true consequences? And why are you so adamant in supporting it?

The answer of course is: it's all just political. Google doesn't want to go against mainstream society any more than most individual Google employees are willing to go against Google. Social engineering.

Since google is the one engineering society in large part who's to say it's not them pushing diversity on society? Bring in more people so google can more easily tabulate and control them? Can you think of something more fundamental to control that having the answers when people ask questions? And knowing the questions people wont even ask other people?

And a "diversity isnt worth it" argument would need to show that it's making things worse not "I dunno if it's making things better or worse but you need to spend time and money because I am not convinced"

I dont have data to show that things are better, but there is data that shows that diverse companies do better. Whether this is correlation or causation I have no idea, but again, Google is pushing diversity. I dont need to convince them of my position and without ANY supporting data or even a real opposing position is there a reason they should listen to him. He's presented a 'you're wrong, I dont know why but you should study it" and he's surprised no one listened?

[Khallid]

The memo is actually fairly well written and has some decent points, but also has some inherent mistakes. Research has shown that effectively all the behavioral differences between men and women come from culture and education, not from biology. So his argument that women may be less-well suited for certain tasks or better suited for others is not false, the mistake is thinking that it is a natural conclusion of being born a woman. Equality between men and women will not happen until culture and education catches up, but it will never catch up if we consciously segregate by gender.

[Krastyn]

It's a dead end argument without a greater scope of research, in and of itself it doesnt answer the question, nor does it address non biological factors. If all he had said was "we need to study this" then fine. But he also went into how "forcing isn't helping the problem" and since he has no arguments to support THAT then yeah I can dismiss him out of hand.

So making a suggestion that maybe that area should be explored more is moot? If you actually read the memo, he also touches on non-biological factors as well. The research he linked does infact show it has some impact. It's the magnitude of the impact that is not definitely known due to the complexity of the inputs.

History is rife with examples of how forced quotas can have negative impacts. It's also you know, against the law.

[matt4pack]

The memo is actually fairly well written and has some decent points, but also has some inherent mistakes. Research has shown that effectively all the behavioral differences between men and women come from culture and education, not from biology. So his argument that women may be less-well suited for certain tasks or better suited for others is not false, the mistake is thinking that it is a natural conclusion of being born a woman. Equality between men and women will not happen until culture and education catches up, but it will never catch up if we consciously segregate by gender.

Well I'm pretty sure overall women are less suited to be oil rig workers or numerous other dangerous jobs which is a natural conclusion of being born a woman.

That's not to say that all women can't do those jobs or many men can't either but there will be fewer woman capable of that type of work which is a result of biology.

[Elba]

What proves that Google was right in firing him is that the entire alt Reich rushed to his defense.

[spanishninja]

Since google is the one engineering society in large part who's to say it's not them pushing diversity on society? Bring in more people so google can more easily tabulate and control them? Can you think of something more fundamental to control that having the answers when people ask questions? And knowing the questions people wont even ask other people?

And a "diversity isnt worth it" argument would need to show that it's making things worse not "I dunno if it's making things better or worse but you need to spend time and money because I am not convinced"

I dont have data to show that things are better, but there is data that shows that diverse companies do better. Whether this is correlation or causation I have no idea, but again, Google is pushing diversity. I dont need to convince them of my position and without ANY supporting data or even a real opposing position is there a reason they should listen to him. He's presented a 'you're wrong, I dont know why but you should study it" and he's surprised no one listened?

you do realize that these diversity programs carry a cost right, not only in implementation but also potentially in the consequences. If you are having trouble finding enough interested and qualified women (or any group) to join you lr company, chances are you will lower standards for that group so more candidates will fit the search criteria. At that point, either you may have potentially lower output from that group, or worse, you may end up lowering standards for everyone and see a more drastic effect. It may well be that the benefits of being more diverse end up outweighing this cost, but we need to look more into this.

Anyway, since this guy was fired I imagine that Google will carry on with the programs it has in place. I am willing wait a few years to see how effective these measures are.

but if it turns out in a few years Googles numbers remain the same, THEN we wikl have to revisit this question sooner or later.

[Krastyn]

The memo is actually fairly well written and has some decent points, but also has some inherent mistakes. Research has shown that effectively all the behavioral differences between men and women come from culture and education, not from biology. So his argument that women may be less-well suited for certain tasks or better suited for others is not false, the mistake is thinking that it is a natural conclusion of being born a woman. Equality between men and women will not happen until culture and education catches up, but it will never catch up if we consciously segregate by gender.

Please define effectively, and cite a citation for that conclusion. As there are many other studies (including ones he listed), that state differences do exist.

[spanishninja]

Please define effectively, and cite a citation for that conclusion. As there are many other studies (including ones he listed), that state differences do exist.

and anyway, Damore was arguing that there are BOTH nature vs nurture factors involved, not saying only biology mattered.

[ro9ue]

I'd fire him too. This kind of attitude is unsuitable for work environment, especially the last line women being biologically unsuitable for technical work.

Another person who actually didn't read the memo, but probably just read liberal media's version. The dude actually GOES OUT OF HIS WAY to defend against these attacks, probably expecting the media to taint his words. And they do. And people just read the headlines of the discussion and make up their mind.

- - - Updated - - -

What proves that Google was right in firing him is that the entire alt Reich rushed to his defense.

No reason to even care what radical morons do. Their agenda isn't to further the truth, but to cherry pick truths that fit their agenda. That doesn't make the cherry picked truths less true.

[Heladys]

No reason to even care what radical morons do. Their agenda isn't to further the truth, but to cherry pick truths that fit their agenda. That doesn't make the cherry picked truths less true.

At least Mussolini made the trains run on time, yeah?

[ro9ue]

At least Mussolini made the trains run on time, yeah?

No it's more like "Even broken clocks are right twice a day".

[Elba]

No reason to even care what radical morons do. Their agenda isn't to further the truth, but to cherry pick truths that fit their agenda. That doesn't make the cherry picked truths less true.

Don't want people to think you're a sexist shit bag? Don't got on Stefan Molyneux's show right after.

[Machismo]

What proves that Google was right in firing him is that the entire alt Reich rushed to his defense.

Aren't you upset that they harmed him by taking away his livelihood?

[DrMcNinja]

I want to specifically focus on the whole "Men's higher drive to status" part, through a video:

[spanishninja]

Don't want people to think you're a sexist shit bag? Don't got on Stefan Molyneux's show right after.

you are terribly naive if you think the same mainstream media that blatantly misrepresented his view is going to grant him an interview to explain what he really wrote in that memo.

[shimerra]

you are terribly naive if you think the same mainstream media that blatantly misrepresented his view is going to grant him an interview to explain what he really wrote in that memo.

Trumpian double speak is already infecting the masses!

[Jaundiced]

Here he is. Look at this devious villain:

I think a lot of the responses in this thread actually touch on something talked about at 27:20 of that video.

People projecting information that was not actually written on the article.

Because clearly, anyone with anything negative to say about this hasn't read a damn word of Damore's "Manifesto".