Google fires diversity critic

[spanishninja]

But then he contradicts that point further in the document saying that women by large will not be able to achieve the same status/level as the top (generally men) because the very nature of business/tech is fierce competition and lack of empathy. So what does evolving the tech industry to suit women's interests matter when the top level can never be reached without taking up the supposed biological tendencies of men?

This is small potatoes in comparison to the real problem which is culture and how men and women are raised.

most people, men or women, are not destined for the boardroom. you need a starting point somewhere. changing the nature of tech work will at least bring more female staff into the business, with the hope that in the future, people can't take the UBER route and claim that no female candidates were available for the CEO job. just like with any minority group, you need to get them the foot in the door while ensuring that the company is getting a return on it.

while you speak of the boardroom, do you think Google's own CEO would be in favor of giving up his position to a woman with lower qualifications (at least on paper)? I doubt that, because he probably believes himself that he got to where he is through a meritocratic system. And if true, why should rank and file employees agree that diversity hiring is a valid solution?

One more thing. I am of the opinion that Damore HAD to say something ridiculous about biology to get his point across. His goal was to try to drive the conversation towards a nature vs nurture arena, and to do that he needed to bring up biological differences between males and females. I still believe he should have chosen his approach better, focusing more on biology's influence on preference rather than aptitude, but overall I still feel that a serious conversation about male/female differences needs to take place in order for real change to occur.

And if I am wrong, then the diversity initiatives Google is working on should undoubtedly yield noticeable changes in the coming years. Like I said, I am willing to wait and see.

[Dug]

most people, men or women, are not destined for the boardroom. you need a starting point somewhere. changing the nature of tech work will at least bring more female staff into the business.

while you speak of the boardroom, do you thinm Google's own CEO would be in favor of giving up his position to a woman with lower qualifications (at least on paper)? I doubt that, because he probably bslieves himself that he got to wherd he is through a meritocratic system.

One more thing. I am of the opinion that Damore HAD to say something ridiculous about biology to get his point across. His goal was to try to drive the conversation towards a nature vs nurture arena, and to do that he needed to bring up biological differences between males and females.

Right and I get that but if you're changing the nature of the work and how its done without change from the top down you basically end up in the same position you were already in. More women coming into tech but they still can't break into the top levels (not just CEO but management etc) because the nature of business itself is always going to be crazy competitive which is something that women generally aren't if the studies are correct.

But really his biology point isn't that crazy but I just think its flawed because while obviously men and women are different it very much comes down to culture. The vast majority of the time they are raised differently to cater to their biological tendencies but that doesn't have to be so. I reckon the women that reach high levels in business didn't have a typical childhood of princess fairies and tea parties.

[jibberbox85]

Took a break from this threat, and as expected, came back to see people questioning his qualifications.

People should really just read what he wrote, it's clear that the people saying he is sexist did not.

Stop allowing media to tell you what to think.

The main reason for trying to smear his name, work credentials, and now his education is to divert the attention away from the actual issue. As seen throughout most of this thread the guy has been called a hater, bigot, racist, idiot and a shit head, that created a "hostile" work environment. When you see such character smear tactics it generally means the opposition has run out of an actual meaningful argument.

[Mormolyce]

Actually, aren't we seeing lawsuits against schools now regarding what amounts to just flat out discrimination against whites in the name of "diversity"?

This guy isn't contending that he was fired because he's "white".

[videotape]

The main reason for trying to smear his name, work credentials, and now his education is to divert the attention away from the actual issue. As seen throughout most of this thread the guy has been called a hater, bigot, racist, idiot and a shit head, that created a "hostile" work environment. When you see such character smear tactics , it generally means the opposition has run out of an actual meaningful argument.

It is disingenuous to regard "the opposition" as a unified front. If one person presents a bad dissenting argument, it has no bearing on the validity of other dissenting arguments which you are choosing to ignore.

[Dextroden]

This guy isn't contending that he was fired because he's "white".

That wasn't his question.

[ro9ue]

I read it. I have addressed his points in several posts in this thread. He makes some lip service about being a progressive liberal, then talks about "left" and "right" politics, which is unrelated to organizational culture--anyone who took a basic organizational behavior class would know this. This is a very important point as it sets up the rest of the memo as something to be filtered through a political lens. This is very stupid for a lot of reasons, most notably because politics are very polarizing at the moment. Especially if he is correct and Google hires a lot of political liberals (again, political culture does not translate to organizational culture. Got to hammer that in). Might as well walk into a group of fundamentalist Christians and spit on a bible.

He then transitions into a discussion of the gender gap, which again is not an issue that should be considered "left" or "right". There's not even a cursory discussion of bias as it may relate to the gap. There are several studies that indicate that the gap can not be wholly explained away by non-bias reasons so already at this point in the document he's implied two things: 1. He says he leans left but the tone of the documents says he actually lean right, which most liberals immediately pick up on (and right-wing readers dismiss as it assimilates into their worldview), and 2. he thinks that there is no bias in hiring.

At this point he goes into a "discussion" where he makes a bunch of claims about the differences between men and women as fact. Again, if you're on the right you think nothing of this because the right takes these differences as true, most conservatives think men and women are in fact very different and most of these differences are due to biology. This is very antagonistic to liberal POV, many of whom feel that biological differences are relatively minor and most differences exist due to gender socialization which begins at an early age ("girls are told to like the color pink because it's girly" etc). This is in fact a very inflammatory position to take. The author admits as much further in the memo.

Then the memo makes some breadcrumb arguments about how many differences may be small between the genders, talks about ways Google is addressing the issue, and then devolves into the typical "diversity programs are harmful" diatribe. At this point in the article it is important to point out he posts NO academic sources here and argues from a purely emotional standpoint. It is clear that this is the real reason why he wrote this article. By the way, I actually completed an I/O psychology master's thesis on diversity programs, and had to write a whole literature review on whether or not diversity programs benefited organizations as a whole. The literature is almost overwhelming as to the actual benefit it provides for organizations, whether as it relates to creativity and innovation in the workplace or from a purely financial perspective. There are some drawbacks to diversity (example: higher chance of interpersonal conflict among some teams, but not all of them, and tends to dissipate after group cohesion is formed), but the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. If you are interested in actual reading on this topic you can read this article, this article and this article.

The memo is not some stroke of genius. He starts off by saying "Here, guys! I'm just like you!" then devolves into the typical "diversity programs are discriminatory to white males" and "you guys need to be nicer to us conservative white guys" that basically every schlub on the right has been parroting for the last few years. He even manages to work in a mention of IQ differences among minorities in the memo as being a no-no topic among liberals (there is a reason for this, and it is mostly due to the fact that IQ is about 50/50 heritability and environment, the latter part of that statement being quite relevant for marginalized groups with low access to quality healthcare, nutrition, and educational opportunities). It's a "woe is me, I'm a white male being marginalized" manifesto, without even a margin of understanding as to why these diversity programs are necessary for women and minorities to break through the glass ceiling in the first place. It's mind-blowingly ignorant to ignore previous and current lack of representation of women and minorities in the workplace. 6.5% of fortune 500 CEOs are women. We have *one* male African American fortune 500 CEO. Even if the author of the memo is 100% correct, these non-bias reasons for lack of leadership representation do not NEARLY fully account for the disparity in representation that exists to this very day. There's no way that it even comes close.

In sum, you do not have a problem with the memo because you focus on the things you think liberals would like to hear/agree with, and have little understanding as to why they don't.

Sex differences in personality:
Lynn (1996): http://bit.ly/2vThoy8
Lippa (2008): http://bit.ly/2vmtSMs
Weisberg (2011): http://bit.ly/2gJVmEp
Del Giudice (2012): http://bit.ly/2vEKTUx


Larger/large and stable sex differences in more gender-neutral countries: (Note: these findings runs precisely and exactly contrary to social constructionist theory: thus, it's been tested, and it's wrong).

Katz-Gerrog (2000): http://bit.ly/2uoY9c4
Costa (2001): http://bit.ly/2utaTT3
Schmitt (2008): http://bit.ly/2p6nHYY
Schmitt (2016): http://bit.ly/2wMN45j

(Women's) interest in people vs (men's) interest in things:
Lippa (1998): http://bit.ly/2vr0PHF
Rong Su (2009): http://bit.ly/2wtlbzU
Lippa (2010): http://bit.ly/2wyfW23

The general importance of exposure to sex-linked steroids on fetal and then lifetime development:
Hines (2015) http://bit.ly/2uufOiv

Exposure to prenatal testosterone and interest in things or people (even when the exposure is among females):
Berenbaum (1992): http://bit.ly/2uKxpSQ
Beltz (2011): http://bit.ly/2hPXC1c
Baron-Cohen (2014): http://bit.ly/2vn4KXq
Hines (2016): http://bit.ly/2hPYKSu

Primarily biological basis of personality sex differences:
Lippa (2008): http://bit.ly/2vmtSMs
Ngun (2010): http://bit.ly/2vJ6QSh

Status and sex: males and females
Perusse (1993): http://bit.ly/2uoIOw8
Perusse (1994): http://bit.ly/2vNzcL6
Buss (2008): http://bit.ly/2uumv4g
de Bruyn (2012): http://bit.ly/2uoWkMh

To quote de Bruyn et al: high status predicts more mating opportunities and, thus, increased reproductive success. “This is true for human adults in many cultures, both ‘modern’ as well as ‘primitive’ (Betzig, 1986). In fact, this theory seems to be confirmed for non-human primates (Cheney, 1983; Cowlishaw and Dunbar, 1991; Dewsbury, 1982; Gray, 1985; Maslow, 1936) and other animals from widely differing ecologies (Ellis, 1995) such as squirrels (Farentinos, 1972), cockerels (Kratzer and Craig, 1980), and cockroaches (Breed, Smith, and Gall, 1980).” Status also increases female reproductive success, via a different pathway: “For females, it is generally argued that dominance is not necessarily a path to more copulations, as it is for males. It appears that important benefits bestowed upon dominant women are access to resources and less harassment from rivals (Campbell, 2002). Thus, dominant females tend to have higher offspring survival rates, at least among simians (Pusey, Williams, and Goodall, 1997); thus, dominance among females also appears to be linked to reproductive success.”

Personality and political belief:
Gerber (2010): http://bit.ly/2hOpnHa
Hirsh (2010): http://bit.ly/2fsxIzB
Gerber (2011): http://bit.ly/2hJ1Kjb
Xu (2013): http://bit.ly/2ftDhOq
Burton (2015): http://bit.ly/2uoPS87

Occupations by gender:
http://bit.ly/2vTdgPp

Problems with the measurement and concept of unconscious bias:
Fielder (2006): http://bit.ly/2vGzhQP
Blanton (2009): http://bit.ly/2vQuwEP (this one is particularly damning)

And, just for kicks, two links discussing the massive over-representation of the left in, most particularly, the humanities:
Klein (2008): http://bit.ly/2fwdLrS
Langbert (2016): http://bit.ly/2cV53Q8

[Prokne]

One more thing. I am of the opinion that Damore HAD to say something ridiculous about biology to get his point across. His goal was to try to drive the conversation towards a nature vs nurture arena, and to do that he needed to bring up biological differences between males and females.

I didn't see any biological differences in the memo that would make women worse in tech jobs, only the results of cultural and social pressures passed off as biological. You need actual genetic, bio-mechanical or bio-chemical data to show real biological differences.

The real problem is the culture in STEM fields that perpetuates that men are better at it than women, so less women get hired. When a profession is a large majority of one sex, it becomes cliquish and unappealing for the opposite sex. That is why there are less women in STEM. Only so many women can endure working with tech bros and good old boys. The solution is to get more women in STEM jobs so men can't act like this. It is a slow process because it has only been like 10-15 years since girls have been encouraged to get into STEM where they really weren't before (wasn't the case when I went to HS in the 90s). Those girls are only now getting STEM degrees in higher numbers.

Even if somehow biology has something to do with it (highly unlikely) we have a long way to go until that would be the only factor holding women back.

[helebelemon]

Stumbling with who? The people who just believe it as gospel because its their flavor of outrage? Google will pay him a settlement to shut up, he will because duh google money and they'll keep on being the giant company that they are.

Doubtful. As ironic as it is, he contradicts his own memo. The man decided to risk everything over ideals--that isn't the pragmatism that he so speaks of conservatives. He went to a Google diversity event whereas he should have known the expectations but walked away so triggered that he decided to be a martyr for some cause. The presence of logic and reasoning that he ever so praises could have easily saved him from this course. The presence of empathy could have also helped him realize the outcome. He is as idealistic as they come.

[jibberbox85]

It is disingenuous to regard "the opposition" as a unified front. If one person presents a bad dissenting argument, it has no bearing on the validity of other dissenting arguments which you are choosing to ignore.

Not everyone who argues against the author are going to have the same thoughts. That's pretty straightforward.

[Aurrora]

It is disingenuous to regard "the opposition" as a unified front. If one person presents a bad dissenting argument, it has no bearing on the validity of other dissenting arguments which you are choosing to ignore.

Maybe you should be addressing the "everyone right of SJW is a member of the alt-reich" people

[Mormolyce]

I didn't say he did.

You didn't say anything pertinent to the argument, in fact.

That wasn't his question.

That's because what he said wasn't relevant to my post he was ostensibly responding to.

[Dextroden]

You didn't say anything pertinent to the argument, in fact.



That's because what he said wasn't relevant to my post he was ostensibly responding to.

It seemed to be. You were talking about how cases like Bovinity talked about wouldn't be considered.

Just because it's trendy to be racist against whites doesn't mean you can discriminate against them.

[Mormolyce]

It seemed to be. You were talking about how cases like Bovinity talked about wouldn't be considered.

Just because it's trendy to be racist against whites doesn't mean you can discriminate against them.

Thank you for providing more examples of statements that have nothing to do with the topic.

[MoanaLisa]

As far as the guy being fired is concerned it's not too difficult: You say or write something that gets out in public and deeply embarrasses your company and they will find a way to let you go.

This has always been the case and will continue to be going forward. Everything else about this particular story is just noise.

[spanishninja]

I didn't see any biological differences in the memo that would make women worse in tech jobs, only the results of cultural and social pressures passed off as biological. You need actual genetic, bio-mechanical or bio-chemical data to show real biological differences.

The real problem is the culture in STEM fields that perpetuates that men are better at it than women, so less women get hired. When a profession is a large majority of one sex, it becomes cliquish and unappealing for the opposite sex. That is why there are less women in STEM. Only so many women can endure working with tech bros and good old boys. The solution is to get more women in STEM jobs so men can't act like this. It is a slow process because it has only been like 10-15 years since girls have been encouraged to get into STEM where they really weren't before (wasn't the case when I went to HS in the 90s). Those girls are only now getting STEM degrees in higher numbers.

Even if somehow biology has something to do with it (highly unlikely) we have a long way to go until that would be the only factor holding women back.

Damore never claimed that biology was the only thing holding women back, though. And to refuse to even consider that biology may be partly involved in career choices is putting on blinders. You say that the solution is to get more women in STEM jobs so men can't misbehave. How do you do this? You can't make applicants magically appear. The question I am leading to is of course, whether you would lower qualification requirements for women just to have more of them. And if you are considering this, does that not go against the claim that women are naturally just as good as men at tech work?

[jibberbox85]

As far as the guy being fired is concerned it's not too difficult: You say or write something that gets out in public and deeply embarrasses your company and they will find a way to let you go.

This has always been the case and will continue to be going forward. Everything else about this particular story is just noise.

Not 100% true. There's still a process that companies go through in order to protect themselves. It's not as easy as firing someone for just cause. (Even in at At-Will state)

[spanishninja]

Right and I get that but if you're changing the nature of the work and how its done without change from the top down you basically end up in the same position you were already in. More women coming into tech but they still can't break into the top levels (not just CEO but management etc) because the nature of business itself is always going to be crazy competitive which is something that women generally aren't if the studies are correct.

But really his biology point isn't that crazy but I just think its flawed because while obviously men and women are different it very much comes down to culture. The vast majority of the time they are raised differently to cater to their biological tendencies but that doesn't have to be so. I reckon the women that reach high levels in business didn't have a typical childhood of princess fairies and tea parties.

why can't you change the nature of the work AND enacting changes from the top down? Get more minorities in the Google boardroom while also making analytics more people-friendly (the people vs things part of his memo is proven science "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19883140"). This is if you want to truly affect major change of course, not just dick around and say you are doing something. But I have a feeling now that if Google ends up taking cues from Damore's suggestions in the future, they will look REALLY bad, so they will most likely keep tech work the way it is and see what happens just from diversity hiring.

By the way, speaking of female leaders in business, Youtube's CEO is a woman, and if you were trying to argue that women in leadership roles have to be vicious like men to make it, maybe there is some truth to that. Like every parrot in the mainstream media, she also misrepresented Damore's memo, while also playing the pity card by incorporating her daughter into her statement. Pretty reprehensible shit, man, and all to help Google with damage control. Understandable though, because now that it is clear that Google failed to destroy this guy's life, attention is now turned to how to make themselves as the victims in all of this rather than part of the problem.

http://fortune.com/2017/08/09/google...memo-wojcicki/

[Celista]

Sex differences in personality:
Lynn (1996): http://bit.ly/2vThoy8
Lippa (2008): http://bit.ly/2vmtSMs
Weisberg (2011): http://bit.ly/2gJVmEp
Del Giudice (2012): http://bit.ly/2vEKTUx


Larger/large and stable sex differences in more gender-neutral countries: (Note: these findings runs precisely and exactly contrary to social constructionist theory: thus, it's been tested, and it's wrong).

Katz-Gerrog (2000): http://bit.ly/2uoY9c4
Costa (2001): http://bit.ly/2utaTT3
Schmitt (2008): http://bit.ly/2p6nHYY
Schmitt (2016): http://bit.ly/2wMN45j

(Women's) interest in people vs (men's) interest in things:
Lippa (1998): http://bit.ly/2vr0PHF
Rong Su (2009): http://bit.ly/2wtlbzU
Lippa (2010): http://bit.ly/2wyfW23

The general importance of exposure to sex-linked steroids on fetal and then lifetime development:
Hines (2015) http://bit.ly/2uufOiv

Exposure to prenatal testosterone and interest in things or people (even when the exposure is among females):
Berenbaum (1992): http://bit.ly/2uKxpSQ
Beltz (2011): http://bit.ly/2hPXC1c
Baron-Cohen (2014): http://bit.ly/2vn4KXq
Hines (2016): http://bit.ly/2hPYKSu

Primarily biological basis of personality sex differences:
Lippa (2008): http://bit.ly/2vmtSMs
Ngun (2010): http://bit.ly/2vJ6QSh

Status and sex: males and females
Perusse (1993): http://bit.ly/2uoIOw8
Perusse (1994): http://bit.ly/2vNzcL6
Buss (2008): http://bit.ly/2uumv4g
de Bruyn (2012): http://bit.ly/2uoWkMh

To quote de Bruyn et al: high status predicts more mating opportunities and, thus, increased reproductive success. “This is true for human adults in many cultures, both ‘modern’ as well as ‘primitive’ (Betzig, 1986). In fact, this theory seems to be confirmed for non-human primates (Cheney, 1983; Cowlishaw and Dunbar, 1991; Dewsbury, 1982; Gray, 1985; Maslow, 1936) and other animals from widely differing ecologies (Ellis, 1995) such as squirrels (Farentinos, 1972), cockerels (Kratzer and Craig, 1980), and cockroaches (Breed, Smith, and Gall, 1980).” Status also increases female reproductive success, via a different pathway: “For females, it is generally argued that dominance is not necessarily a path to more copulations, as it is for males. It appears that important benefits bestowed upon dominant women are access to resources and less harassment from rivals (Campbell, 2002). Thus, dominant females tend to have higher offspring survival rates, at least among simians (Pusey, Williams, and Goodall, 1997); thus, dominance among females also appears to be linked to reproductive success.”

Personality and political belief:
Gerber (2010): http://bit.ly/2hOpnHa
Hirsh (2010): http://bit.ly/2fsxIzB
Gerber (2011): http://bit.ly/2hJ1Kjb
Xu (2013): http://bit.ly/2ftDhOq
Burton (2015): http://bit.ly/2uoPS87

Occupations by gender:
http://bit.ly/2vTdgPp

Problems with the measurement and concept of unconscious bias:
Fielder (2006): http://bit.ly/2vGzhQP
Blanton (2009): http://bit.ly/2vQuwEP (this one is particularly damning)

And, just for kicks, two links discussing the massive over-representation of the left in, most particularly, the humanities:
Klein (2008): http://bit.ly/2fwdLrS
Langbert (2016): http://bit.ly/2cV53Q8

That's great. None of that addresses my post. 3 am and not reading the links because I took whole graduate courses on these topics, am fairly certain you cherry picked studies. Will look at them later.

[fengosa]

Not 100% true. There's still a process that companies go through in order to protect themselves. It's not as easy as firing someone for just cause. (Even in at At-Will state)

I'm sure HR and legal discussed the matter before firing him. Google has a case for dismissal, it will come down to has better lawyers although it's very possible the case gets settled as well.