James Damore Suing Google, do you think he has a case?

[Shalcker]

They may have materialized, but they didn't hold up.

So do social explanations you seem to love.

Latest article from Scientific American defending Damore:

Studies have similarly shown that women are more likely to prioritize work flexibility and job stability over earnings growth when it comes to occupational choices, and to gravitate toward socially interesting, as opposed to mechanically interesting, jobs.

...

Horgan should have mentioned the 67-page review published in Psychological Science in the Public Interest in 2014 called “Women in Academic Science: A Changing Landscape,” by Stephen Ceci and Wendy Williams. This review compiled data from several hundred analyses of women’s participation in sciences—from the life sciences such as psychology—to the more math-intensive disciplines such as engineering and physics.

They found that the biggest barrier for women in STEM jobs was not sexism but their desire to form families. Overall, Ceci and Williams found that STEM careers were characterised by “gender fairness, rather than gender bias.” And, they stated, women across the sciences were more likely to receive hiring offers than men, their grants and articles were accepted at the same rate, they were cited at the same rate, and they were tenured and promoted at the same rate.

A year later, Ceci and Williams published the results of five national hiring experiments in which they sent hypothetical female and male applicants to STEM faculty members. They found that men and women faculty members from all four fields preferred female applicants 2:1 over identically qualified males.

...

And finally, we want to stress that the fear that research into sex differences gives fuel to those who claim that women are naturally “inferior” to men is misguided. Difference is not “inferior” unless one thinks that what is male-typical is preferable and what is female-typical is somehow undesirable. We do not share this fear, because we do not view masculine typical traits as the gold standard and female typical traits less than.


You're reinforcing "male domination" by assuming that any differences between men and women would not work out to women favor.

How can we explain that? Maybe personality differences are mediated by power. It makes sense that relatively powerless individuals should be more agreeable and socially alert, less assertive, and more fearful/neurotic — that’s simply rational.

Reverse is just as possible. If you do not desire power over other things you don't get it. And then when you do not put your own pressure, you get to go with the flow - and because you assert no control over situation, you get to be somewhat neurotic.

'The data on occupational interests do reveal strong male preferences for working with things and strong female preferences for working with people,' Grant wrote in a LinkedIn essay responding to Damore’s claims. “But they also reveal that men and women are equally interested in working with data.'"

Yes; women were perfect in data entry jobs that were plentiful in early IT (note all illustrations being female there). Much better then men, a lot lower error rate, especially on large data sets. Quite demonstrable superiority.

...why do i have a feeling you don't like this fact? Despite it showing women being clearly superior to men in one of areas?

Neuroticism: "Damore also suggested that women are biologically prone to feel higher levels of stress and anxiety, and posited that difference might contribute 'to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.'

Article above gives this link on that.

Here's a paper that directly contradicts the claim that these traits are universal across cultures (from which we're supposed to conclude they must have biological causes): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...A6690/abstract

Umm, abstract doesn't actually support your claim, they only look at two specific cultures, and i can't see article itself.

[Levelfive]

So do social explanations you seem to love.

Latest article from Scientific American defending Damore:

Studies have similarly shown that women are more likely to prioritize work flexibility and job stability over earnings growth when it comes to occupational choices, and to gravitate toward socially interesting, as opposed to mechanically interesting, jobs.

...

Horgan should have mentioned the 67-page review published in Psychological Science in the Public Interest in 2014 called “Women in Academic Science: A Changing Landscape,” by Stephen Ceci and Wendy Williams. This review compiled data from several hundred analyses of women’s participation in sciences—from the life sciences such as psychology—to the more math-intensive disciplines such as engineering and physics.

They found that the biggest barrier for women in STEM jobs was not sexism but their desire to form families. Overall, Ceci and Williams found that STEM careers were characterised by “gender fairness, rather than gender bias.” And, they stated, women across the sciences were more likely to receive hiring offers than men, their grants and articles were accepted at the same rate, they were cited at the same rate, and they were tenured and promoted at the same rate.

A year later, Ceci and Williams published the results of five national hiring experiments in which they sent hypothetical female and male applicants to STEM faculty members. They found that men and women faculty members from all four fields preferred female applicants 2:1 over identically qualified males.

...

And finally, we want to stress that the fear that research into sex differences gives fuel to those who claim that women are naturally “inferior” to men is misguided. Difference is not “inferior” unless one thinks that what is male-typical is preferable and what is female-typical is somehow undesirable. We do not share this fear, because we do not view masculine typical traits as the gold standard and female typical traits less than.


You're reinforcing "male domination" by assuming that any differences between men and women would not work out to women favor.

Reverse is just as possible. If you do not desire power over other things you don't get it. And then when you do not put your own pressure, you get to go with the flow - and because you assert no control over situation, you get to be somewhat neurotic.

Yes; women were perfect in data entry jobs that were plentiful in early IT (note all illustrations being female there). Much better then men, a lot lower error rate, especially on large data sets. Quite demonstrable superiority.

...why do i have a feeling you don't like this fact? Despite it showing women being clearly superior to men in one of areas?


Article above gives this link on that.

Umm, abstract doesn't actually support your claim, they only look at two specific cultures, and i can't see article itself.

Umm, the abstract shows that cooperation / competitiveness between genders is flipped in those two specific cultures, which directly contradicts the claim that those personality traits are universal across cultures.

Both men and women desire to form families--the fact that it costs women to do so in various ways in their careers is a gender-based structural barrier. This is like when people argue that obviously there are no gender based pay disparities because women just choose lower paying fields...while seemingly being unable to grasp the sexism that was built into fields being lower paying because they're dominated by women, or in the prevailing culture that deemed it acceptable work for women to do in the first place. (Even when there are clear gender based pay disparities: https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/ab...haff.2010.0597 )

And still, nothing you've linked shows a biological cause. We don't know what accounts for the differences, and given the flaws in methodology and conclusions, and the contradictions, disparities, lack of replicability, and general unreliability of the current literature, it's grossly irresponsible and dishonest to claim otherwise.

[Shalcker]

Umm, the abstract shows that cooperation / competitiveness between genders is flipped in those two specific cultures, which directly contradicts the claim that those personality traits are universal across cultures.

All that it says is that in some cultures you can arrange societal pressures to override those inclinations; which, of course, is true.

It doesn't show how such override is inherently useful or desirable; only that societies can also operate in such mode.

Both men and women desire to form families--the fact that it costs women to do so in various ways in their careers is a gender-based structural barrier.

It actually costs men just as much as women if they decide to make family their "full-time job".

But just like desire for high-paying high-pressure jobs, ratios between women and men going for one or another can and do differ. Part of it is natural inclinations, and part historical societal structures coming out of those inclinations.

This is like when people argue that obviously there are no gender based pay disparities because women just choose lower paying fields...while seemingly being unable to grasp the sexism that was built into fields being lower paying because they're dominated by women, or in the prevailing culture that deemed it acceptable work for women to do in the first place. (Even when there are clear gender based pay disparities: https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/ab...haff.2010.0597 )

Women get paid less in average because they choose lower-paying jobs that allow them for more flexible hours or to spend more time with their kids/family. For completely equal arrangements women do get same pay - at least in STEM fields, one of which is Google (and with which Damore memo is concerned).

And still, nothing you've linked shows a biological cause. We don't know what accounts for the differences, and given the flaws in methodology and conclusions, and the contradictions, disparities, lack of replicability, and general unreliability of the current literature, it's grossly irresponsible and dishonest to claim otherwise.

It is grossly dishonest to say societal pressure is "the only thing holding women down" too; replicability crisis applies to social sciences just as much.

[Krigaren]

Yea, fuck those conservatives and their wrong-think. People's opinions must be uniform, we must all agree on the party line!

Ah yes, this ridiculous conservative hyperbole.

You seem to confuse the idea of being punished for thinking something with being punished for directly, publicly saying it.

No one is going to fire you if you're a fan of MLP, but if you go to work every day wearing a pony fursuit and talk only in pony-speak don't be surprised if one day they ask you to clean out your desk.

[Shalcker]

Ah yes, this ridiculous conservative hyperbole.

You seem to confuse the idea of being punished for thinking something with being punished for directly, publicly saying it.

No one is going to fire you if you're a fan of MLP, but if you go to work every day wearing a pony fursuit and talk in pony-speak don't be surprised if one day they ask you to clean out your desk.

Yet being 'yellow-scaled wingless dragonkin' and 'an expansive ornate building' (at the same time) is perfectly fine...

[Levelfive]

All that it says is that in some cultures you can arrange societal pressures to override those inclinations; which, of course, is true.

It doesn't show how such override is inherently useful or desirable; only that societies can also operate in such mode.

It actually costs men just as much as women if they decide to make family their "full-time job".

But just like desire for high-paying high-pressure jobs, ratios between women and men going for one or another can and do differ. Part of it is natural inclinations, and part historical societal structures coming out of those inclinations.


Women get paid less in average because they choose lower-paying jobs that allow them for more flexible hours or to spend more time with their kids/family. For completely equal arrangements women do get same pay - at least in STEM fields, one of which is Google (and with which Damore memo is concerned).

It is grossly dishonest to say societal pressure is "the only thing holding women down" too; replicability crisis applies to social sciences just as much.

It doesn't say any such thing. What it shows, quite clearly, is that personality traits are not universal across cultures, despite Damore's claim to the contrary as a way of "proving" that these traits must necessarily be biological in origin. If you claim that "these differences aren't just socially constructed because they're universal across cultures," and it turns out they're not universal across cultures, there's a problem with your claim.

You realize that there are cultural aspects both to women choosing flexible hours AND women-dominated fields paying less, right? Also, the link you clearly ignored was comparing salaries of male and female physicians, which I'm pretty sure qualifies as a STEM field.

Lastly, out of curiosity, replicability crisis applies just as much to what? Evolutionary psychology and psychology are social sciences--did you not realize, in point of fact, that nearly 100% of what's been cited and argued over here is social science? Did you really not realize you have been pinning your arguments on social science?

Actually that explains a lot.

[Zython]

Yea, fuck those conservatives and their wrong-think. People's opinions must be uniform, we must all agree on the party line!

I don't really see the downsides of having a uniform negative opinion of the formation of an ethnostate, TBQH.

- - - Updated - - -

Yet being 'yellow-scaled wingless dragonkin' and 'an expansive ornate building' (at the same time) is perfectly fine...

Who are their hurting? Why do you care?

- - - Updated - - -

still waiting for you to show a quote that was offensive or hateful from this man

Well, that's a difficult request to meet, as you fail to define what you would consider "offensive or hateful". What would he have had to said for you to agree that this is the case? Do you actually care about the material impact that what he advocates would have to the people he's talking about, or are you just looking for racial slurs?

[Venant]

Yet being 'yellow-scaled wingless dragonkin' and 'an expansive ornate building' (at the same time) is perfectly fine...

If you are an expansive ornate building, and you are inside a building, is that like having building sex? Do you have to get consent before entering another building? If somebody punched you, would it be classified as assault or vandalism?

[Zython]

no its not just show a quote that you think is offensive or hateful from this man

go on please do show

btw clickbait headlines are not quotes incase your to stupid to understand the concept of quotes

Again, you have to first establish a baseline for what you would consider offensive or hateful. Otherwise, you could just say "no it isn't" to anything I cite. And given that you clearly failed to read past the first clause of my post, the chances of this happening otherwise are likely.

[Zython]

"a quote that you think"
"a quote that you think"
"a quote that you think"
"a quote that you think"
"a quote that you think"


the baseline comes from the person calling him a racist / sexist / nazi

based on the persons baseline we can determine whether of not they are retarded or not but if they don't show that baseline its hard to prove they are retarded

that's why people keep trying to avoid quoting this man but constantly say hes done something horrible

And I'm saying that before I do that, I want you to firmly establish that you would agree constitutes that. Without telling me what minimum standards I must meet, how am I to know that you won't arbitrarily define them after-the-fact?

Your reluctance to fulfill this, frankly quite reasonable, request with so much vitriol is telegraphing your intentions quite clearly. A person arguing in good faith would understand why I am asking this, and comply.

[Raptor With a Saber]

If what he says is true yes. but wont see evidence [recorded meetings etc] for a while to prove it, google will cause so much hassle or just settle with an nda to get back to work like alot of companies do.

[Lumicide]

Ah yes, this ridiculous conservative hyperbole.

You seem to confuse the idea of being punished for thinking something with being punished for directly, publicly saying it.

No one is going to fire you if you're a fan of MLP, but if you go to work every day wearing a pony fursuit and talk only in pony-speak don't be surprised if one day they ask you to clean out your desk.

You seem to be confused on the idea of thoughtcrime.

"By sharing a small act of thoughtcrime he had turned the two of them into accomplices."

You cannot literally thought police. Crimethink, so far as it matters, is the utterance of heresy against the party line. It seems like conservatives need to engage in crimestop, the instinctive stopping short of dangerous thought, to keep a job at Google.

The closest thing to the extreme that is a furry that's within the "conservative" umbrella would be the Southern Nationalists, Nazis, Traditionalist Workers, et al., hardly mainstream conservatives, and not at all common.

Possible non-bias cause of the gender gap in tech
[...]
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
[...]
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. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.

This isn't "toxic". And if were wrong, it does not appear to be presented in bad faith. It certainly doesn't look like the conservative equivalent of a furry.

Maybe white conservative men should stop saying dumb shit which is causing them to rub people the wrong way?

White liberal men surely have no problem getting hired.

Considering what Damore said in his memo, if this is the "dumb shit" that "white conservative men" need to stop saying, then I think there's an excessive hostility towards "conservatives" and their ideas. And it sure seems like people aren't allowed to diverge from the party line at all. How dare someone acknowledge that men and women might be a bit different.

[szechuan]

At the end of the day whether you believe James has a case or not this is just more of a statement then anything. He'll lose at the end and he knows it.

[Levelfive]

You seem to be confused on the idea of thoughtcrime.

"By sharing a small act of thoughtcrime he had turned the two of them into accomplices."

You cannot literally thought police. Crimethink, so far as it matters, is the utterance of heresy against the party line. It seems like conservatives need to engage in crimestop, the instinctive stopping short of dangerous thought, to keep a job at Google.

The closest thing to the extreme that is a furry that's within the "conservative" umbrella would be the Southern Nationalists, Nazis, Traditionalist Workers, et al., hardly mainstream conservatives, and not at all common.


This isn't "toxic". And if were wrong, it does not appear to be presented in bad faith. It certainly doesn't look like the conservative equivalent of a furry.

Considering what Damore said in his memo, if this is the "dumb shit" that "white conservative men" need to stop saying, then I think there's an excessive hostility towards "conservatives" and their ideas. And it sure seems like people aren't allowed to diverge from the party line at all. How dare someone acknowledge that men and women might be a bit different.

It's toxic and it's wrong. I won't speak to bad faith (does the fact that he seems genuinely to believe it really make it any better?)--he doesn't seem mean, but I'm not sure that's relevant. I think you probably understand that telling people at work that you don't want universal healthcare or you want smaller government isn't the same as circulating a memo claiming that a percentage of the people you work with (and who will have to work with you) are biologically less able and interested (and before you object, if you are claiming that an 80/20 split in favor of men can in part be explained by thus far unidentified biologically-caused differences between men's and women's abilities, you are NOT arguing that women's abilities are equal to or superior to men's), particularly when it's based on things like personality tests and incredibly murky and inconclusive prenatal testosterone studies. If you don't understand why "reinforcing harmful gender stereotypes" IS toxic in a workplace composed of people, especially when google really REALLY wants to recruit more women, I guess there's probably not much more to discuss.

I have said before I think there's an inappropriate amount of political discussion at work at google in general (I have to admit I'm convinced the dragonkin / ornate building thing is a joke, but maybe not), but of course it's not my company.

[Shalcker]

Who are their hurting? Why do you care?

Well, somehow poster upthread did care for someone wearing pony suit... why? Who did they hurt? Go ask them.

- - - Updated - - -

It's toxic and it's wrong. I won't speak to bad faith (does the fact that he seems genuinely to believe it really make it any better?)--he doesn't seem mean, but I'm not sure that's relevant. I think you probably understand that telling people at work that you don't want universal healthcare or you want smaller government isn't the same as circulating a memo claiming that a percentage of the people you work with (and who will have to work with you) are biologically less able and interested

That ISN'T WHAT MEMO SAYS.

It says that selection from broad population to Google standards cannot produce required amount of equally capable women who are also interested in Google job due to various factors; it doesn't say anything about abilities of women already there - those are suggested to be judged on individual, not group basis due to high variability within their group.

[Levelfive]

Well, somehow poster upthread did care for someone wearing pony suit... why? Who did they hurt? Go ask them.

- - - Updated - - -

That ISN'T WHAT MEMO SAYS.

It says that selection from broad population to Google standards cannot produce required amount of equally capable women who are also interested in Google job due to various factors; it doesn't say anything about abilities of women already there - those are suggested to be judged on individual, not group basis due to high variability within their group.

Nah, dude, you're done. You embarrassed yourself beyond recovery; you've demonstrated you're unqualified to comment; and if you had the capacity for shame, you wouldn't have even returned. Hush.

[Leetbeartank]

I personally think the guy is an idiot who is trying to hide behind a false claim of disability in order to make himself seem like the victim. He can get in line behind every other person in America who said something their employer didn't like, which if you weren't aware happens a shit ton. You can even get fired in most states for no reason at all.

Hmm he worked at Google and willingly and knowingly terminated his employment for personal gain and you post on a fan website for World of Warcraft. Who's the idiot?

[Celista]

Hmm he worked at Google and willingly and knowingly terminated his employment for personal gain and you post on a fan website for World of Warcraft. Who's the idiot?

Let me see, I'm still employed and Damore was fired. So I will say Damore. Have a nice day.

[Lumicide]

It's toxic and it's wrong. I won't speak to bad faith (does the fact that he seems genuinely to believe it really make it any better?)--he doesn't seem mean, but I'm not sure that's relevant. I think you probably understand that telling people at work you don't want universal healthcare or you want smaller government isn't the same as circulating a memo claiming that a percentage of the people you work with (and who will have to work with you) are biologically less able and interested (and before you object, if you are claiming that an 80/20 split in favor of men can in part be explained by thus far unidentified biologically-caused differences between men's and women's abilities, you are NOT arguing that women's abilities are equal to or superior to men's), particularly when it's based on things like personality tests and *incredibly murky and inconclusive prenatal testosterone studies. If you don't understand why "reinforcing harmful gender stereotypes" IS toxic in a workplace composed of people, especially when google really REALLY wants to recruit more women, I guess there's probably not much more discuss.

I have said before I think there's an inappropriate amount of political discussion at work at google in general (I have to admit I'm convinced the dragonkin / ornate building thing is a joke, but maybe not), but of course it's not my company.

(I've chosen, of the data, the most recent year, and the highest % of bachelors for women in a year)

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/...s/dt12_349.asp

Your explanation of this gap is either, sexism/societal influence? Would you say there are 'no' possibility of any biological predispositions in play?*

"claiming that a percentage of the people you work with (and who will have to work with you) are biologically less able and interested"
This is not an accurate assessment of the memo. IF employment is based on merit, THEN we can expect that the individuals you work with are of equal ability/interest. And since it seems to track pretty closely with the degrees in computer & information sciences, the pool of women is simply smaller and 'should' result in fewer female workers, and Google's efforts will be fruitless or discriminatory towards men to artificially raise the amount of women:men in the workforce.

Is it really "reinforcing harmful gender stereotypes" to say: "Well, I guess women are just less interested in this field, maybe we're just a bit different". It's a statement that simply appears to be true. And if that is enough to sway women away from entering the field, well so be it. If women are so fragile that they shatter at the mere mention that they don't seem to be interested in a subject, then what in the hell sort of emotional accommodation do they need? Do they need a fucking pacifier? It sure as shit doesn't seem like such a frail person would be able to survive in an even vaguely competitive environment anyway. No, I doubt women are this pathetic. I think they might just be more, or less, interested in a subject, and there's 'nothing' wrong with that.

The question is just: 'why' are the more or less interested in this specific field? Perhaps it does largely relate to the social situation of a society...

When the Norwegian government attempted to solve gender representation in nursing, the net effect was essentially null. Males just seemed less interested in the task, regardless of incentive. Is that because Nurses are sexists? Or that Norway is just such hyper-conservative and hyper-masculine society that men couldn't stand becoming a social pariah for becoming a nurse?

You can watch a documentary that deals with this subject here,
Brainwash 1:7 - The Gender Equality Paradox
https://vimeo.com/19707588

In this it seems to show that gender representation in technical fields is negatively related to the freedom of the society (~5:20->?**). Women in countries that treat women poorly seem more interested in technical fields, and where they're more equal to men, they prefer more traditionally "female" occupations. I don't know what research is being referenced by the documentary that supports this, and I don't care to look for it any further than I have.

Assuming this is true, then why is that the case? Why would women desire tech jobs less when they're more free to choose? Could that have anything to do with biology? Or is it another societal influence elsewhere, and does that influence affect men and women differently, and why?

Context should define the offensiveness of a statement. So yes, his arguing in good-faith matters, and no one should waste their time being offended by it or whine about it being "toxic".

*I feel like an illegal alien happening upon Trump's (future, maybe?) wall. I'm not scaling a paywall to read that book.
**I watched this years ago, I'm not watching it again.

[Snes]

Can anyone honestly say with a straight face that Google does not discriminate against conservatives? Or any Silicon Valley company for that matter?