“Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber” memo goes viral, usual suspects outraged

TheDoc

Grayson wrote: »

Read that article. It's dumb. take this bit.



It's not arbitrary. It's not unfounded. She heard them talking. She's not denying that they have no right to an opinion, she's saying that the opinion is wrong. I seriously want to bitch slap anyone who says that someone's entitled to an opinion. Of course they fcuking are. However, it doesn't put that opinion above criticism. She didn't name them. She didn't dox them. She just said she overheard people saying this.

And then the idiot used the phrase trigger warning.

The author is a moron. I'm not a fan of Dunham, I find her irritating in the extreme but the author is being an idiot.

Yah I love that "everyone entitled to opinion", and everyone is entitled to be called a ****ing moron.

You know who also had an opinion, Hitler, and he wasn't found of a few types of people.

The sad reality is that everyone is not entitled to an opinion. I'm an authority on some things over others, as are other people to me. There are things where people have expertise and where people have genuine authority or understanding. So yes everyone is entitled to an opinion, but they also need to accept to be torn asunder if that opinion is incorrect, ridiculous or can be challenged.

"I'm entitled to my opinion" is typically what follows an absolutely outrageous comment or statement that flies in the face of accepted thinking or behaviour, or has so many holes in the logic you wouldn't know where to start.

Bob24

TheDoc wrote: »

I'm saying that this reach from people to explain why this sort of action is unacceptable, is somewhat pointless since the people defending this action clearly are either not in employment, or have worked in a professional environment.

To explain why this document/memo is inappropriate due to it creating a hostile work environment for colleagues along with isolating the employee in question from being able to effectively work with peers, well I just shouldn't need to explain it to properly functioning adults...

Again this is pure PR talk designed to deliver a pre-concieved message and refuse to discuss its justifications with anyone. You keep qualifying the document in certain ways but you never ever quoted the actual facts which justify these qualifiers.

All you're saying is that those who don't draw the same conclusions as yours are not "properly functioning adults" but you have to date refused to articulate how you reached those conclusions when asked by other posters to do so.

Grayson

TheDoc wrote: »

Yah I love that "everyone entitled to opinion", and everyone is entitled to be called a ****ing moron.

You know who also had an opinion, Hitler, and he wasn't found of a few types of people.

The sad reality is that everyone is not entitled to an opinion. I'm an authority on some things over others, as are other people to me. There are things where people have expertise and where people have genuine authority or understanding. So yes everyone is entitled to an opinion, but they also need to accept to be torn asunder if that opinion is incorrect, ridiculous or can be challenged.

"I'm entitled to my opinion" is typically what follows an absolutely outrageous comment or statement that flies in the face of accepted thinking or behaviour, or has so many holes in the logic you wouldn't know where to start.

I think you misunderstood. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. We can't and shouldn't ban people from having an opinion. We can however call it out and especially laugh at how stupid it is.
As far as I'm concerned actions are what matter. The guy in google is fully entitled to think the idiotic things he thought. However the second he opens his mouth and says them (or writes them) then they are fair game. And google can fire him if his actions make for an uncomfortable workplace.

TheDoc

Bob24 wrote: »

Again this is pure PR talk designed to deliver a pre-concieved message and refuse to discuss its justifications with anyone. You keep qualifying the document in certain ways but you never ever quoted the actual facts which justify these qualifiers.

All you're saying is that those who don't draw the same conclusions as yours are not "properly functioning adults" but you have to date refused to articulate how reached those conclusions when asked by other posters to do so.

I'm not entertaining the timesink of going through his memo line by line to break down for you how the actual memo itself is ridiculous, but also how the action itself is outragous.

Better placed and more intelligent people then me have already done it. You can find numerous links in this thread along with the multiple commentary which has taken place in general media etc since the memo leaked.

And I actually have taken some quotes from the memo to explain some points, like how the employee clearly doesn't understand his role, by trying to portray engineering and coding should be more collaborative to "help" woman, as a "biological trait" of theirs is working better with other or having that preference. As if that is not already a thing that happens in coding or engineering, never mind places of work.

I'm also not into this "entertaining" stupidity or purposeful obtuseness. Like I said, maybe it's so abundantly obvious to the likes of me, and people I've spoken to in depth about it, because we work in professional environments or have worked in diverse companies or organisations.

silverharp

he is interviewed here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN1vEfqHGro

Bob24

TheDoc wrote: »

I'm not entertaining the timesink of going through his memo line by line to break down for you how the actual memo itself is ridiculous, but also how the action itself is outragous.

Better placed and more intelligent people then me have already done it. You can find numerous links in this thread along with the multiple commentary which has taken place in general media etc since the memo leaked.

And I actually have taken some quotes from the memo to explain some points, like how the employee clearly doesn't understand his role, by trying to portray engineering and coding should be more collaborative to "help" woman, as a "biological trait" of theirs is working better with other or having that preference. As if that is not already a thing that happens in coding or engineering, never mind places of work.

I'm also not into this "entertaining" stupidity or purposeful obtuseness. Like I said, maybe it's so abundantly obvious to the likes of me, and people I've spoken to in depth about it, because we work in professional environments or have worked in diverse companies or organisations.

Remember my original post you quated: I was saying people don't even agree on what is message is (i.e. is he actually advocating against diversity as many headlines has said).

To which you replied it is clearly inappropriate so not discussion is to be had.

If you go through your subsequent answers you still never ever quoted in context sections of the actual document to explain why his message is unquestionably clear and not appropriate. So yeah I guess we're going around circles.

jackofalltrades

Grayson wrote: »

It's not arbitrary. It's not unfounded. She heard them talking. She's not denying that they have no right to an opinion, she's saying that the opinion is wrong. I seriously want to bitch slap anyone who says that someone's entitled to an opinion. Of course they fcuking are. However, it doesn't put that opinion above criticism. She didn't name them. She didn't dox them. She just said she overheard people saying this.

And then the idiot used the phrase trigger warning.

The author is a moron. I'm not a fan of Dunham, I find her irritating in the extreme but the author is being an idiot.

First off it was a private conversation, she should mind her own business.
Secondly she reported this to the airline, giving them the location where she heard the conversation.
That's could be enough for them to identify the employees and land them in trouble.
She also published these details online, so there was always going to be the possibility of this turning into a witch hunt.
She's using her influence to silence opinions she doesn't agree with and put pressure on others to do the same.

TheDoc wrote: »

You know who also had an opinion, Hitler....

Did you really need to bring Hitler into the discussion?

TheDoc

Bob24 wrote: »

Remember my original post you quated: I was saying people don't even agree on what is message is (i.e. is he actually advocating against diversity as many headlines has said).

To which you replied it is clearly inappropriate so not discussion is to be had.

If you go through your subsequent answers you still never ever quoted in context sections of the actual document to explain why his message is unquestionably clear and not appropriate. So yeah I guess we're going around circles.

Yup. Posted some quotes and indications that he made in pages gone back, and outlining why its inappropriate.

TheDoc

jackofalltrades wrote: »

First off it was a private conversation, she should mind her own business.
Secondly she reported this to the airline, giving them the location where she heard the conversation.
That's could be enough for them to identify the employees and land them in trouble.
She also published these details online, so there was always going to be the possibility of this turning into a witch hunt.
She's using her influence to silence opinions she doesn't agree with and put pressure on others to do the same.
Did you really need to bring Hitler into the discussion?

It's the perfect example for the "I've my opinion so respect it" type of argument

TheDoc

TheDoc wrote: »

No one would be fired for wearing a repeal hoodie. Granted in my place of work if someone came in wearing it I would pull them into the office, probably give them a dressing down and leave it at that.

Wow - if you did that I can guarantee you would be all over Twitter within hours, you would have a lot of people demanding you be fired, and it wouldn't surprise me if you were.

I'm in tech, Repeal sweatshirts are practically a uniform, the idea that someone would get a 'dressing down' for wearing one is absurd.

Bob24

The guy might have actually played it well: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/business/google-women-engineer-fired-memo.html?action=click&contentCollection=technology&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0&referer=https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2017/8/9/16117616/google-engineer-diversity-memo-files-complaint-damore

It seems he did file a complaint to US authorities *before* being fired saying his management had been misrepresenting his opinion and trying to silence him when he expressed concerns about his work environment.

Whether or not his complaint is valid, he can now present his dismissal as a retaliation for exercising is legal right to seek assistance from labour relations authorities, which could be a problem for google at least in the short term.

Pichai is cutting his vacation short to return to the office because of what's been going on - so Google is clearly seeing the events of the past few days as a possible threat.

TheDoc

Deleted User wrote: »

Wow - if you did that I can guarantee you would be all over Twitter within hours, you would have a lot of people demanding you be fired, and it wouldn't surprise me if you were.

I'm in tech, Repeal sweatshirts are practically a uniform, the idea that someone would get a 'dressing down' for wearing one is absurd.

Yeah there might well be the twitter brigade out looking for my firing, but I wouldn't care to be honest, as I'd be following company policy and what is called creating a comfortable environment for staff.

Considering the behaviours that go along with the repeal campaign(both sides tbh), I would, as my company would, have to cater for the environment and well being of someone who is not comfortable with the idea of abortion or who is pro-choice, anti repeal or whatever.

Again this sounds like people not familiar with working an an office environment, trying to comment on how an office environment works?

There is a reason that most companies dress policy strictly outlines and prohibits the wearing of offensive, politically motivated or insensitive slogans or clothing. And someone coming in a repeal shirt, or a pro-Israel or pro-palestine jumper, or pro gay or anti gay tshirt, is going to cause problems.

There is no, and shouldn't be any preferential treatment provided, as it breads the exact type of situation that this employee in Google seems to have gotten himself into, whereby he felt vexed by the liberal and left musing of the company. "Repeal sweatshirts are practically a uniform" what a load of nonsense. This is the sort of brash activism and behaviour that makes it difficult for many to even broach certain topics, with both sides or certain sides being so immature or hostile.

It is a place of work, not a place of protest. And in a place of work, all employees need to be in, and are entitled to having an environment that isn't pressuring on topics or influences totally unrelated to the working environment.

I'd be interested to know what tech you are in, or company you work for, that would be totally fine with employees wearing political slogans in the work place.

TheDoc

Well what opinion are you looking for? Plenty have debunked it in the thread, plenty of links have been posted.

What sort of credentials are you after? You can Google "Why the Google memo is factually incorrect" or "Why the Google memo is wrong" and you will have plenty to go by.

Or you can bing search it if you prefer.

conorhal

TheDoc wrote: »

Yeah there might well be the twitter brigade out looking for my firing, but I wouldn't care to be honest, as I'd be following company policy and what is called creating a comfortable environment for staff.

Considering the behaviours that go along with the repeal campaign(both sides tbh), I would, as my company would, have to cater for the environment and well being of someone who is not comfortable with the idea of abortion or who is pro-choice, anti repeal or whatever.

Again this sounds like people not familiar with working an an office environment, trying to comment on how an office environment works?

There is a reason that most companies dress policy strictly outlines and prohibits the wearing of offensive, politically motivated or insensitive slogans or clothing. And someone coming in a repeal shirt, or a pro-Israel or pro-palestine jumper, or pro gay or anti gay tshirt, is going to cause problems.

There is no, and shouldn't be any preferential treatment provided, as it breads the exact type of situation that this employee in Google seems to have gotten himself into, whereby he felt vexed by the liberal and left musing of the company. "Repeal sweatshirts are practically a uniform" what a load of nonsense. This is the sort of brash activism and behaviour that makes it difficult for many to even broach certain topics, with both sides or certain sides being so immature or hostile.

It is a place of work, not a place of protest. And in a place of work, all employees need to be in, and are entitled to having an environment that isn't pressuring on topics or influences totally unrelated to the working environment.

I'd be interested to know what tech you are in, or company you work for, that would be totally fine with employees wearing political slogans in the work place.

I believe that was the point the guy was making right before he got fired...

TheDoc

TheDoc wrote: »

Yeah there might well be the twitter brigade out looking for my firing, but I wouldn't care to be honest, as I'd be following company policy and what is called creating a comfortable environment for staff.

Considering the behaviours that go along with the repeal campaign(both sides tbh), I would, as my company would, have to cater for the environment and well being of someone who is not comfortable with the idea of abortion or who is pro-choice, anti repeal or whatever.

Again this sounds like people not familiar with working an an office environment, trying to comment on how an office environment works?

There is a reason that most companies dress policy strictly outlines and prohibits the wearing of offensive, politically motivated or insensitive slogans or clothing. And someone coming in a repeal shirt, or a pro-Israel or pro-palestine jumper, or pro gay or anti gay tshirt, is going to cause problems.

There is no, and shouldn't be any preferential treatment provided, as it breads the exact type of situation that this employee in Google seems to have gotten himself into, whereby he felt vexed by the liberal and left musing of the company.

"Repeal sweatshirts are practically a uniform" what a load of nonsense. This is the sort of brash activism and behaviour that makes it difficult for many to even broach certain topics, with both sides or certain sides being so immature or hostile.

It is a place of work, not a place of protest. And in a place of work, all employees need to be in, and are entitled to having an environment that isn't pressuring on topics or influences totally unrelated to the working environment.

Plenty of repeal sweatshirts where I work (in an office, in tech) so I am not sure on what basis you say it is "a load of nonsense"?

You also seem to be ignoring the frequent political activism of tech companies in particular. How does your take on this fit in with large employers actively supporting marriage equality in the run up to the referendum, for example? Isn't that alienating to employees who don't agree with it for whatever reason?

BTW what REALLY makes it 'difficult for many to even broach certain topics' is getting disciplined by their employer for doing so, I would have thought that was obvious.

You sound like someone who doesn't know anything about how tech companies work to be honest.

20Cent

silverharp wrote: »

he is interviewed here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN1vEfqHGro

If you want to convince people that you aren't a sexist and are being smeared going on Stefan Molyneux's show should be one of the last things you do.

silverharp

20Cent wrote: »

If you want to convince people that you aren't a sexist and are being smeared going on Stefan Molyneux's show should be one of the last things you do.

not really an argument but I believe Jordan Peterson and Tucker Carlson want to interview him . or whats the alternative go on CNN where he will get a fair hearing ? :rolleyes:

conorhal

Deleted User wrote: »

Plenty of repeal sweatshirts where I work (in an office, in tech) so I am not sure on what basis you say it is "a load of nonsense"?

You also seem to be ignoring the frequent political activism of tech companies in particular. How does your take on this fit in with large employers actively supporting marriage equality in the run up to the referendum, for example? Isn't that alienating to employees who don't agree with it for whatever reason?

BTW what REALLY makes it 'difficult for many to even broach certain topics' is getting disciplined by their employer for doing so, I would have thought that was obvious.

You sound like someone who doesn't know anything about how tech companies work to be honest.

Indeed, though I supported marriage equality I was horrified to see Google (them AGAIN) here all but telling it's employees how to vote and by doing so making it implicit that anybody with a different opinion should probably not voice it. Foreign multinationals should not be involved in referenda and it is not their place to politically indoctrinate employees.

The fact that repeal sweatshirts are commonplace in your work speaks to a particular groupthink mindest (which verges on cultish in tech companies like Google) that I suspect would be very hostile to anybody that walking in wearing a pro life sweatshirt but would neither see the irony or have the slightest problem making a pariah of anybody not on board with their 'right-think'.

conorhal

20Cent wrote: »

If you want to convince people that you aren't a sexist and are being smeared going on Stefan Molyneux's show should be one of the last things you do.

You'd be better going to the Wall St. Journal or doing an interview on CNN?

At least he can be sure Molyneux's not going to edit down what he says into a hit-peice.

conorhal

conorhal wrote: »

Indeed, though I supported marriage equality I was horrified to see Google (them AGAIN) here all but telling it's employees how to vote and by doing so making it implicit that anybody with a different opinion should probably not voice it. Foreign multinationals should not be involved in referenda and it is not their place to politically indoctrinate employees.

The fact that repeal sweatshirts are commonplace in your work speaks to a particular groupthink mindest (which verges on cultish in tech companies like Google) that I suspect would be very hostile to anybody that walking in wearing a pro life sweatshirt but would neither see the irony or have the slightest problem making a pariah of anybody not on board with their 'right-think'.

Funnily enough I used to work with someone in our US office who would occasionally wear a "Make America Great Again" t-shirt into work. I never figured out if he was taking the piss or not, I suspect he was serious.

20Cent

conorhal wrote: »

You'd be better going to the Wall St. Journal or doing an interview on CNN?

At least he can be sure Molyneux's not going to edit down what he says into a hit-peice.

How about just make his own video or statement. Not someone who says feminism is socialism in panties.

Bob24

conorhal wrote: »

Indeed, though I supported marriage equality I was horrified to see Google (them AGAIN) here all but telling it's employees how to vote and by doing so making it implicit that anybody with a different opinion should probably not voice it. Foreign multinationals should not be involved in referenda and it is not their place to politically indoctrinate employees.

The fact that repeal sweatshirts are commonplace in your work speaks to a particular groupthink mindest (which verges on cultish in tech companies like Google) that I suspect would be very hostile to anybody that walking in wearing a pro life sweatshirt but would neither see the irony or have the slightest problem making a pariah of anybody not on board with their 'right-think'.

Yeah that's the problem. The company I work for is more old-fashioned which sometimes is frustrating, but at least they are apolitical.

The company never engages employees about political topics unless of course they directly have to do with the business, but on the other hand people feel pretty free to have discussions about things like gay marriage with colleagues at the canteen and express whatever opinion as long as it is done is a sensible way.

Google (and other Silicon Valley companies) are extremely politicised however and not just about topics directly related to their business (of course there's no probablem if Google wants to express a political opinion about let's say net neutrality as it is a question which is deeply linked to the way they operate their business).

TheDoc

Deleted User wrote: »

Plenty of repeal sweatshirts where I work (in an office, in tech) so I am not sure on what basis you say it is "a load of nonsense"?

You also seem to be ignoring the frequent political activism of tech companies in particular. How does your take on this fit in with large employers actively supporting marriage equality in the run up to the referendum, for example? Isn't that alienating to employees who don't agree with it for whatever reason?

BTW what REALLY makes it 'difficult for many to even broach certain topics' is getting disciplined by their employer for doing so, I would have thought that was obvious.

You sound like someone who doesn't know anything about how tech companies work to be honest.

I know how companies work, just because a company might be "tech" doesn't mean they should be frivolous to maintaining parity with employees of different mindsets and opinions.

This Google example is slightly different in the point the employee is trying to make is probably, and hopefully, more widespread accepted as nonsense. With how he describes coding and engineering and how to better tailor that to woman or how biological traits for woman being less able to deal with stress being a reason for their barrier to higher status jobs, that is not as nuanced as something like abortion, the repeal campaign where people do feel uneasy portraying their views where its against the grain.

But that is why those things, topics have no place in the workplace, outside of immediate employee chatter.

Companies taking a stance on political or social topics like that, at the end of the day down to them, but plenty of instances whereby I'd imagine employees within with different views might object through proper channels.

I'm quiet "left" leaning when it comes to social issues, but doesn't mean I'm ignorant to other peoples sensitivities, and them not wanting to confront those issues or topics in a place of work.

So cool your company are fine with people coming in with repeal clothing, and what, someone who is in the opposite camp is supposed to sit there and just be cool with it? It's ok if they are made uncomfortable in their place of work by peers wearing political clothing, especially considering there is general hostility immediately flung at anyone who dares be opposed to the repeal campaign?

For clarity, while I'm not hotly involved or have a developed care persay, similar to the marriage referendum, I'm in favour of repealing the 8th, but seeing the typical response those against get online and even in person, it's not something that should be easily ignored.

And to be honest all forms part of this modern hostility that comes attache with social views or issues, where it just seems hostile.

And in terms of my "dressing down" comment, I thought that would be pretty fair considering I get some people get very emotive and principled over certain beliefs or social issues. So I wouldn't make a formal thing out of anything unless it was some horrendously offensive material, but I think pulling someone into an office and reminding them of the dress code, of which they would be in breach of, and for them to sort it out, is a pretty fair way about dealing with it.

So yeah sorry I havn't worked in tech companies where it's t-shirts, sandals and open flannel shirts(well I have, and even there it had clear dress code relating to political slogans and clothing) but being a tech company with a few bean bags around the office isn't an excuse nor a template for making certain portions of the workforce uncomfortable or feeling alienated because of their stance on an issue.

Important on that last part to caveat assuming, like with most people who feel alienated due to certain views or beliefs, how they would likely keep this to themselves and circumvent certain conversations to avoid their true beliefs be known, or seperate to them holding ignorant or clearly unacceptable beliefs or views as deemed by civilised society.

silverharp

conorhal wrote: »

You'd be better going to the Wall St. Journal or doing an interview on CNN?

At least he can be sure Molyneux's not going to edit down what he says into a hit-peice.

the editing of his document and taking out his sources and then saying the document had no sources was grindingly annoying to hear.

charlie_says

TheDoc

TheDoc wrote: »

So cool your company are fine with people coming in with repeal clothing, and what, someone who is in the opposite camp is supposed to sit there and just be cool with it? It's ok if they are made uncomfortable in their place of work by peers wearing political clothing, especially considering there is general hostility immediately flung at anyone who dares be opposed to the repeal campaign?

Whether it's right or not is another matter (doesn't really bother me, but I am an old school grown up who doesn't lose their **** at the idea that someone thinks differently to me), but I can honestly say I can't think of a single tech industry workplace that would discipline someone, even informally, for wearing a Repeal sweatshirt. Maybe somewhere slightly more old-fashioned like Microsoft but definitely not Google, Twitter, LinkedIn etc and certainly nothing start-up or growth.

And there would be an almighty storm if any of them did.

Anyway I suspect this is a different argument.

Bob24

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Maybe somewhere slightly more old-fashioned like Microsoft but definitely not Google, Twitter, LinkedIn etc and certainly nothing start-up or growth.

And there would be an almighty storm if any of them did.

Yes pretty much my experience. This is why I insisted on people explaining clearly why they find the memo unacceptable (is it for expressing an opinion in general or expressing that particular option). I reckon none answered clearly quoting the document because it would show their concern is with that specific opinion and they know that to some extend they are therefore supporting double standards.

Personally I'd tend to agree that for the most part the t-shirts you mentioned or the guy's manifesto should be kept away from the work environment (while employees can of course have private discussions about anything during their break if they want to). But the very problem of a company like Google is that they are actually actively encouraging their employees to express their valued opinions *within the work environment* through emails or workshops - so people take it at face value and do so without realising that there are some double-standards and only some opinions are acceptable (or even encouraged, not to say mandatory).

TheDoc

Deleted User wrote: »

Whether it's right or not is another matter (doesn't really bother me, but I am an old school grown up who doesn't lose their **** at the idea that someone thinks differently to me), but I can honestly say I can't think of a single tech industry workplace that would discipline someone, even informally, for wearing a Repeal sweatshirt. Maybe somewhere slightly more old-fashioned like Microsoft but definitely not Google, Twitter, LinkedIn etc and certainly nothing start-up or growth.

And there would be an almighty storm if any of them did.

Anyway I suspect this is a different argument.

Yeah probably is, and to be honest I'm a bit surprised that it would be ok. I'm similar to you in that it doesn't bother me personally and I'm generally pretty laid back. And I know having to deal with issues historically in terms of how one person spoke to another or how someone took offence to something someone else said and I'll be sitting there to myself thinking "Wow you need to lighten up" but the point being that it's not really a call I get to make.

If someone is aggrieved by something, and they make a formal complaint about it or even an informal complaint, it needs to be addressed. Regardless of how frivolous it might be. That's how it goes.

I'm not comfortable with Repeal slogans and t-shirts appearing in the Dail, so I'd be surprised to know its something that fine in places of work. And the surprise is because it's such a nuanced topic. **** I'm not getting into it here, but its not something clean slate (from what I can tell) like say Marriage equality, where the counter arguments were for me nonsense and it just wasn't an issue I needed to think about, just made sense.

What I guess is the potential issue here, like someone else posted, someone wears a repeal t-shirt, gets a chat about it, goes straight onto twitter or facebook to cry fowl, and then a horde envelops saying how its a disgrace, even though its not accepted dress code.

Anyway I've gone off on a tangent, and I'm not overt to being held accountable or pointed incorrect on anything, so I'm interested to learn that there are companies or workplaces that are cool with this, but yet I suspect wouldn't be cool with all types of political or belief declarations and it does beg the question where does the line get drawn.

TheDoc

Bob24 wrote: »

Yes pretty much my experience. This is why I insisted on people explaining clearly why they find the memo unacceptable (is it for expressing an opinion in general or expressing that particular option). I reckon none answered clearly quoting the document because it would show their concern is with that specific opinion and they know that to some extend they are therefore supporting double standards.

ok since I've been asked a few times even though I mentioned it some pages back.

One of the cornerstones of the guys memo is that a change should be made to how coding and engineering is done, that more "pairing" environments should be made.

Now typically "pair" coding (from what I did) is a more senior or experienced programmer or engineer being "paired" with a beginner or novice. That it provides an environment where the standards and ingrained methods from the expert transfer to the novice, but the novice, has more scope for questioning "why" as they are new and not ingrained in a companies/applications methods or practice.

It's also not to dissimilar to general "buddy" programmes or mentoring that so many companies in so many areas employ.

In the memo, the author suggests more of these programmes be put in place for female engineers or programmers. He suggests this, from his interpretation of a biological difference, whereby woman are more efficent and more at ease working in tandem with another person or people, as opposed to themselves. He outlines that men, are more systemised, and would be more comfortable working alone.

So there is an issue here in that he just ignores the characteristics and personality traits in people, regardless of sex. Whereby a man could easily be more comfortable working as part of a team or group, or a woman could be more comfortable working alone in solitude.

He also, and I'd imagine unintentionally, furthermore in that section, basically outlines woman arn't as good engineers. Again I don' think that is his intention, but that is what he does. He basically says his female peers are not as good as him.

As many have pointed out, even existing and former google employees or tech employees since this came out, he shows a gross misunderstanding of collaboration and engineering. Where he obviously doesn't understand the wider picture, and questions are raised on what this guy actually does (his name seems to be public now, so maybe people have worked out what he actually did?) but from just his memo where it appears he tunnel visions on the isolated coding/problem fixing aspect it is assumed he is either new, or a low level engineer.

Because a basis for any system design, application design or infrastructural design, is collaboration with multiple stakeholders be it customers, departments, inter team communication etc. So that everyone is on the same page and there is one system,application or infrastructure being built, and not multiple versions or iterations by all those involved being silos.

The problem with it (granted there are issues with some of what he portrays as fact) is not so much he is claiming anything outrageous or inflammatory (although he kinda is depending on your viewpoint) but that he is inadvertently degrading peers and colleagues and in his attempt to portray a scientific or factually based document, he is deriding woman in his workplace.

And then separate to it all, regardless of the context or the facts he is trying to portray or the solutions, is that because he created this and sent it out (the fact it become widespread unintentionally, well sorry mate, you work for Google and if you dont know what can happen with e-mail ) he created a situation where he became isolated and alienated, he became a problem employee and created a hostile environment for woman, whereby questions were being asked about their suitability and fitness for the roles they operated in.

RDM_83 again

TheDoc wrote: »

The problem with it (granted there are issues with some of what he portrays as fact) is not so much he is claiming anything outrageous or inflammatory (although he kinda is depending on your viewpoint) but that he is inadvertently degrading peers and colleagues and in his attempt to portray a scientific or factually based document, he is deriding woman in his workplace.

I can agree with a lot of your reasoning in terms of the above post (and I know nothing much about programming!) but isn't the obvious defense to this charge that the conversation is already saying that both genders bring different things to the table (hence why we have these diversity targets), I would hazard that there have been numerous documents passed around in google that talk about the advantages of having a more mixed workforce surely if (in general) both genders have strengths doesn't that logically mean they have weaknesses too?

I am personally very much on-board with completely depoliticized workplaces, AFAIK thats how most of the operate in Northern Ireland, the issue is that these work places are already socially and politically partisan.

In terms of the impact on Google I am not sure if this has been mentioned before but they will have to be mindful of how they handle this in relation to hiring in the future.
As far as I am aware there is presently very high demand for highly skilled engineers/programmers, like it or not at the minute most of these will be male and of these IMO STEM and IT are much more politically diverse than the social sciences.
If your a skilled male who holds some skepticism about the way "Social Justice" issues are framed and a number of companies are courting you, this would like make you hesitant, now Google will likely never suffer from not being able to find somebody to fill a role, but it may impact their ability to hire the cutting edge.

JRant

TheDoc wrote: »

The mistake he made was thinking that sharing internally a document that belittles and discredits female colleagues in certain roles, and creates a hostile environment for woman, along with making himself isolated, was ok.

I'm questioning if the people perplexed at how he was fired, have a)Actually ever worked in a job b) Ever worked in a diverse office environment

I'd agree with you if he did but he didn't so I don't. Belittling, discrediting and hostile are lovely buzz words but without any foundation in this case. His biggest mistake was thinking a "diverse" work environment actually wanted diverse opinions.

As to the rest, well you know, that's just, like your opinion, man.

conorhal

JRant wrote: »

I'd agree with you if he did but he didn't so I don't. Belittling, discrediting and hostile are lovely buzz words but without any foundation in this case. His biggest mistake was thinking a "diverse" work environment actually wanted diverse opinions.

As to the rest, well you know, that's just, like your opinion, man.

Indeed, allow this cartoon bear rebut a typical respondent to this current controversy...

Dyr

TheDoc wrote: »

ok since I've been asked a few times even though I mentioned it some pages back.

One of the cornerstones of the guys memo is that a change should be made to how coding and engineering is done, that more "pairing" environments should be made.

Now typically "pair" coding (from what I did) is a more senior or experienced programmer or engineer being "paired" with a beginner or novice. That it provides an environment where the standards and ingrained methods from the expert transfer to the novice, but the novice, has more scope for questioning "why" as they are new and not ingrained in a companies/applications methods or practice.

It's also not to dissimilar to general "buddy" programmes or mentoring that so many companies in so many areas employ.

In the memo, the author suggests more of these programmes be put in place for female engineers or programmers. He suggests this, from his interpretation of a biological difference, whereby woman are more efficent and more at ease working in tandem with another person or people, as opposed to themselves. He outlines that men, are more systemised, and would be more comfortable working alone.

So there is an issue here in that he just ignores the characteristics and personality traits in people, regardless of sex. Whereby a man could easily be more comfortable working as part of a team or group, or a woman could be more comfortable working alone in solitude.

.

You claim that this is a cornerstone of his memo yet it mentions "pair programming" only once in 10 pages . That's strikes one, two and three against your rebuttal right there for me.

You claim he ignores factors other than sex with regards to characteristics and personality in this section, yet he repeatedly uses the qualifier "on average" in reference to the characteristics he ascribes as being more pronounced in women, and in the previous paragraph links his sources for each claim.

Thats before you take into account that saying ; "group A is more oriented towards X than group B" is not attributing an affinity for X to everyone in group A.

This is why people are refusing to debate the detail in his memo because specific claims have to be countered with specific rebuttal not generalizations and spurious attribution and god forbid that this orthodoxy winds up being subjected to scrutiny

TheDoc

Bambi wrote: »

You claim that this is a cornerstone of his memo yet it mentions "pair programming" only once in 10 pages . That's strikes one, two and three against your rebuttal right there for me.

He mentions the preference and difference of woman operating better or more efficiently or more comfortably with other people multiple times, in multiple parts of his memo.

Not really going to bother going through it with you since you clearly have a set take on that document and all you are interested in doing is nitpicking and having little wins or something, so you fire ahead there

JRant

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I can agree with a lot of your reasoning in terms of the above post (and I know nothing much about programming!) but isn't the obvious defense to this charge that the conversation is already saying that both genders bring different things to the table (hence why we have these diversity targets), I would hazard that there have been numerous documents passed around in google that talk about the advantages of having a more mixed workforce surely if (in general) both genders have strengths doesn't that logically mean they have weaknesses too?

I am personally very much on-board with completely depoliticized workplaces, AFAIK thats how most of the operate in Northern Ireland, the issue is that these work places are already socially and politically partisan.

In terms of the impact on Google I am not sure if this has been mentioned before but they will have to be mindful of how they handle this in relation to hiring in the future.
As far as I am aware there is presently very high demand for highly skilled engineers/programmers, like it or not at the minute most of these will be male and of these IMO STEM and IT are much more politically diverse than the social sciences.
If your a skilled male who holds some skepticism about the way "Social Justice" issues are framed and a number of companies are courting you, this would like make you hesitant, now Google will likely never suffer from not being able to find somebody to fill a role, but it may impact their ability to hire the cutting edge.

Most of the West coast based tech companies are extremely politicised, walk around their offices or a quick look on their intranet and you will see all sorts of politically motivated material. The recent Pride festival had my office looking like a rainbow puked all over everything. There are Trans awareness programs, positive discrimination programs, women only fast track and mentoring programs, these are perfectly fine but they then claim to not be political, it's laughable stuff. Then the icing on the cake is this unconscious bias training, the premise of which it that everyone is a racist and needs some snakeoil salesperson to come along and try pass there bunkim as "fact".

Now I love where I work but am under absolutely no illusion that to go against the grain on any issue would result in HR being on me like white on rice. They are about as far away from a diverse work environment as a christian bakery.

Dyr

TheDoc wrote: »

He mentions the preference and difference of woman operating better or more efficiently or more comfortably with other people multiple times, in multiple parts of his memo.

Not really going to bother going through it with you since you clearly have a set take on that document and all you are interested in doing is nitpicking and having little wins or something, so you fire ahead there

I haven't put forward any opinion on the claims he made, I don't have any opinion..as yet, only a hunch that he got the science right at least.

You've put forward very strident opinions on his claims being utterly and obviously incorrect yet are reluctant to back this up.

Given that attempt you made I can see why. You might get nitpicked to death at that rate

The only set opinion I have is that the people who have taken massive issue with this document will not debate what the chap wrote on its own merits because that's not what their problem is. Its the fact that he had to gall to present a view that they consider blasphemous.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

Bob24 wrote: »

The guy might have actually played it well: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/business/google-women-engineer-fired-memo.html?action=click&contentCollection=technology&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0&referer=https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2017/8/9/16117616/google-engineer-diversity-memo-files-complaint-damore

It seems he did file a complaint to US authorities *before* being fired saying his management had been misrepresenting his opinion and trying to silence him when he expressed concerns about his work environment.

Whether or not his complaint is valid, he can now present his dismissal as a retaliation for exercising is legal right to seek assistance from labour relations authorities, which could be a problem for google at least in the short term.

Pichai is cutting his vacation short to return to the office because of what's been going on - so Google is clearly seeing the events of the past few days as a possible threat.

The success of this memo has been absolutely incredible from a PR point of view. Although it cost Damore his job, the shock this has caused to the previously 'untouchable' self appointed high priests of society has been astronomical. The unshakeable self belief is starting to crack ever so slightly. It hasn't been much visibly, but it has been enough. The dam is going to break now.

Google management will now subliminally consider the 'lower caste' of conservatives from now on when making decisions and shaping policy for fear that the optics will look bad. They're under the microscope from here on in, and they know it. Any more PR disasters like this will be multiplied under the media spotlight, so they'll be falling over themselves now to present a happy family image.

What I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall at Google right now as the buzzword brigade run around in a panic like headless chickens. Reality just crept in and took a hot steaming crap all over their eco-friendly office wellness centre.


The effects are already being seen in the major liberal publications this morning. It's like the Berlin wall just came down, and the Stasi are nowhere to be seen. The Irish Times published an opinion piece today questioning the cult like following of political correctness:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/larissa-nolan-political-correctness-will-hurt-us-all-in-the-end-1.3180394

Even the notoriously smug BBC delivered a surprisingly even handed and fair report today questioning whether it was right for Google to fire James Damore. For an organisation that has been utterly Scientologist-like in its adherence to political correctness, this represents a major shift in stance. Their usual policy towards a controversy that they deem 'alt-right' is either sneering mockery, or just plain ignoring it when the subject matter asks difficult questions that they don't want to hear. They even grudgingly admit that he 'got most of the science right'.

Articles like these would have been unthinkable even one week ago:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-40865261

As anyone who checks my post history will note, I am a major critic of the mainstream media and their descent into madness in recent years. So let me be the first to congratulate the Irish Times and the BBC on these developments. Long may they continue.

A strong society is like a free market in action; provide the accurate information, and the wisdom of crowds will provide you with the best course of action most of the time. Try and tell them what to think, and they'll do the exact opposite just to spite you.

So maybe there's hope yet. All people want is fair, balanced reporting. That's all.

20Cent

It's like the civil rights movement except for nerds with no girlfriends.


www.marchongoogle.com

Canis Lupus

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

The success of this memo has been absolutely incredible from a PR point of view. Although it cost Damore his job, the shock this has caused to the previously 'untouchable' self appointed high priests of society has been astronomical. The unshakeable self belief is starting to crack ever so slightly. It hasn't been much visibly, but it has been enough. The dam is going to break now.

Google management will now subliminally consider the 'lower caste' of conservatives from now on when making decisions and shaping policy for fear that the optics will look bad. They're under the microscope from here on in, and they know it. Any more PR disasters like this will be multiplied under the media spotlight, so they'll be falling over themselves now to present a happy family image.

What I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall at Google right now as the buzzword brigade run around in a panic like headless chickens. Reality just crept in and took a hot steaming crap all over their eco-friendly office wellness centre.


The effects are already being seen in the major liberal publications this morning. It's like the Berlin wall just came down, and the Stasi are nowhere to be seen. The Irish Times published an opinion piece today questioning the cult like following of political correctness:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/larissa-nolan-political-correctness-will-hurt-us-all-in-the-end-1.3180394

Even the notoriously smug BBC delivered a surprisingly even handed and fair report today questioning whether it was right for Google to fire James Damore. For an organisation that has been utterly Scientologist-like in its adherence to political correctness, this represents a major shift in stance. Their usual policy towards a controversy that they deem 'alt-right' is either sneering mockery, or just plain ignoring it when the subject matter asks difficult questions that they don't want to hear. They even grudgingly admit that he 'got most of the science right'.

Articles like these would have been unthinkable even one week ago:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-40865261

As anyone who checks my post history will note, I am a major critic of the mainstream media and their descent into madness in recent years. So let me be the first to congratulate the Irish Times and the BBC on these developments. Long may they continue.

A strong society is like a free market in action; provide the accurate information, and the wisdom of crowds will provide you with the best course of action most of the time. Try and tell them what to think, and they'll do the exact opposite just to spite you.

So maybe there's hope yet. All people want is fair, balanced reporting. That's all.

Yeah I think you're overthinking this a bit. Give it a week or two and this will all be forgotten about.

Bob24

TheDoc wrote: »

ok since I've been asked a few times even though I mentioned it some pages back.

One of the cornerstones of the guys memo is that a change should be made to how coding and engineering is done, that more "pairing" environments should be made.

Now typically "pair" coding (from what I did) is a more senior or experienced programmer or engineer being "paired" with a beginner or novice. That it provides an environment where the standards and ingrained methods from the expert transfer to the novice, but the novice, has more scope for questioning "why" as they are new and not ingrained in a companies/applications methods or practice.

It's also not to dissimilar to general "buddy" programmes or mentoring that so many companies in so many areas employ.

In the memo, the author suggests more of these programmes be put in place for female engineers or programmers. He suggests this, from his interpretation of a biological difference, whereby woman are more efficent and more at ease working in tandem with another person or people, as opposed to themselves. He outlines that men, are more systemised, and would be more comfortable working alone.

So there is an issue here in that he just ignores the characteristics and personality traits in people, regardless of sex. Whereby a man could easily be more comfortable working as part of a team or group, or a woman could be more comfortable working alone in solitude.

He also, and I'd imagine unintentionally, furthermore in that section, basically outlines woman arn't as good engineers. Again I don' think that is his intention, but that is what he does. He basically says his female peers are not as good as him.

As many have pointed out, even existing and former google employees or tech employees since this came out, he shows a gross misunderstanding of collaboration and engineering. Where he obviously doesn't understand the wider picture, and questions are raised on what this guy actually does (his name seems to be public now, so maybe people have worked out what he actually did?) but from just his memo where it appears he tunnel visions on the isolated coding/problem fixing aspect it is assumed he is either new, or a low level engineer.

Because a basis for any system design, application design or infrastructural design, is collaboration with multiple stakeholders be it customers, departments, inter team communication etc. So that everyone is on the same page and there is one system,application or infrastructure being built, and not multiple versions or iterations by all those involved being silos.

The problem with it (granted there are issues with some of what he portrays as fact) is not so much he is claiming anything outrageous or inflammatory (although he kinda is depending on your viewpoint) but that he is inadvertently degrading peers and colleagues and in his attempt to portray a scientific or factually based document, he is deriding woman in his workplace.

And then separate to it all, regardless of the context or the facts he is trying to portray or the solutions, is that because he created this and sent it out (the fact it become widespread unintentionally, well sorry mate, you work for Google and if you dont know what can happen with e-mail ) he created a situation where he became isolated and alienated, he became a problem employee and created a hostile environment for woman, whereby questions were being asked about their suitability and fitness for the roles they operated in.

Fairplay for engaging and taking the time to lay-out your thinking, I don't think any other poster who labeled the document as unacceptable have done so. And I'm quoting your whole post to give an overall answer as I don't assume either of us want to spend the whole evening getting back at each other one specific details (which no-one else would read anyway).

Now there are two broad areas of contention for me:

1) While it is great to have a clear opinion piece to talk about rather than just it is unacceptable, to me what you wrote confirms what I was saying before on the fact that people can't even agree on what he said.

Specifically, the fact that when you articulate your view on his position paper you are not quoting a single sentence from the original document undermines the value of the whole thing: every comment you make is based on your subjective interpretation of what he meant rather than the raw source (and since it is very clear from this thread that different people seem to understand him differently the only common ground for discussion is the original source).

To keep it short(ish), I'll give one exemple amongst others of where I personally see your interpretation as being incorrect when I go back to the source (on a point which is central to the controversy).

Your are saying that "he just ignores the characteristics and personality traits in people, regardless of sex. Whereby a man could easily be more comfortable working as part of a team or group, or a woman could be more comfortable working alone in solitude" (note that to dispute your point I am quoting your own words and not giving my interpretation of what you meant).

If I look at the document, he does however say: "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."

That statement of his is perfectly in line with your (correct) assertion that the characteristics we are talking about can all be present in any individual regardless of sex and that for exemple a woman could indeed be more comfortable working alone in solitude. I therefore think you are wrong in saying he is ignoring that fact. And if he didn't ignore it, any further criticism based on that wrong interpretation of what he said is invalidated.

2) The other aspect is whether (regardless of one agreeing with him or not) it was appropriate to circulate an opinion piece about the topic.

As I have already mentioned in another post, I am totally in agreement with the view your previously expressed that political opinions of any side should ideally not be at play in a professional environement. However and as discussed before, this is already at play (and sometimes encouraged) at Google, which sends mixed messages to employees. I partly watched the guy's interview and he seems to say that what got him to write the document is that he had to attend workshops organised by the company where discussions about these topics where happening. Here's the contradiction I see: if it's OK to organise group talks about lets say gender based quotas in recruitment processes and for employees to say they think they are effective, is the company not entering double-standard territoy when they then say it is not OK for other employees to say that in there opinion they are not effective? (what's the point in organising a discussion in the first place in only one opinion is allowed? Just communicate the company policy as something which can't be argued and you're done)

You also say that "he is inadvertently degrading peers and colleagues" and "he created a situation where he became isolated and alienated, he became a problem employee and created a hostile environment for woman". My comment would be a suggestion to keep in mind that the reason he wrote the document in the first place is that he (alongside with others) did feel actively alienated by coworkers and the company due to some of his views (he's not saying exactly why but I assume in some of those talks people who are against gender quotas could have been called misogynist or things like that) - but very few within Google's management would have a problem with that. Basically when you start dealing with whether people are right to be offended (a subjective thing) and making choices between groups of people, you are opening a massive can of worms as every decision you make becomes political and Google is learning it the hard way (and they deserve what they're getting IMO as they are a very politicised company). And just to add he is clearly not part of a majority but he did receive support within the company and I don't think he seemed completely isolated, so I think even if they shut that guy up they are not done with the issue.


In any case, I don't assume you will come back and say you now agree with all I said, which is fair enough, but at least I hope our exchange proves the point that things are not as simple as saying what he did was obviously not appropriate.

Dyr

20Cent wrote: »

It's like the civil rights movement except for nerds with no girlfriends.


www.marchongoogle.com

Nerds is their word for themselves you pasty white norm, its offensive when you use it:mad:


Hope this ****ing march route is fairly short, that demograph aren't known for their stamina

silverharp

Bambi wrote: »

Nerds is their word for themselves you pasty white norm, its offensive when you use it:mad:


Hope this ****ing march route is fairly short, that demograph aren't known for their stamina

whats all this hate against "nerds", they are probably on $100K to $150K a year so they are not exactly losers

Wombatman

Bambi wrote: »

You claim that this is a cornerstone of his memo yet it mentions "pair programming" only once in 10 pages . That's strikes one, two and three against your rebuttal right there for me.

You claim he ignores factors other than sex with regards to characteristics and personality in this section, yet he repeatedly uses the qualifier "on average" in reference to the characteristics he ascribes as being more pronounced in women, and in the previous paragraph links his sources for each claim.

Thats before you take into account that saying ; "group A is more oriented towards X than group B" is not attributing an affinity for X to everyone in group A.

This is why people are refusing to debate the detail in his memo because specific claims have to be countered with specific rebuttal not generalizations and spurious attribution and god forbid that this orthodoxy winds up being subjected to scrutiny

Please read my previous post on this which quotes his memo and puts forward a counterpoint. Essentially while his statements on gender difference may have validity, they are selective and pretty irrelevant when talking about the skill set required for software development, which in itself in a very varied.

Did the people who argue, that people who reject the memo should first read it, actually read it themselves? Forget about pair programming. Does he not say that women are better suited to front end programming (HTML you know, markup, but not really a programming language) because their confused brains can't handle hard core back end programming with real languages. Drop that Learn Python in 21 Days book now sisters!

The guy is clearly a crusader with a nasty misogynistic agenda clocked in sophistry. If he made a complaint to the labor relations then he must have been already formally censured by the company. I wonder what the nature of this former interaction with the company was?

silverharp

Wombatman wrote: »

Please read my previous post on this which quotes his memo and puts forward a counterpoint. Essentially while his statements on gender difference may have validity, they are selective and pretty irrelevant when talking about the skill set required for software development, which in itself in a very varied.

Did the people who argue, that people who reject the memo should first read it, actually read it themselves? Forget about pair programming. Does he not say that women are better suited to front end programming (HTML you know, markup, but not really a programming language) because their confused brains can't handle hard core back end programming with real languages. Drop that Learn Python in 21 Days book now sisters!

The guy is clearly a crusader with a nasty misogynistic agenda clocked in sophistry. If he made a complaint to the labor relations then he must have been already formally censured by the company. I wonder what the nature of this former interaction with the company was?

at the end of the day he said everyone should be treated like individuals. there is clearly a bigger "culture war" going on here, every TV feminist gets away with saying there is sexism and women are kept down by the man if there is any disparity in m/f participation in something yet its clear that men and women don't seek out a lot of jobs at the same rate.
In the US male students have always done better than female students on the Maths part of the SAT, also your average IT engineering class will be 3 to 1 or more male to female. At some stage everyone should just say the numbers are what they are , there is nothing to fix, the clever girls obviously prefer Law , medicine, veterinary and what not.
(Ill just email this off to my company and will await the hounds of hell from HR to chuck me out the window)

Silver Lynel

There is a full 50 minute interview with the guy who wrote the memo here:

I don't know what to make of it. Seems like a lot of posters here don't have the full story.

Dyr

Wombatman wrote: »

Did the people who argue, that people who reject the memo should first read it, actually read it themselves? Forget about pair programming. Does he not say that women are better suited to front end programming (HTML you know, markup, but not really a programming language) because their confused brains can't handle hard core back end programming with real languages. Drop that Learn Python in 21 Days book now sisters!

"comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both
people and aesthetics."

Is that what you're referencing?

If it is can you explain why you're lying about the guy?

wes

He finally removed the claims of having a PhD from LinkedIn, as per wired:

wired.com

Until Tuesday, Damore’s LinkedIn profile included “PhD, Systems Biology.” Damore appears to have changed the profile after WIRED reported that he had not completed the degree. According to the LinkedIn profile, Damore had been a software engineer at Google since December 2013.

Wombatman

Bambi wrote: »

"comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both
people and aesthetics."

Is that what you're referencing?

If it is can you explain why you're lying about the guy?

I'm not lying and happy to explain for you.

Lets look at the whole point so as to correctly put it in context.

These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.

He is very careful about his wobbly points. First of all he says "men may like coding because". They also "may not" in that case. But he still makes the point linking it to biology when we have no idea if it is true or even relevant.

He then implies that more women work in front end programming because of the way their brains are wired. However we have no idea why relatively more women work in front in programming?

More women work in front end programming. Fact.
Women prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. Fact

The implication in the paragraph is that more women work in front end programming because prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. NOT FACT .
Correlation does not imply causation.

What do you think he is trying to achieve with the full paragraph I quoted? This is not a rhetorical question. Try to answer it like I did yours.

BTW who lied when it was said that no dissenters were quoting and arguing directly against the points in the memo?

Who lied when they said he only makes one reference to suitability for software development (paired programming) and the rest of is about "irrefutable" biological differences?

Silver Lynel

Wombatman wrote: »

I'm not lying and happy to explain for you.

Lets look at the whole point so as to correctly put it in context.



He is very careful about his wobbly points. First of all he says "men may like coding because". They also "may not" in that case. But he still makes the point linking it to biology when we have no idea if it is true or even relevant.

He then implies that more women work in front end programming because of the way their brains are wired. However we have no idea why relatively more women work in front in programming?

More women work in front end programming. Fact.
Women prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. Fact

The implication in the paragraph is that more women work in front end programming because prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. NOT FACT .
Correlation does not imply causation.

What do you think he is trying to achieve with the full paragraph I quoted? This is not a rhetorical question. Try to answer it like I did yours.

BTW who lied when it was said that no dissenters were quoting and arguing directly against the points in the memo?

Who lied when they said he only makes one reference to suitability for software development (paired programming) and the rest of is about "irrefutable" biological differences?

My understanding here is that the guy is actually sympathetic to Google's goals regarding diversity BUT he doesn't agree with their reasoning or methods?

You are making a good argument that this guys opinions are wrong.

You are not making a good argument that he has a "nasty misogynistic agenda".

So when you make the very valid argument that correlation does not imply causation, and point out that this is an error in his argument, you are quite right.

However you seem to be making the same mistake yourself. He is making these arguments and so it follows that he has a nasty misogynistic agenda? No. Correlation does not imply causation, remember?

I am not going to accuse you of lying about the guy but I am going to say that yourself and the writer of the memo are making similar errors in your reading of the situation.

Why are we throwing around phrases like "misogynist" in the first place?

It's not enough to say "he is wrong and here is why"? We also have to add on "he also hates women and thinks they are inferior to men"?

Why?

Dyr

Wombatman wrote: »

I'm not lying and happy to explain for you.

Lets look at the whole point so as to correctly put it in context.



He is very careful about his wobbly points. First of all he says "men may like coding because". They also "may not" in that case. But he still makes the point linking it to biology when we have no idea if it is true or even relevant.

He then implies that more women work in front end programming because of the way their brains are wired. However we have no idea why relatively more women work in front in programming?

More women work in front end programming. Fact.
Women prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. Fact

The implication in the paragraph is that more women work in front end programming because prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. NOT FACT .
Correlation does not imply causation.

He never states that it does.

○ These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social
or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even
within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both
people and aesthetics.

That clever bastard, when he's on wobbly ground he doesn't actually say what you wish he had said but merely draws implications from facts.

So do you want back up your claims that he's clearly a misogynist and that he was "formally censured" by google.

Or is that ground a bit wobbly too?