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

LionelNashe

Bambi wrote: »

Some scientisticians run the ruler over this lads document. Verdict: He did his homework and his sciencing is valid

https://archive.is/VlNfl#selection-965.667-965.855

Cue diversity pundits furiously googling names to discredit people rather than refute arguments

I read that, and was surprised, because a couple of minutes of checking the other day gave me this meta-study:
http://www.apa.org/action/resources/research-in-action/share.aspx
which says that the differences in ability are insignificant.

The manifesto guy talked about 'preferences and abilities' at one point. If he had talked about preferences, and not implied that women have less ability, then his argument would have been on firmer ground.

The reason I think that women have less preference for certain careers (or men have a higher preference for certain careers; same thing) is because less than 20% of computer science students are female, and I can't see how 17 year-olds are making that decision on any grounds other than their personal preferences. I really doubt there's a load of female Leaving Cert students thinking "If I opt for that Computer Science degree on the CAO form I'll be harrassed and belittled in the workplace in 5 years time." I'm not saying that this doesn't happen in workplaces - reportedly it does - I'm just saying that I doubt it's responsible for the gender difference in CAO choices.

Some of the replies to the manifesto have been really disappointing. It has been called a diatribe, a screed, and a rant, when in fact it's a very well written and very insightful piece of cultural criticism, that gets more things right than it gets wrong. I couldn't believe it was written by an engineer. Compare it to Kevin Myer's piece, an experienced journalist - in comparison, Myers' piece was fit for nothing but wrapping the chips.

The response below by a ex senior engineer in Google makes several points that lend weight to the argument of the manifesto guy, but then he draws opposite conclusions. It's so poorly argued that I think the author is just using the controvery to boost the profile of the new venture that he's involved in.

https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788

We really do live in a post-truth society.

wes

Bob24 wrote: »

All to be confirmed but yes. On the other hand throwing this in at this stage would clearly look like they are trying to find valid arguments to fire him after the fact because the feel the original decision was not justified.

If he takes legal action his character is fair game. Lieing about your credentials won't look good when complaining about being treated unfairly.

Also, if I were him I would stay far away from Assange considering he is still on the run from law enforcement, due to the rape accusations against him. Not the best guy to have on your side, when people are saying you hate Women.

Bob24

wes wrote: »

If he takes legal action his character is fair game. Lieing about your credentials won't look good when complaining about being treated unfairly.

I doubt that in any country if you take legal actions for unfair dismissal the court will accept to consider other dismissal motives than the ones originally given in your termination notice. It would be a bit too easy for employers to run a detail background check after the fact to cover their ass (most people have something you could use against them if you look hard enough).

wes

Bob24 wrote: »

I doubt that in any country if you take legal actions for unfair dismissal the court will accept to consider other dismissal motives than the ones originally given in your termination notice. It would be a bit too easy for employers to run a detail background check after the fact to cover their ass (most people have something you could use against them if you look hard enough).

Come on now. The guy lied about his credentials. Also, it wasn't Google who found it out either.

Going into a court case where you lied through your teeth when working at an at will state will not end well for this guy. I am sure during any case it will be brought up to attack his character.

Google don't have to change there reasoning at all. There original reason stands. I have yet to see on what grounds he could sue in the first place.

JRant

Bob24 wrote: »

I doubt that in any country if you take legal actions for unfair dismissal the court will accept to consider other dismissal motives than the ones originally given in your termination notice. It would be a bit too easy for employers to run a detail background check after the fact to cover their ass (most people have something you could use against them if you look hard enough).

Well Google employ a third party company to run a full background check on any prospective employee including, previous employers and educational institutions you attended. The chances of pulling the wool over their eyes like that would be slim to none.

I understand why he was fired. When you have a HR department that promote discrimination and unconscious bias "training" you know you're on to a loser writing anything that goes against this idealogy. They are like Vary's with little spiders everywhere, just waiting to report anyone that thinks even slightly outside the prescribed ideals.

A bigger problem coming down the line for the likes of Google will be that they often require the best graduates to keep the innovation coming. Now if you are one of these grads and happen to be of a conservative slant then you would be well served staying well clear.

Bob24

wes wrote: »

Come on now. The guy lied about his credentials.

Unless you have seen the CV he provided to Google before being hired to confirm it mentioned a PhD, and have final confirmation about the fact that he doesn't have one (the Reuters articule is inconclusive), you are jumping horse.

What is written on his LinkedIn profile is irrelevant in terms of misleading Google about his qualifications unless this is how he advertised his CV to them.

wes wrote: »

Also, it wasn't Google who found it out either.

Going into a court case where you lied through your teeth when working at an at will state will not end well for this guy. I am sure during any case it will be brought up to attack his character.

Google don't have to change there reasoning at all. There original reason stands. I have yet to see on what grounds he could sue in the first place.

You are showing personal biais against the guy. Currently there is no evidence whatsoever that he "lied through his teeth". Maybe he did lie, but once again even if he did a court will not not entertain this is it came to the picture at a later stage and was therefore not part of the dismissal decision. All that will be reviewed to decide if the dismissal was unfair is the original motives given. Google could start another lawsuit if they felt they were mislead and wanted it to be brought to a court- but it would be a separate case.

Edit: I looked-up his name out of curiosity and he is indeed listed on the Alumni section for the Harvard "System Biology PhD program": http://sysbiophd.harvard.edu/people/alumni/james-damore

Wouldn't take it as 100% meaning he actually completed the programme, but it is more of a positive than a negative hint. Isn't it bit premature to conclusively say he lied through his teeth???

There are a couple of worst things at play here.

The first worst thing is that so many people are predisposed to jump in on the side they've decided they're on well in advance. The narrative is just forced into place to fit.

The second worst thing is that the sjw snowflakes vs alt right fedora actuallies are the two worst, most boring, most cringey gangs to ever raise a metaphorical sword to their sworn enemies in history.

The third worst thing is that every now and again you've to take a stance that puts you firmly beside one of these hopeless warring factions.

In this instance it's obvious that this guy took a serious misstep in circulating this arrested development flood of basement science tears to anyone but his mummy. Anyone looking to make a stirring martyr of the author of such a poorly put together manifesto needs to consider in the first instance how it places him in the organisation he claims to be trying to influence. What a child.

The fourth worst thing here is the bloody grammar on show. Followed closely by the quasilegal ramblings of ppl namedropping men's rights celebrities. Please god some day anyone guilty of this will look back from a more socially healthy place and wince.

The fifth worst thing about it is the hypocrisy of a tranche of lads who would be first in line to jump on sjw hysteria campaigns to cry cry cry for the right of a moron like this not to be fired (NB not censored, not jailed, not threatened, just fired) for publicly outing himself as an individual resentful of the women he had to work with, to and above in any future he envisaged with his company.

smdh.

Pick your battles lads, if ye don't want to be mocked.

conorhal

B0jangles wrote: »

Even if it was only for internal, non-public use, the fact that his screed was sent and officially received left Google in an impossible situation going forward.

Once they officially knew that he regarded female co-workers as inherently inferior he was a liability; apart from the obvious ethical problems with having such a person on your staff, from a legal perspective it would leave the company very vulnerable in the future if this guy was ever accused by a co-worker of displaying gender-bias.

Say he was involved in the hiring or promotions process, as tech people often are (to assess the candidate's role-specific knowledge), and a female candidate complained that the interview panel was unfair and biased - she takes a case against them and it is revealed that Google absolutely knew this guy was officially 'on record' saying women are inherently inferior. They'd be taken to the cleaners, and rightly so.

Ah the oft repeated argument against somebody that never once said 'women are inferior in the field of programming'.

Not. Once.

That's the party line of those that clearly have not bothered to actually read the document that tries to explain WHY few women enter the field, why 'diversity hires' won't do anything to improve things for women and went on to further explain HOW you could improve things for women. The guy pointed out that if google wanted more women in such role they need to create more part time roles that would be attractive to women and perhaps teams with a more collaborative structure that was more akin to how women liked to work.

But sure, he hates women and any woman working with him is doubtless a person he looks down on.

Dyr

Deleted User wrote: »

There are a couple of worst things at play here.

The first worst thing is that so many people are predisposed to jump in on the side they've decided they're on well in advance. The narrative is just forced into place to fit.

The second worst thing is that the sjw snowflakes vs alt right fedora actuallies are the two worst, most boring, most cringey gangs to ever raise a metaphorical sword to their sworn enemies in history.

The third worst thing is that every now and again you've to take a stance that puts you firmly beside one of these hopeless warring factions.

In this instance it's obvious that this guy took a serious misstep in circulating this arrested development flood of basement science tears to anyone but his mummy. Anyone looking to make a stirring martyr of the author of such a poorly put together manifesto needs to consider in the first instance how it places him in the organisation he claims to be trying to influence. What a child.

The fourth worst thing here is the bloody grammar on show. Followed closely by the quasilegal ramblings of ppl namedropping men's rights celebrities. Please god some day anyone guilty of this will look back from a more socially healthy place and wince.

The fifth worst thing about it is the hypocrisy of a tranche of lads who would be first in line to jump on sjw hysteria campaigns to cry cry cry for the right of a moron like this not to be fired (NB not censored, not jailed, not threatened, just fired) for publicly outing himself as an individual resentful of the women he had to work with, to and above in any future he envisaged with his company.

smdh.

Pick your battles lads, if ye don't want to be mocked.

In the words of the right honourable Macolm F Tucker, allow me to boomerang that right back at you. Have you considered picking your battles a bit more carefully?

You're projecting so hard that cineworld might hire you as back up

conorhal

Bambi wrote: »

Apparently the wikipedia pages and external websites he referenced were edited/pulled at various points


"If the truth offends you, you are probably on the wrong side of it"

That's actually quite worrying. Looking for the 'truth' from Google is increasingly like using a Chinese search engine too look up 'Tiananmen Square massacre' (Sorry no results!)
Tim Pool did a piece on the article that was quite good:

tigger123

His lack of judgement alone for circulating the document should have cost him his job. Why would any organisation tolerate that kind of soapboxing on a politcially sensitive issue from one employee to his co-workers.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

The Onion are getting a swipe in regarding the whole group-think mentality that has become mainstream lately

fly_agaric

A Little Pony wrote: »

left wing organizations like Google and so on.

Google is a wealthy corporation, a massive centre of power in the West. It is just pushing the current (most popular) creed/ideology that is espoused by the "masters" (the way the people in charge used to be god fearing Christians once upon a time); they can't have one of their minions going and rubbishing the holy faith in a document that comes out in public.
I suppose the theories and scholarship behind these ideas came out of the left but f-me I just have a very very hard time accepting it when I see the likes of Google (or MS, or Apple or any other of these massive tax clever tech MNCs) described as "left wing"!

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

tigger123 wrote: »

His lack of judgement alone for circulating the document should have cost him his job. Why would any organisation tolerate that kind of soapboxing on a politcially sensitive issue from one employee to his co-workers.

Because his feedback came as a result of a brainstorming session encouraged by Google called 'controversial opinions'. It was supposed to be a place where lively debate could take place.

Bob24

tigger123 wrote: »

His lack of judgement alone for circulating the document should have cost him his job. Why would any organisation tolerate that kind of soapboxing on a politcially sensitive issue from one employee to his co-workers.

I think Google is a bit ambivalent if the way they market themselves as a different "cooler" company where employees have more freedom, and some of their staff seriously think they are still in college. There is obviously a limit to that freedom but when you keep brainwashing people and telling them the are the best and can do anything, some (but not all) start to believe it.

I see too options:
- either he fell for that
- or he know it would get him in trouble but he didn't care as he wanted to leave anyway and he say it partly as a way to prove is point (and possible get attention)

Bob24

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

Because his feedback came as a result of a brainstorming session encouraged by Google called 'controversial opinions'. It was supposed to be a place where lively debate could take place.

Do you have a link for that? Would be quite ironic if it is correct!

hatrickpatrick

Deleted User wrote: »

The third worst thing is that every now and again you've to take a stance that puts you firmly beside one of these hopeless warring factions.

I regularly find myself defending alt-right muppets and being accused of supporting them, because they are the current target for censorship. Ridiculously, when I was young it was the right that was pushing censorship, internet regulation etc (usually on "family values" IE "sex is evil" grounds) and it was the left who supported freedom of speech. People on both sides, but far more on the sjw side, find it impossible to comprehend how anyone could possibly defend somebody's right to say something without being punished for it, without actually agreeing with what that person said - it literally seems to be something that simply does not compute for them.

Guy who wrote the memo is in all probability an asshole of the highest magnitude. Nobody should ever be fired for expressing an opinion. These two sentences are not mutually exclusive.

LionelNashe

Last year, I read a book called 'In the Plex' (or something very similar) about Google's history, and I was so impressed that I changed to gmail & I changed most of my apps to Google apps, and I decided that my next phone would be a Google phone or at least an android phone. This episode has tarnished them a bit, though, in my eyes, even though I would definitely consider myself on the left when it comes to most social and (probably) economic issues.

JRant

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There are a couple of worst things at play here.

The first worst thing is that so many people are predisposed to jump in on the side they've decided they're on well in advance. The narrative is just forced into place to fit.

The second worst thing is that the sjw snowflakes vs alt right fedora actuallies are the two worst, most boring, most cringey gangs to ever raise a metaphorical sword to their sworn enemies in history.

The third worst thing is that every now and again you've to take a stance that puts you firmly beside one of these hopeless warring factions.

In this instance it's obvious that this guy took a serious misstep in circulating this arrested development flood of basement science tears to anyone but his mummy. Anyone looking to make a stirring martyr of the author of such a poorly put together manifesto needs to consider in the first instance how it places him in the organisation he claims to be trying to influence. What a child.

The fourth worst thing here is the bloody grammar on show. Followed closely by the quasilegal ramblings of ppl namedropping men's rights celebrities. Please god some day anyone guilty of this will look back from a more socially healthy place and wince.

The fifth worst thing about it is the hypocrisy of a tranche of lads who would be first in line to jump on sjw hysteria campaigns to cry cry cry for the right of a moron like this not to be fired (NB not censored, not jailed, not threatened, just fired) for publicly outing himself as an individual resentful of the women he had to work with, to and above in any future he envisaged with his company.

smdh.

Pick your battles lads, if ye don't want to be mocked.

Such a pity you fell down at your very own first worst hurdle

hatrickpatrick

LionelNashe wrote: »

Last year, I read a book called 'In the Plex' (or something very similar) about Google's history, and I was so impressed that I changed to gmail & I changed most of my apps to Google apps, and I decided that my next phone would be a Google phone or at least an android phone. This episode has tarnished them a bit, though, in my eyes, even though I would definitely consider myself on the left when it comes to most social and (probably) economic issues.

This is the thing. Google could have totally mastered this entire situation if they had publicly rebutted this moronic memo and proudly stood firm on diversity. And at the same time, said "we don't agree with this guy but we don't fire people for expressing their opinions". Instead, they've made him a martyr and pissed off anybody who believes in free expression - while the central issue here, that Google is a diverse and equal workplace, has been entirely shoved to one side.

Morons.

hatrickpatrick

He should have left "abilities" out of it. Implying that one's gender fundamentally affects one's potential technological prowess or business acumen is a dick move. Had he restricted his memo to things like different choices, it would probably have been fine, but instead he had to throw in a subtle "also, women just aren't as good at STEM work as men are", which is bullsh!t and unnecessarily inflammatory.

JRant

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

He should have left "abilities" out of it. Implying that one's gender fundamentally affects one's potential technological prowess or business acumen is a dick move. Had he restricted his memo to things like different choices, it would probably have been fine, but instead he had to throw in a subtle "also, women just aren't as good at STEM work as men are", which is bullsh!t and unnecessarily inflammatory.

Sorry HP but he didn't say that either directly or subtly. He argued that men are more likely to pursue STEM subjects, which is true, and then proposes ways to improve female participation that doesn't include discrimination.

Bob24

JRant wrote: »

Sorry HP but he didn't say that either directly or subtly. He argued that men are more likely to pursue STEM subjects, which is true, and then proposes ways to improve female participation that doesn't include discrimination.

That's the crazy thing here: people can't even agree on what he did or did not say (I also don't see any clear pledge against diversity or insinuations that women are inferior, but clearly some people do though I don't believe that have quoted what exact statements they have a problem with).

Not even agreeing in what the message is kind of prevents from having any productive discussion about wether it was appropriate or not :-s

hatrickpatrick

JRant wrote: »

Sorry HP but he didn't say that either directly or subtly.

He did actually make reference to ability and to innate personality traits being correlated to gender. That's a stupid comment to make - " I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes" - implying that one's gender fundamentally dictates one's personality, which it doesn't.

He argued that men are more likely to pursue STEM subjects, which is true, and then proposes ways to improve female participation that doesn't include discrimination.

And I agree with that part, entirely. That's why it's a pity that he included the above-cited bit.

wes

Bob24 wrote: »

Unless you have seen the CV he provided to Google before being hired to confirm it mentioned a PhD, and have final confirmation about the fact that he doesn't have one (the Reuters articule is inconclusive), you are jumping horse.

What is written on his LinkedIn profile is irrelevant in terms of misleading Google about his qualifications unless this is how he advertised his CV to them.

Doesn't actually matter, as again attacks on his character will be used against him. If he lied to Google, when he got the job, it will be especially bad, and if lied after gaining employment, any lawyer worth there salt will still use to attack the guys character.

Then, we have the court of public opinion, where it will again be used to attack him. Will also make anyone thinking of hiring him in the future think twice, if he lieing about qualifications.

Bob24 wrote: »

You are showing personal biais against the guy. Currently there is no evidence whatsoever that he "lied through his teeth".

What personal bias? I don't know this guy. Also, the evidence was in the article you posted. He lied on his LinkedIn profile and claimed to have a Harvard Phd, when it was a Masters. That counts as lieing through your teeth.

Bob24 wrote: »

Maybe he did lie, but once again even if he did a court will not not entertain this is it came to the picture at a later stage and was therefore not part of the dismissal decision. All that will be reviewed to decide if the dismissal was unfair is the original motives given. Google could start another lawsuit if they felt they were mislead and wanted it to be brought to a court- but it would be a separate case.

Again, a persons character can be used against them in any court case. This one won't be any different.

Bob24 wrote: »

Edit: I looked-up his name out of curiosity and he is indeed listed on the Alumni section for the Harvard "System Biology PhD program": http://sysbiophd.harvard.edu/people/alumni/james-damore

Wouldn't take it as 100% meaning he actually completed the programme, but it is more of a positive than a negative hint. Isn't it bit premature to conclusively say he lied through his teeth???

He doesn't even have a dissertation title. If he was finished, I would think there would be a title. I see no evidence that what Harvard told Reuters is untrue.

I based what I am saying off the article you posted. Did you read the article you posted?

Here is the relevant portion of the article you posted.

Fired Google memo writer draws jeers, cheers and a job offer


--SNIP--
The LinkedIn page also says Damore received a PhD in systems biology from Harvard University in 2013. Harvard said on Tuesday he completed a master's degree in the subject, not a PhD. He could not immediately be reached on Tuesday.
--SNIP--

So unless Harvard or Reuters got things very wrong, and the lack of a dissertation title on the Alumni page, I think it safe to say, that he is telling porkies until we see evidence to the contrary.

**EDIT**
Further confirmation from wired, who also contacted Harvard:

THE GUY WHO WROTE THE 'GOOGLE MEMO' JUST MIGHT SUE

--SNIP--
On his LinkedIn profile, Damore lists a “PhD, Systems Biology” from Harvard in 2013. However, a representative from Harvard tells WIRED that Damore did not complete a PhD. He completed a master’s degree in systems biology in 2013.
--SNIP--

So Harvard have told both Reuters and Wired that he did not complete his PhD. So unless we see evidence that Harvard got it wrong, its safe to come the conclusion that the guy lied, based on the current available information.

I am perfectly willing to change that conclusion, if new information surfaces, but I think that unlikely at this point.

Bob24

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

He did actually make reference to ability and to innate personality traits being correlated to gender. That's a stupid comment to make - " I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes" - implying that one's gender fundamentally dictates one's personality, which it doesn't.

"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."

I'm quoting the full section as I think the part in bold is important because he very clearly states he is talking about high level averages and not saying his points should be applied to draw conclusions about a specific individual.

So I don't think he is "implying that one's gender fundamentally dictates one's personality".

JRant

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

He did actually make reference to ability and to innate personality traits being correlated to gender. That's a stupid comment to make - " I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes" - implying that one's gender fundamentally dictates one's personality, which it doesn't.



And I agree with that part, entirely. That's why it's a pity that he included the above-cited bit.

Not at all, he clear states there are differences 'on average' between the sexes and uses the big 5 personality traits to explain these. This is not some basement dweller spouting about d'wimmins. His is citing we'll established findings that there are indeed differences between the sexes ' on average'.

The mistake he made was thinking Google was diverse enough to tolerate anything that goes against the group-think mentality

Bob24

wes wrote: »

Also, the evidence was in the article you posted.

I based what I am saying off the article you posted. Did you read the article you posted?

Here is the relevant portion of the article you posted.

Pretty irrelevant and obsessive comments as I obviously read the article and specified in my previous posts that the section in question is inconclusive. If everyone posting an article has to agree with everything in it even when the journalist themselves don't make a definite statement, we can stop posting any links.

The simple questions is: what's your evidence that he "lied through his teeth" to Google when applying for the job?

wes

Bob24 wrote: »

Pretty irrelevant and obsessive comments as I obviously read the article and specified in my previous posts that the passage in question is inconclusive. If everyone posting an article has to agree with everything in it even when the journalist themselves don't make a definite statement, we can stop posting any links.

The simple questions is: what's your evidence that he "lied through his teeth" to Google when applying for the job?

The articles aren't inconclusive, and I provided a 2nd one as well, and emphasis isn't the same as obsession . You seem perfectly willing to accept Reuters information, when it suits you, and call it inconclusive, when it doesn't.

You seem to be going out of your way to be obtuse, and ignore direct evidence like you know Harvard clearly saying to 2 different news organisations that he doesn't have a PhD. Your own link to the alumni page, shows he doesn't have a dissertation title, which if he had completed it, would surely be on that page.

There is nothing inconclusive here at all, the current available facts, make it pretty clear the guy lied, and unless you can dispute Harvard or prove that Wired and Reuters got things completely wrong, its a perfectly valid conclusion. You have been completely unable justify you claims of things being inconclusive in any way shape or form. At this point, your basically claiming to be right on your say so alone, and refuse to address the available facts.

Gyalist

Bob24 wrote: »

All to be confirmed but yes. On the other hand throwing this in at this stage would clearly look like they are trying to find valid arguments to fire him after the fact because they feel the original decision was not justified.

You appear to be viewing his termination through the prism of Irish employment law. US employment law is a different beast. "At-will" employment is what usually applies in private companies, and the tech sector in particular.

Conservatives are always in favour of at-will employment until they fall foul of it.