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

Grayson · 16-08-2017 09:03PM

fash wrote: »

That presupposes that it is "sexist drivel" as opposed to "A- at masters level in evolutionary psychology". Please support your argument with actual evidence as opposed to trying to "burn the witch".

Except I posted a link a few pages back.

And he's not at masters level of evolutionary psychology. His "science" is up thee with homeopathy and intelligent design. It's unscientific bullsh1t.

So I tell you what, why don't you go and find peer reviewed studies that back up his hypothesis.

fash · 16-08-2017 09:10PM

Grayson wrote: »

fash wrote: »

That presupposes that it is "sexist drivel" as opposed to "A- at masters level in evolutionary psychology". Please support your argument with actual evidence as opposed to trying to "burn the witch".

Except I posted a link a few pages back.

And he's not at masters level of evolutionary psychology. His "science" is up thee with homeopathy and intelligent design. It's unscientific bullsh1t.

So I tell you what, why don't you go and find peer reviewed studies that back up his hypothesis.

Was that the link to the wired article? [If not, please repeat and I do apologise].
Of note, Geoffrey Miller, professor of evolutionary psychology at the University of New Mexico graded his memo at an A- at master level.
On what basis would you grade him lower?
[Citations required if you wish to grade him lower- preferably with links to published works.]

fash · 16-08-2017 09:13PM

EDIT:
It is a masters in Systems Biology from Harvard I understand that Mr Damore has.

Grayson · 16-08-2017 10:23PM

fash wrote: »

Was that the link to the wired article? [If not, please repeat and I do apologise].
Of note, Geoffrey Miller, professor of evolutionary psychology at the University of New Mexico graded his memo at an A- at master level.
On what basis would you grade him lower?
[Citations required if you wish to grade him lower- preferably with links to published works.]

Just googled Miller. He was censured by his university for sexist and fat shaming comments.

Plus the Damore has been refuted by many more scientists, including some he cited.

You have one academic who's got a history of making sexist comments. I've given evidence that Damore misused academic sources.

Grayson · 16-08-2017 10:29PM

Here's another article that debunks his theories and also provides evidence to back it up.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/google-james-damore-fired-tech-gender-gap-science-2017-8?r=US&IR=T

fash · 17-08-2017 05:05AM

Grayson wrote: »

fash wrote: »

Was that the link to the wired article? [If not, please repeat and I do apologise].
Of note, Geoffrey Miller, professor of evolutionary psychology at the University of New Mexico graded his memo at an A- at master level.
On what basis would you grade him lower?
[Citations required if you wish to grade him lower- preferably with links to published works.]

Just googled Miller. He was censured by his university for sexist and fat shaming comments.

Plus the Damore has been refuted by many more scientists, including some he cited.

You have one academic who's got a history of making sexist comments. I've given evidence that Damore misused academic sources.

Please provide links to Mr Miller's "sexist" and "history of sexist" comments.

Another scientist agreeing with Mr Damore: Ms Debra Soh

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manifesto-isnt-sexist-or-anti-diversity-its-science/article35903359/?service=amp

fash · 17-08-2017 05:21AM

Grayson wrote: »

Here's another article that debunks his theories and also provides evidence to back it up.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/google-james-damore-fired-tech-gender-gap-science-2017-8?r=US&IR=T

Inter alia, this article criticises the memo for containing links to Wikipedia articles and says that Wikipedia articles aren't usually accepted by scientists or journalists. That's a rather inane criticism since this document wasn't intended to be published for journalists/as an academic paper- and because Wikipedia article can be read/researched by all without a subscription to an academic journal catalogue.
That is like criticising anyone's posts on this forum for not solely relying on published academic articles.
I must say I am unable to take this article seriously for that reason - it is the work of an ideologue, not a scientist.

fash · 17-08-2017 07:02AM

Grayson wrote: »

fash wrote: »

I believe that he was encouraged/requested by Google to publish his memo - they specifically requested suggestions.

How is that encouragement? Is that like saying facebook/twitter are encouraging ape threats by providing a forum and asking people to use it?

Are you trying to say that it's not his fault he uploaded a 3000 words of sexist drivel but rather googles fault?

Google put mr Damore (as with all its employees on a mandatory diversity training courses and then specifically and expressly requested feedback. He provided that feedback internally in the manner requested and then a third party published that feedback externally.

The fact that you continue to call it "sexist drivel" without actually engaging in the material itself or justifying a rather hysterical word choice suggests that you are not interested in an honest search for the truth so much as you are interested in protecting your religion.

professore · 17-08-2017 07:39AM

http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/

Four scientists publically back the science. And considering you are now immediately fired for daring to say anything like what he said, I'm not surprised that more are not publically speaking out. The monkey and baby studies are kinda impossible to argue with. Anyone who has a small baby can easily test it (unless you have a very feminine son or masculine daughter).

The socialisation argument is completely overblown by social "scientists" who design experiments to prove their biases, many of them rabid Marxists.

Of course there are socialisation effects but in the West men and women are largely free to pursue any career they want. And they choose accordingly. Therefore trying to achieve a 50/50 balance in IT will never happen unless IT becomes more people oriented.

Also on the men flocking to IT when it became highly paid - why did the companies not just employ more women? They are supposedly 18% cheaper because of the gender pay gap (another myth BTW) and loads of them are clamouring to enter IT but all these nasty men (where did they suddenly come from in a female dominated field) prefer to hire other men. Hmmm.

Also nursing IS well paid despite what the media keeps going on about, yet men don't enter it in any numbers. Medicine is now a female dominated field. The majority of university students are more women. Explain please.

professore · 17-08-2017 07:55AM

The nub of the matter for me is even if the paper is completely incorrect, and he got the science a wrong (which overall I don't believe he has) I think there is something very worrying about someone offering feedback he was requested to offer in good faith, backed up by numerous scientific references. and assumed would remain internal to Google and getting fired for it. Fired as a cult would shun someone for heresy.

People are assuming he is some alt right sexist. I just see an engineer applying logic to a problem and suggesting some possible solutions. This guy got stellar reviews at Google for his work so he is no idiot. And I'm willing to bet he happily works with women every day, and judges them the same as men, on ability, not, gender, race, religion etc.

Resist ZOG · 17-08-2017 03:37PM

Imagine the outrage if a woman said men are less suited to nursing? Oh wait, there wouldn't be any. No one would care. But a bunch of losers went up in arms because a white man dared question the sacred diversity narrative!

professore · 17-08-2017 05:35PM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/08/17/a-level-results-2017-first-rise-top-grades-six-years-despite/

Here it is, Ladies and Gentlemen, from this year's A level stats broken down by gender. Computing looks about 10% girls and Performing / Expressive Arts is about 90% girls. This is of course somehow due to rampant sexism. Nothing to do with their actual interests.

Also interesting is that boys are slightly ahead of girls for the first time since 2000 - tellingly they have placed less emphasis on coursework and more on the actual exam, which would advantage boys if they are worse communicators than girls on average.

Exactly what you would expect if James Damore's paper is accurate.

Also the 10% of girls that studied Computing probably did just as well or better than the 90% of boys. As did the 10% of boys that studied Performing / Expressive Arts.

If James had been working for a theatre company and suggested women were more suited on average to Performing / Expressive Arts but otherwise written the exact same paper and left out the word Neuroticism (which is one of the 5 big psychological traits, not some disease) there would have been zero argument.

Also there is no big push to get men into the Performing / Expressive Arts. Why is this I wonder?

Bob24 · 18-08-2017 04:55AM

Pretty strong accusations against Google on that TV interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYV0ez9ZCAM

He's now clearly saying his concern was that Google is treating people differently based on race and gender when it comes to hiring and promotion decisions.

And I would say he's pretty good at appearing calm and reasonable while not backtracking on what he said. Probably the best approach for him in terms of PR.

professore · 18-08-2017 08:56AM

Just read this on the Indo this morning. Blatantly sexist article with zero scientific references, and nonsense conclusions, yet this will be celebrated rather than getting the author fired.

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/education/exams/girls-top-class-but-system-biased-towards-boys-who-do-sums-better-36043860.html

Bob24 · 18-08-2017 09:19AM

professore wrote: »

Just read this on the Indo this morning. Blatantly sexist article with zero scientific references, and nonsense conclusions, yet this will be celebrated rather than getting the author fired.

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/education/exams/girls-top-class-but-system-biased-towards-boys-who-do-sums-better-36043860.html

This next to the the reactions to Damore's memo is indeed the quintessence of progressivist hypocrisy:

Any parent will tell you boys study differently to girls.
[...]
Is that a generalisation? Perhaps. In all our striving for equality, is it time to throw in the towel and admit that actually, when it comes to curriculum subjects, they're just different? Does it go against the sisterhood to admit the whole left brain/right brain stuff?
[...]
the consequence of this skewed reality is that it is the boys who will end up with the lion's share of bonus points for being better at sums

So when it is to argue that quota based hiring policies are misguided it goes against science to say men and women an inherently different and the consequence for the person who said it is immediate termination of employment, but when it is to complain about the education system giving an unfair advantage to boys then the difference becomes something obvious which "any parent will tell you".

She makes pretty much the same statements as Damore about men being more interesting in things. But a critical difference is that it is to argue a different point, and thus no SJW will be outraged by the statement and call for the Indo journalist to be fired for saying there is a difference and boys are on average better at sums while the same statement was used as a justification for a whole mob to vilify Damore. It is a fairly simple proof that reactions to Damore's memo are mostly emotional and for the most case have nothing to do with people honestly questioning the science behind it (which in most cases they don't fully understand - and I include myself as well as most if not all posters on this thread in the list of people who don't fully understand it).

Saruhashi · 18-08-2017 09:25AM

professore wrote: »

Just read this on the Indo this morning. Blatantly sexist article with zero scientific references, and nonsense conclusions, yet this will be celebrated rather than getting the author fired.

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/education/exams/girls-top-class-but-system-biased-towards-boys-who-do-sums-better-36043860.html

I suppose a source of the problem here is that people have a "boys vs girls" mindset at all.

The article talks about kids exam results saying that girls are "winners" and that they are "leaving the boys trailing".

I never understood that mentality, really. A single mother with a young son surely would not be celebrating a "win" for women if the girls in the class are all outperforming her boy?

The thing about the artists and writers that the author mentions is that these types of careers are mostly freelance or self employed. For every artist who is wildly successful there are 1,000s who never get past the stage of doing art for enjoyment because they can't make any money from it.

"How and when did Pythagoras's theorem become more important than Hamlet's soliloquy, for instance? Who decided algebra is more vital to life success than Seamus Heaney's allusions?"

Nobody "decided" that these were more important. The fact is that when most people leave education they need to get a job. To get a job you need to have relevant and applicable skills.

I would have loved to do art or music or literature for a living but when I left school my parents couldn't afford to pay for my lifestyle so I had to get a job that brought in a stable and steady salary.

Even if we did "reward girls for better results" what would that look like?

Employers are generally looking for skills that can be applied to the job and recent graduates are usually entering companies at the entry level jobs where there will be a lot of practical work to be done. It's great if someone can recite Shakespeare but how can they turn that into a steady income?

I wonder if these writers are out of touch with the reality that most people face. The majority of the kids getting their results now will really just be looking for a job, any job, so that they can get some money.

professore · 18-08-2017 09:59AM

"How and when did Pythagoras's theorem become more important than Hamlet's soliloquy, for instance? Who decided algebra is more vital to life success than Seamus Heaney's allusions?"

If you are designing a building that will actually work and not collapse, or doing anything in STEM, Pythagoras's theorem (or maths in general - maybe not specifically Pythagoras's theorem) is clearly more important than Hamlet or Seamus Heaney. It doesn't matter if the bad bridge keeps falling down to hurt your feelings so you go off and write poetry about it.

Dyr · 18-08-2017 11:03AM

Remember though, the most important part of being an engineer is interacting with the customer

IRE60 · 21-08-2017 05:11PM

On the subject of STEM..

My son started a Lego Camp today. It's obviously a bit of fun with lego but there is the side to it where get them to think creatively and solve problems and give them an understanding of STEM Subjects (His group made a span bridge today!)

Out of roughly 30 kids, there is only one girl.

Where is that coming from.

21-08-2017 05:27PM

Well regarded anthropology professor Dr Augustin Fuentin of Notre Dame addressed the memo last week, particularly the line of reasoning he felt relied on bad science. It's interesting reading, but first you have to leave your knee jerk reactions to the word privilege aside since it's in the title.

http://www.gotscience.org/2017/08/google-manifesto-bad-biology-ignorance-evolutionary-processes-privilege/

Dyr · 21-08-2017 06:05PM

Candie wrote: »

Well regarded anthropology professor Dr Augustin Fuentin of Notre Dame addressed the memo last week, particularly the line of reasoning he felt relied on bad science. It's interesting reading, but first you have to leave your knee jerk reactions to the word privilege aside since it's in the title.

http://www.gotscience.org/2017/08/google-manifesto-bad-biology-ignorance-evolutionary-processes-privilege/

"But there are more biological similarities than differences, and more gender overlaps than discontinuities, between males and females—we are the same species after all."

okaaay...that's a cogent argument.

TBH I didn't really get past the the early paragraphs where he starts on about Dramores choice of words being "code for this" and "implies that"

If its not responding to the actual content then you're looking at a straw man argument being built

In other news an interview with this Dramore fella that some atheist blogger was going to broadcast on youtube was pulled by google before it was even recorded

JRant · 21-08-2017 06:29PM

IRE60 wrote: »

On the subject of STEM..

My son started a Lego Camp today. It's obviously a bit of fun with lego but there is the side to it where get them to think creatively and solve problems and give them an understanding of STEM Subjects (His group made a span bridge today!)

Out of roughly 30 kids, there is only one girl.

Where is that coming from.

I was involved in something similar, teaching children how to use Lego mindstorm. It's great for them as it has the practical elements and also introduces them to basic coding principles.

JRant · 21-08-2017 06:48PM

Bambi wrote: »

"But there are more biological similarities than differences, and more gender overlaps than discontinuities, between males and females—we are the same species after all."

okaaay...that's a cogent argument.

TBH I didn't really get past the the early paragraphs where he starts on about Dramores choice of words being "code for this" and "implies that"

If its not responding to the actual content then you're looking at a straw man argument being built

In other news an interview with this Dramore fella that some atheist blogger was going to broadcast on youtube was pulled by google before it was even recorded

Indeed, I believe this was one of the main points in Dramore's memo that there is a huge overlap in the distribution curves between male and female with the outliers being more common among men than women.

He also seems to address points that are not raised in the original memo either. At no point did the memo state that women can't do technology, where he got that from is anyone's guess.

As to the other professional quoted, well we already have a fairly good model to analyze. In scandanavia they have seen the career choice of both men and women gravitate towards more "traditional" roles dispite the barriers to entry being almost completely erradicated.

IRE60 · 22-08-2017 11:20AM

JRant wrote: »

I was involved in something similar, teaching children how to use Lego mindstorm. It's great for them as it has the practical elements and also introduces them to basic coding principles.

I just took a look at "Lego Mindstorm" absolutely the next step for my fella, he'd love it!

fash · 22-08-2017 05:38PM

JRant wrote: »

Bambi wrote: »

"But there are more biological similarities than differences, and more gender overlaps than discontinuities, between males and females—we are the same species after all."

okaaay...that's a cogent argument.

TBH I didn't really get past the the early paragraphs where he starts on about Dramores choice of words being "code for this" and "implies that"

If its not responding to the actual content then you're looking at a straw man argument being built

In other news an interview with this Dramore fella that some atheist blogger was going to broadcast on youtube was pulled by google before it was even recorded

Indeed, I believe this was one of the main points in Dramore's memo that there is a huge overlap in the distribution curves between male and female with the outliers being more common among men than women.

He also seems to address points that are not raised in the original memo either. At no point did the memo state that women can't do technology, where he got that from is anyone's guess.

As to the other professional quoted, well we already have a fairly good model to analyze. In scandanavia they have seen the career choice of both men and women gravitate towards more "traditional" roles dispite the barriers to entry being almost completely erradicated.

Actually career choice in egalitarian societies becomes even more pronouncedly different as regards the division of gender in STEM- i.e. in such societies, where given greater freedom to choose, (fe)males have the freedom to choose what they are interested in.

JRant · 22-08-2017 05:40PM

IRE60 wrote: »

I just took a look at "Lego Mindstorm" absolutely the next step for my fella, he'd love it!

It's great because they learn basic coding without knowing they are doing it, if that makes sense. Would really recommend it for youngest children.

paleoperson · 22-08-2017 07:10PM

fash wrote: »

Actually career choice in egalitarian societies becomes even more pronouncedly different as regards the division of gender in STEM- i.e. in such societies, where given greater freedom to choose, (fe)males have the freedom to choose what they are interested in.

Yup. In countries such as Iran the percentage of women getting involved in STEM, particularly math-related subjects like physics and engineering is through the roof. Meanwhile in countries like Sweden that has them pushing females to go into those fields the most they have some of the lowest percentage of it in the developed world. You won't often find this brought up on the fundamentalist religious SJW media such as CNN or NYT however.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/amyguttman/2015/12/09/set-to-take-over-tech-70-of-irans-science-and-engineering-students-are-women/#429173dc44de

RDM_83 again · 23-08-2017 04:20AM

Bambi wrote: »

"But there are more biological similarities than differences, and more gender overlaps than discontinuities, between males and females—we are the same species after all."

okaaay...that's a cogent argument.

TBH I didn't really get past the the early paragraphs where he starts on about Dramores choice of words being "code for this" and "implies that"

If its not responding to the actual content then you're looking at a straw man argument being built

Whats interesting is that he doesn't refute this statement with evidence

Damore claims that 95% of the social sciences and humanities are left-leaning

Rather he dismisses it despite there being evidence from a number of peer reviewed papers that there is a very very strong bias in those fields.

For the other stuff I'm not going to write loads about it as I've only got limited experience of this stuff compared to an active Researcher in the area, I will say though that he is carrying out selective sourcing to a high degree in relation to the questions on violence, also he appears to be (deliberately?) muddying the water, talking about hominids as early as he is and ones not directly in our evolutionary path, that stuff is not really that relevant to the discussion thats occurring, a neurological evolutionary change 100,000BP for example is something that could have occurred.

He also seems to be pushing the idea that because humans have less sexual difference than very many other mammals this means that the possibility of the biological/neurological differences mention in the memo are definitely not true, he admits it himself however that 25,000 years ago we can see differentiation in tool types.

Anthropology is split on a lot of topics and the author is firmly on one side of a debate that is very much not settled, something thats completely my opinion rather than something backed up by data is that Anthropology doesn't tend to reward "good science" and is subject to loads of bias (this also applies to the more fanatic/dogmatic proponents of evolutionary psychology too), he is obviously a serious researcher but he is also a popular writer in the selling books business too.

Finally the last line says it all about the author,

In fact, let’s heed Chanda Prescod-Weinstein’s suggestion that society “eliminate structural biases in education, health care, housing, and salaries that favor white men and see if we [women and everyone else] fail. Run the experiment. Be a scientist about it.

Salaries for younger college educated white woman already outstrip all other groups and in relation to healthcare for decades there has been a structural bias in favour of womens healthcare investment and research. This blog post isn't an academic rebuttal (it would have direct links to studies and papers if it was) its a moral refutation.

Whats interesting is one of the works the author replies to with a comment on the originally blog post is actually fairly mixed in terms of the memo's claims.
https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/08/10/the-google-memo-what-does-the-research-say-about-gender-differences/

I am personally very hesitant about the memo's claims being in general correct (I feel the memo definitely stretches the argument) however if this was feedback sought in what was meant to be an open dialogue the fact that what he states could potentially be true or at least could be a legitimate belief that has not been reached from a point of misogyny means that firing him does seem to prove him right.

* I also have a pet hate for academic people deliberately reference books (without page numbers) rather than papers when the point to the actual paper, in fact looking through the post again I noticed something interesting, he cites his own new book twice, neither time indicating which section is relevant and uses the published page once and google books once, thats a weird thing to do unless your pushing your book.

Wibbs · 23-08-2017 09:03AM

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Whats interesting is that he doesn't refute this statement with evidence

Yep I noticed that myself. Very much a case of I believe this, so let's fit the "evidence" to my belief. Precisely what he bemoans in Damore's memo.

For the other stuff I'm not going to write loads about it as I've only got limited experience of this stuff compared to an active Researcher in the area, I will say though that he is carrying out selective sourcing to a high degree in relation to the questions on violence, also he appears to be (deliberately?) muddying the water, talking about hominids as early as he is and ones not directly in our evolutionary path, that stuff is not really that relevant to the discussion thats occurring, a neurological evolutionary change 100,000BP for example is something that could have occurred.

Indeed and there are quite a few holes in his arguments regarding said hominids. For a start to state that both men and women were involved in tool production has no basis in fact. We simply don't know and pretty much can't know*. How does one gender a flint lithic? As for violence and injury there certainly seems to be gender lines on that score. Pretty much every Neandertal man so far found has healed blunt force injuries, often extensive, whereas the women don't. These traumas may have been because of hunting practices, or internecine struggles, but regardless it strongly suggests that gender played a role. In anatomy we see this too. Their men had a strong asymmetry between their right and left arms. The right being much more robust. Various explanations for this difference have been put forward, but hunting technique and/or hide preparation are the front runners. Now their women showed some asymmetry, but not nearly to the degree of the men. Again strongly suggesting gender task differences.

he admits it himself however that 25,000 years ago we can see differentiation in tool types.

Some have suggested with some good reasoning behind it that one of Homo sapiens' "killer apps" was gender role differentiation. The idea being that previous hominids shared more tasks across genders, but that at some point in our history we started to differentiate and this was advantageous. It meant more tasks could be undertaken because of the split. EG in finding food. If all members of a group are hunting and gathering you do OK, but if you get specialisation along gender lines the groups get better at their task and you gather more. In modern hunter gatherers it's actually the women who bring in the bulk of the calories in the form of vegetables/fruits/nuts, while the men bring in the higher density value calories in the form of meat.

Anthropology is split on a lot of topics and the author is firmly on one side of a debate that is very much not settled, something thats completely my opinion rather than something backed up by data is that Anthropology doesn't tend to reward "good science" and is subject to loads of bias (this also applies to the more fanatic/dogmatic proponents of evolutionary psychology too), he is obviously a serious researcher but he is also a popular writer in the selling books business too.

+1

*we might be able to infer some gender influence in a roundabout way. IE women tend to migrate larger distances than men because of mating strategies. If women were equally involved in tool production we might be able to track local cultural "fashions" in tools and see how they spread over time. If they spread slowly or not at all, it would suggest that it's likely the local men keeping the local style.

animaal · 23-08-2017 09:13AM

bluewolf wrote: »

There's generally a correlation between when men enter an industry, the pay goes up. I'll try find the link on my computer. Similar to what happened when women used to dominate IT, i think it wasn't well paid. Then men entered the profession and up it went.
So it might happen with nursing

We're talking about the 50s/60s. These jobs were viewed (short-sightedly) as "women's work"; similar to phone switchboard operators or secretaries. I'd bet there were very few women designing the systems themselves, which was probably viewed as "men's work".

I think it was more complex than simply "...it wasn't well paid. Then men entered the profession and up it went". I would imagine that it gradually became apparent that programming can be a difficult technical skill. As this happened, there were a few effects; because it was accepted that it required real skill and focus, pay started rising. The awareness of its highly technical nature made it more attractive to men. As did the rising pay.

You do seem to accept though that men and women act in statistically different ways. ("...Then men entered the profession...") That's not to say that any one individual can't/won't succeed in a particular role. But from a high level, we'll see differing patterns. E.g. from a recent Irish survey:
"Women were more willing than men to take a pay cut for a role with a high level of job satisfaction. Almost two-thirds of women said they would be willing to do this, compared with roughly half of men."

So men are statistically more likely to pursue high-paying jobs. Presumably at some cost; e.g. to work/life balance. IT jobs would have a reputation for high pay, but at the cost of long hours, extended periods of high focus/concentration, and limited social status.

Taking these differences into account, it's not valid to be putting measures in place to obtain equality of outcome. What's more important is equality of opportunity. The core point of the memo is to criticise a number of Google's measures that could be categorised as the former:

- Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5]
- A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
- Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
- Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
- Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination [6]

While much of his reasoning was at best debatable/clumsy/simplistic, I think this core point has validity.

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

Comments