[ARCHIVED THREAD] - BREAKING: GoogleBrah gets Canned (Page 7 of 8)
|
Quoted:
Oh noes! Too little diversity for JerkyPuppy to stand. lol https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo11/hires/s69-40025.jpg https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/261016main_03_MissionControlCelebrates_full.jpg |
|
Quoted:
Associate Professor Geoffrey Miller Geoffrey Miller is an evolutionary psychology professor at University of New Mexico. He is the author of The Mating Mind, Mating Intelligence, Spent, and What Women Want. His research has focused on sexual selection, mate choice, human sexuality, intelligence, humor, creativity, personality traits, evolutionary psychopathology, behavior genetics, consumer behavior, evolutionary aesthetics, research ethics, virtue signaling, and Effective Altruism. <snip> When the memo went viral, thousands of journalists and bloggers transformed themselves overnight from not understanding evolutionary psychology at all to claiming enough expertise to criticize the whole scientific literature on biological sex differences. It was like watching Trinity downloading the pilot program for flying the B-212 helicopter in The Matrix. Such fast learners! (Even Google’s new ‘VP of Diversity’, Danielle Brown, criticized the memo because it ‘advanced incorrect assumptions about gender’; I was impressed to see that her Michigan State B.A. in Business and her U. Michigan M.B.A. qualify her to judge the scientific research.) </snip> 
http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/ |
|
also interesting:
http://heavy.com/tech/2017/08/james-damore-google-diversity-memo/ |
|
Here, I just want to take a step back from the memo controversy, to highlight a paradox at the heart of the ‘equality and diversity’ dogma
that dominates American corporate life. The memo didn’t address this paradox directly, but I think it’s implicit in the author’s critique of Google’s diversity programs. This dogma relies on two core assumptions:
Let me explain. If different groups have minds that are precisely equivalent in every respect, then those minds are functionally interchangeable, and diversity would be irrelevant to corporate competitiveness. For example, take sex differences. The usual rationale for gender diversity in corporate teams is that a balanced, 50/50 sex ratio will keep a team from being dominated by either masculine or feminine styles of thinking, feeling, and communicating. Each sex will counter-balance the other’s quirks. (That makes sense to me, by the way,and is one reason why evolutionary psychologists often value gender diversity in research teams.) But if there are no sex differences in these psychological quirks, counter-balancing would be irrelevant. A 100% female team would function exactly the same as a 50/50 team, which would function the same as a 100% male team. If men are no different from women, then the sex ratio in a team doesn’t matter at any rational business level, and there is no reason to promote gender diversity as a competitive advantage. Likewise, if the races are no different from each other, then the racial mix of a company can’t rationally matter to the company’s bottom line. The only reasons to value diversity would be at the levels of legal compliance with government regulations, public relations virtue-signalling, and deontological morality – not practical effectiveness. Legal, PR, and moral reasons can be good reasons for companies to do things. But corporate diversity was never justified to shareholders as a way to avoid lawsuits, PR blowback, or moral shame; it was justified as a competitive business necessity. So, if the sexes and races don’t differ at all, and if psychological interchangeability is true, then there’s no practical business case for diversity. On the other hand, if demographic diversity gives a company any competitive advantages, it must be because there are important sex differences and race differences in how human minds work and interact. For example, psychological variety must promote better decision-making within teams, projects, and divisions. Yet if minds differ across sexes and races enough to justify diversity as an instrumental business goal, then they must differ enough in some specific skills, interests, and motivations that hiring and promotion will sometimes produce unequal outcomes in some company roles. In other words, if demographic diversity yields any competitive advantages due to psychological differences between groups, then demographic equality of outcome cannot be achieved in all jobs and all levels within a company. At least, not without discriminatory practices such as affirmative action or demographic quotas. So, psychological interchangeability makes diversity meaningless. But psychological differences make equal outcomes impossible. Equality or diversity. You can’t have both. |
|
Quoted:
Checkmate you Marxist twits. Quoted:
Here, I just want to take a step back from the memo controversy, to highlight a paradox at the heart of the ‘equality and diversity’ dogma
that dominates American corporate life. The memo didn’t address this paradox directly, but I think it’s implicit in the author’s critique of Google’s diversity programs. This dogma relies on two core assumptions:
Let me explain. If different groups have minds that are precisely equivalent in every respect, then those minds are functionally interchangeable, and diversity would be irrelevant to corporate competitiveness. For example, take sex differences. The usual rationale for gender diversity in corporate teams is that a balanced, 50/50 sex ratio will keep a team from being dominated by either masculine or feminine styles of thinking, feeling, and communicating. Each sex will counter-balance the other’s quirks. (That makes sense to me, by the way,and is one reason why evolutionary psychologists often value gender diversity in research teams.) But if there are no sex differences in these psychological quirks, counter-balancing would be irrelevant. A 100% female team would function exactly the same as a 50/50 team, which would function the same as a 100% male team. If men are no different from women, then the sex ratio in a team doesn’t matter at any rational business level, and there is no reason to promote gender diversity as a competitive advantage. Likewise, if the races are no different from each other, then the racial mix of a company can’t rationally matter to the company’s bottom line. The only reasons to value diversity would be at the levels of legal compliance with government regulations, public relations virtue-signalling, and deontological morality – not practical effectiveness. Legal, PR, and moral reasons can be good reasons for companies to do things. But corporate diversity was never justified to shareholders as a way to avoid lawsuits, PR blowback, or moral shame; it was justified as a competitive business necessity. So, if the sexes and races don’t differ at all, and if psychological interchangeability is true, then there’s no practical business case for diversity. On the other hand, if demographic diversity gives a company any competitive advantages, it must be because there are important sex differences and race differences in how human minds work and interact. For example, psychological variety must promote better decision-making within teams, projects, and divisions. Yet if minds differ across sexes and races enough to justify diversity as an instrumental business goal, then they must differ enough in some specific skills, interests, and motivations that hiring and promotion will sometimes produce unequal outcomes in some company roles. In other words, if demographic diversity yields any competitive advantages due to psychological differences between groups, then demographic equality of outcome cannot be achieved in all jobs and all levels within a company. At least, not without discriminatory practices such as affirmative action or demographic quotas. So, psychological interchangeability makes diversity meaningless. But psychological differences make equal outcomes impossible. Equality or diversity. You can’t have both. |
|
Quoted:
I would assume the severance would have a clause of not talking to the media or anyone else in order to shut him up. That would be the point. Quoted:
Quoted:
Why would they give him a severance package? They must realize now that he's fired he's going to really open up about their dirty laundry. And they'll want to make him an example if anyone else ever thinks about speaking out against IngSoc. |
|
Quoted:
The guy had to know it would get him fired. You don't go preaching the truth, or lies for that matter, that don't agree with progressive narrative at companies like Google. 
Every company these days has a cabal of SJW's. Some companies shut them up, other companies tolerate them. And then some companies give them their full support and let them call the shots for everyone else. That is what Google does. And Facebook is no better. By and large the big social media companies are SJW havens. This is because at their core they are not tech companies, they are media companies, like Time Warner. They just happen to exploit tech as part of their business plan or their business plan is possible due to technology. Or they expanded deeper into real tech as part of their business plan, like Facebook. |
|
Quoted:
The sad part about all this is it furthers the problem. People know women and minorities are not competing on the same level so when they get a job they get treated like a token hire until they prove they aren't. If the standards were identical it would do a lot more to bring people together. |
|
https://www.inc.com/quora/4-reasons-why-google-was-absolutely-right-to-fire-.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+home%2Fupdates+%28Inc.com%29
In conclusion As cleverly and articulately that Damore tried to write and promote his way of thinking, citing fancy and meaningless graphs using pseudo-science, people see the core message at the heart of his manifesto: that women and minorities are inherently < males. If a company tolerates this type of open disregard for colleagues, managers, and leadership, how can other employees enjoy that type of work environment? Where now it's acceptable to tolerate bigotry, discrimination, and superiority right in front of your face? Next to your own desk? Close to where you work? No company would set themselves up for that type of legal and emotional headache. And hence, ladies and gentlemen, Damore was unquestionably fired to minimize the damage he has already created for his firm, himself, and others that his narrow-minded thinking has hurt. Answer by Dandan Zhu, Headhunter, Career Coach, Investor, & Podcaster, on Quora: |
|
Quoted:
I was just about to bitch about a different Inc. article that I saw. The press' characterization of the memo is fucking criminal. |
|
Quoted:
https://www.inc.com/quora/4-reasons-why-google-was-absolutely-right-to-fire-.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+home%2Fupdates+%28Inc.com%29 In conclusion As cleverly and articulately that Damore tried to write and promote his way of thinking, citing fancy and meaningless graphs using pseudo-science, people see the core message at the heart of his manifesto: that women and minorities are inherently < males. If a company tolerates this type of open disregard for colleagues, managers, and leadership, how can other employees enjoy that type of work environment? Where now it's acceptable to tolerate bigotry, discrimination, and superiority right in front of your face? Next to your own desk? Close to where you work? No company would set themselves up for that type of legal and emotional headache. And hence, ladies and gentlemen, Damore was unquestionably fired to minimize the damage he has already created for his firm, himself, and others that his narrow-minded thinking has hurt. Answer by Dandan Zhu, Headhunter, Career Coach, Investor, & Podcaster, on Quora: Quoted:
https://www.inc.com/quora/4-reasons-why-google-was-absolutely-right-to-fire-.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+home%2Fupdates+%28Inc.com%29 In conclusion As cleverly and articulately that Damore tried to write and promote his way of thinking, citing fancy and meaningless graphs using pseudo-science, people see the core message at the heart of his manifesto: that women and minorities are inherently < males. If a company tolerates this type of open disregard for colleagues, managers, and leadership, how can other employees enjoy that type of work environment? Where now it's acceptable to tolerate bigotry, discrimination, and superiority right in front of your face? Next to your own desk? Close to where you work? No company would set themselves up for that type of legal and emotional headache. And hence, ladies and gentlemen, Damore was unquestionably fired to minimize the damage he has already created for his firm, himself, and others that his narrow-minded thinking has hurt. Answer by Dandan Zhu, Headhunter, Career Coach, Investor, & Podcaster, on Quora: Having read his manifesto, from a headhunter's and businessperson's perspective, here are a few reasons why Google had to get rid of Damore:
... #2. To recruit future hires and hold on to their existing staff. Right-wing ideals like limiting female reproductive rights, enforcing religious dogma disguised as "family" values, anti-minority, and anti-immigration policies, literally will ruin a tech company's hiring future and present! |
|
Quoted:
JFC. Googlebro is getting crucified unfairly. I read that quora article. Zhu brings up shit waaaaay out of left field that had nothing to do with the memo. Like this gem below. As far as the science itself goes, Googlebro seems to be standing on the frickin' Rock of Gibraltar. Actual scientists in the related fields have already backed him up. But we all know that SJW-science ain't got time for that. |
|
Quoted:
+1 As far as the science itself goes, Googlebro seems to be standing on the frickin' Rock of Gibraltar. Actual scientists in the related fields have already backed him up. But we all know that SJW-science ain't got time for that.
|
|
Quoted:
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN1vEfqHGro
Fucking molymeme is going to rake in views. He apparently talked with Dr. Jordan Peterson too. No idea on that though.  2017/08/08: James Damore and his Google Memo on Diversity (complete) |
|
Quoted:
Given the toxic effect of identity politics of late, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if this tore a schism in Google or other tech companies. The letter was well written, thoroughly reasoned, but lacking citation. Disagreement and reasoned debate would have been the mature response, but most anyone paying attention knows that in today's political environment, such an outcome was a gross improbability. Instead of avoiding a PR disaster, if Google has even a shred of intellectualism coursing through its veins, they may very well have created one. Precisely for the reason that retiring his employment validated every claim he made in the letter that precipitated the event. |
|
Quoted:
Given the toxic effect of identity politics of late, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if this tore a schism in Google or other tech companies. The letter was well written, thoroughly reasoned, but lacking citation. Disagreement and reasoned debate would have been the mature response, but most anyone paying attention knows that in today's political environment, such an outcome was a gross improbability. Instead of avoiding a PR disaster, if Google has even a shred of intellectualism coursing through its veins, they may very well have created one. Precisely for the reason that retiring his employment validated every claim he made in the letter that precipitated the event. 
The original Google Diversity memo |
|
Quoted:
He was a damn fool if he thought a private orgs internal email system was a public forum for free speech. I mean in all honesty, Google has a good argument for firing him based off the disruption this has caused to the workplace. I would still argue retaliation and discrimination though. Quoted:
Quoted:
Maybe he was damn fool enough to believe all that shit about free speech and tolerance from that cabal of mendacious skeezoids. I would still argue retaliation and discrimination though. His problem is he had the "wrong" political POV. |
|
Quoted:
The memo lacking citation is fake news, Gizmodo actually stripped out all of the citations in the real memo.
The original Google Diversity memo |
|
like this one
ABSTRACT There are no sex differences in cognitive ability but enduring sex differences incompetitiveness, life goals, the relative emphasis on agency versus connection. Policy-makers’ and feminist emphasis on equal opportunities and family-friendly policies assumes that sex discrimination is the primary source of sex differentials in labour market outcomes*notably the pay gap betweenmen and women. However, some careers and occupations cannot be domesticated*examples aregiven*and this also poses limits to social engineering. Recent research shows that high levels of femaleemployment and family-friendly policies reduce gender equality in the workforce and produce the glass ceiling. Preference theory is the only theory that can explain these new trends, the continuing pay gap and occupational segregation. Preference theory implies that there are at least three types of career rather than one. However, the differences between men and women’s career goals are smaller than sometimes thought. |
|
Quoted:
They don't give a shit here; my friend with a high-powered finance job got called into the her boss's office and questioned about her political activities when they found out she was a delegate to the RNC, the next morning when she came in they had her pack her stuff and escort her from the building. Fuck these people, and fuck everything they believe it. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hmmmmmmmmm, I would think there would be some sort of law suit for this guy. Discrimination, retaliation, etc. That said, with the pockets Google has, and the amount of publicity they were getting for this, I imagine they gave him a nice severance package. https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/08/07/it-may-be-illegal-for-google-to-punish-engineer-over-anti-diversity-memo-commentary.html Fuck these people, and fuck everything they believe it. |
|
Quoted:
The guy has his head up his ass and his manifesto is full of shit when he describes women vs. men. Classic UNIX beard thinking. Neanderthal. It has some merit regarding left vs right wing view points and bias against the right. He's an idiot with no legal recourse. 
|
|
Quoted:
I work for Silicon Valley companies. They probably offered him 2 weeks severance conditioned upon his signing a release of claims. They also probably escorted him straight to the parking lot and told him they would mail his personal items to his house. They also probably have a draft of a nastygram ready to go to accuse his next employer of stealing Google IP. That's pretty typical. Quoted:
Quoted:
Hmmmmmmmmm, I would think there would be some sort of law suit for this guy. Discrimination, retaliation, etc. That said, with the pockets Google has, and the amount of publicity they were getting for this, I imagine they gave him a nice severance package. They also probably have a draft of a nastygram ready to go to accuse his next employer of stealing Google IP. That's pretty typical. |
|
Quoted:
Nope. Just more evolved than the Neaderthals. And $150k is barely over starting salary in 2017 and Mtn View. Quoted:
Quoted:
Oh look, a SJW. From WA no less  And $150k is barely over starting salary in 2017 and Mtn View. And Google is known for low-balling entry level engineers because they know most don't stay more than a few years and many are willing to accept less money just to have Google on their resume. All the big social media companies exploit this fact. |
|
Quoted:
It really amazes me how often that phrase is used by people whose sole understanding of science is what they see on I Fucking Love Science and daytime television. Quoted:
Quoted:
Sounds like Google is full of science deniers. 
|
|
Quoted:
Some employees honestly want to help their employers by pointing out flaws in the company culture. Those are the kind of people who do this stuff, and answer internal surveys honestly. And the company rewards them for their loyalty. Quoted:
Quoted:
As soon as I heard his memo read on the radio his morning I knew he'd be sacked. I'd never have written and posted that if I didn't have fuck you money. Perhaps at companies too small to have an HR dept. But once a company has an HR dept. HR uses these surveys to identify people who don't fit in with the company culture and terminate them ASAP. It's the people that don't fit in who are more likely to bring a lawsuit or bad PR to the company. |
|
Quoted:
I knew a Ugandan immigrant programmer that would go off on "women don't belong in the workplace" rants. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Who wants to bet the fired guy was working here on an H1b visa. We had a pot luck once and the guy brought some kind of hummus dish with a layer of olive oil floating on top of it and no one touched it. I felt bad for the guy because he made an effort. No one knew how to eat the stuff so they stuck with potato salad and meat loaf, including myself.
All the other single guys brought soda, pizza, and pies. But he had to be different. 
|
|
Quoted:
The guy has his head up his ass and his manifesto is full of shit when he describes women vs. men. Classic UNIX beard thinking. Neanderthal. It has some merit regarding left vs right wing view points and bias against the right. He's an idiot with no legal recourse. So, I have to assume you are a feminist woman pissed off because what he said hit a chord with you? |
|
Quoted:
You probably already answered this, but did your friend have any recourse? This is SF, right? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hmmmmmmmmm, I would think there would be some sort of law suit for this guy. Discrimination, retaliation, etc. That said, with the pockets Google has, and the amount of publicity they were getting for this, I imagine they gave him a nice severance package. https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/08/07/it-may-be-illegal-for-google-to-punish-engineer-over-anti-diversity-memo-commentary.html Fuck these people, and fuck everything they believe it. |
|
Quoted:
No. They don't. I've been a developer for 30 years. The sexism in my industry got much worse in the 2000's with "brogrammer" culture. Before there was more of a textbook academic environment sexism you might see in a university setting. Now it's a lot of the rougher more jock and frat boy bullshit, The echo chamber in this thread is as bad as the pro diversity echo chamber at Google. The irony. There are valid conversations to be had regarding forced diversity and discriminatory hiring and promotion policies, and ones about accepting more conservative points of view. The bro at Google was hurting not helping. Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes, they do. I've been a developer for 30 years. The sexism in my industry got much worse in the 2000's with "brogrammer" culture. Before there was more of a textbook academic environment sexism you might see in a university setting. Now it's a lot of the rougher more jock and frat boy bullshit, The echo chamber in this thread is as bad as the pro diversity echo chamber at Google. The irony. There are valid conversations to be had regarding forced diversity and discriminatory hiring and promotion policies, and ones about accepting more conservative points of view. The bro at Google was hurting not helping. As far as "The bro at Google," this "bro" has a PhD in systems biology and had researched the stuff he wrote about. His "manifesto" is as much a research paper as an opinion piece. And it's backed by scientific research and academics knowledgeable in that area. This guy is the polar opposite of a "bro" and your characterization of him as a "bro" just proves your own bias and ignorance. ETA [sp] |
|
Quoted:
i don't give a shit enough to play the rebuttal game especially with this m'lady crap which tells me the level of conversation we'd be having. I'm content to flatly refute the premise instead. Quoted:
Quoted:
You've been asked repeatedly to list your points of contention and have repeatedly ducked the question. White knight gonna m'lady I'm content to flatly refute the premise instead. |
|
Quoted:
Black women are the only reason the space program didn't fold. There was a movie about it. Quoted:
Quoted:
Oh noes! Too little diversity for JerkyPuppy to stand. lol https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo11/hires/s69-40025.jpg https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/261016main_03_MissionControlCelebrates_full.jpg |
|
Quoted:
One week severance per year is standard, but this story has traction. They might offer him more just to shut him up and because the way they fired him was unethical. He didn't leak that letter. Someone else leaked it in an effort to get him fired. The guy that leaked it is the person that really should be fired. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hmmmmmmmmm, I would think there would be some sort of law suit for this guy. Discrimination, retaliation, etc. That said, with the pockets Google has, and the amount of publicity they were getting for this, I imagine they gave him a nice severance package. They also probably have a draft of a nastygram ready to go to accuse his next employer of stealing Google IP. That's pretty typical. |
|
Quoted:
Of course I read it. Here's the part that got him fired (http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320 "On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because: -They’re universal across human cultures -They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone -Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males -The underlying traits are highly heritable -They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from 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. " He says "biology", then says there are less women than men because of said biology, then backpedals it a bit with the second bolded part. Nope. That biology argument is his buh bye ticket. Here's a related article discrediting evolutionary psychology: Men Have Always Used 'Science' to Explain Why They're Better Than Women. An excerpt for the TL;DR not gonna read it crowd: Citing something like “prenatal testosterone” to justify why more men occupy leadership positions in tech reads like classic evolutionary psychology: using a vaguely scientific (and controversial) concept to explain an incredibly complex, multifaceted issue. But in evolutionary psychology, many differences between genders in our society (including deep inequities) can be neatly explained away by hard-wired differences in in our brains. “We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism,” Damore wrote, citing pseudoscientific claims that men get paid more because they have a “higher drive for status” instead of the overwhelming evidence that gender-based discrimination is closely linked to the wage gap. Of course, using “science” to justify male superiority is much older than anything espoused by evolutionary psychologists. The idea that women are less psychologically stable—or more, bluntly, “hysterical”—has been around at least since Hippocrates wrote about it in the 5th century BCE. As Freud and his contemporaries later posited, women’s biology explained their “inherent” insanity. Or, as this particular Google employee called it, their neuroticism. “Women, on average, have more neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance),” Damore wrote. “This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.” Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm fairly certain you didn't read the actual memo, he did nothing of the sort. In all actuality he was describing the current hiring system at Google as a violation of EO policies and law, and that the reason true gender parity would never happen, which happened to be gender based. The citations were supporting documents to his observations and theories, rather than just an appeal to authority. The memo writer is a PHd biologist I believe. "On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because: -They’re universal across human cultures -They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone -Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males -The underlying traits are highly heritable -They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from 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. " He says "biology", then says there are less women than men because of said biology, then backpedals it a bit with the second bolded part. Nope. That biology argument is his buh bye ticket. Here's a related article discrediting evolutionary psychology: Men Have Always Used 'Science' to Explain Why They're Better Than Women. An excerpt for the TL;DR not gonna read it crowd: Citing something like “prenatal testosterone” to justify why more men occupy leadership positions in tech reads like classic evolutionary psychology: using a vaguely scientific (and controversial) concept to explain an incredibly complex, multifaceted issue. But in evolutionary psychology, many differences between genders in our society (including deep inequities) can be neatly explained away by hard-wired differences in in our brains. “We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism,” Damore wrote, citing pseudoscientific claims that men get paid more because they have a “higher drive for status” instead of the overwhelming evidence that gender-based discrimination is closely linked to the wage gap. Of course, using “science” to justify male superiority is much older than anything espoused by evolutionary psychologists. The idea that women are less psychologically stable—or more, bluntly, “hysterical”—has been around at least since Hippocrates wrote about it in the 5th century BCE. As Freud and his contemporaries later posited, women’s biology explained their “inherent” insanity. Or, as this particular Google employee called it, their neuroticism. “Women, on average, have more neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance),” Damore wrote. “This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.” Damore's piece is actually backed by current research while Rae Paoletta's piece is nothing but ad-hominems. She makes statements such as "As much as the Google employee’s anti-diversity letter reeks of centuries-old junk science,..." Damore's e-mail is not anti-diversity and doesn't make use of "centuries-old junk science." It's based on modern research. You say, "Here's a related article discrediting evolutionary psychology..." but the article you provide does just the opposite. It's just more propaganda. Feel-good SJW circle-jerk just as Damore described Google.
|
|
Quoted:
You do realize that you linked a Gizmodo article, correct? The same Gizmodo that is run by Univision, the parent company of Jezebel, Gawker, and Deadspin? A parent company that openly hates Trump and his policies to stem illegal aliens? Gizmodo went so far as to "phish for government leakers" by targeting them with ads on Facebook encouraging them to leak internal memos and stories to Gizmodo so they could propagate the information. Again, the memo states repeatedly "on average" as a caveat. He does not flatly label women as hysterical, crazy, inferior, or sub-par. Why are there less female software engineers? Because less females pursue the required degrees and skill sets. Full stop. Of those females that become software engineers, why do females gravitate towards the less stressful positions? Because they do not want the stress. They consistently score higher on the stress metrics Google provides. Full Stop. Why do female software engineers makes less money? Because they shy away from the stress filled bleeding edge of software engineering where male counterparts who handle stress better, due to less emotional variance, reside. Full stop. Lastly, the genders are different. They are wired differently. I would not want to procreate with a wife that was wired exactly as I am. Science is not sexist and as in all studies of biological nature, outliers exist. Those outlying women software engineers who handle stressful positions well and churn out product advancing code can and will hold the same positions as men, be paid the same as men, and will likely advance faster than men. You seem to be getting stuck at the mere mention of genders here. He is clearly writing this as a Senior Software Engineer who sees the Diversty programs as being a hindrance to Google hiring the best possible people to keep them ahead of the pack. The whole point of this memo was that Diversty is weakening the talent base at Google and that even mentioning that will get you shunned, threatened, or fired. All three of which have just been proven as true. Google covets Diversity and Social Marxism above their talent and ultimately their product. Share holders have just been put on notice. ETA: Social Marxism is also what Univision, Gizomodo, Gawker, and Deadspin all push. It's the new front of "Progressive Social Justice". In more familiar terms, and as the memo states in a citiation, it's Marxism that has shifted from focusing on economic oppression and has instead moved into identity oppression to deliver it's poison pill. White straight men are the source of all wrong in the world. Quoted:
Quoted:
-snip- Here's a related article discrediting evolutionary psychology: Men Have Always Used 'Science' to Explain Why They're Better Than Women. An excerpt for the TL;DR not gonna read it crowd: A parent company that openly hates Trump and his policies to stem illegal aliens? Gizmodo went so far as to "phish for government leakers" by targeting them with ads on Facebook encouraging them to leak internal memos and stories to Gizmodo so they could propagate the information. Again, the memo states repeatedly "on average" as a caveat. He does not flatly label women as hysterical, crazy, inferior, or sub-par. Why are there less female software engineers? Because less females pursue the required degrees and skill sets. Full stop. Of those females that become software engineers, why do females gravitate towards the less stressful positions? Because they do not want the stress. They consistently score higher on the stress metrics Google provides. Full Stop. Why do female software engineers makes less money? Because they shy away from the stress filled bleeding edge of software engineering where male counterparts who handle stress better, due to less emotional variance, reside. Full stop. Lastly, the genders are different. They are wired differently. I would not want to procreate with a wife that was wired exactly as I am. Science is not sexist and as in all studies of biological nature, outliers exist. Those outlying women software engineers who handle stressful positions well and churn out product advancing code can and will hold the same positions as men, be paid the same as men, and will likely advance faster than men. You seem to be getting stuck at the mere mention of genders here. He is clearly writing this as a Senior Software Engineer who sees the Diversty programs as being a hindrance to Google hiring the best possible people to keep them ahead of the pack. The whole point of this memo was that Diversty is weakening the talent base at Google and that even mentioning that will get you shunned, threatened, or fired. All three of which have just been proven as true. Google covets Diversity and Social Marxism above their talent and ultimately their product. Share holders have just been put on notice. ETA: Social Marxism is also what Univision, Gizomodo, Gawker, and Deadspin all push. It's the new front of "Progressive Social Justice". In more familiar terms, and as the memo states in a citiation, it's Marxism that has shifted from focusing on economic oppression and has instead moved into identity oppression to deliver it's poison pill. White straight men are the source of all wrong in the world. The Gizmodo article states: “I would argue in fact that the whole idea of whiteness and white supremacy wouldn’t exist without science,” Dr. Chanda Prescod-Weinstein, a theoretical astrophysicist at the University of Washington, told Gizmodo... |
|
Quoted:
I've had some tough conversations with male developers who lean toward brogrammer. This is the frat boy shit. Bring in a fridge, come in around 1pm, work late in the evenings with beer and then Jack Daniels. Get three or four of them in a room, and it is not an inclusive welcoming environment (to use the diversity words). But, lets say it's true. Is it any surprise "bro" behavior is exhibited by young guys while they are drinking together? Jeez... |
|
Quoted:
Just like a woman. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You've been asked repeatedly to list your points of contention and have repeatedly ducked the question. White knight gonna m'lady I'm content to flatly refute the premise instead. |
|
Quoted:
You are 100% completely wrong. The benefits of diversity are obvious. If you want to run a business at "planetary scale" as they say at Google, you can't just be a bunch of white guy PHDs from MIT. You need diversity in your company as well. Diversity will not weaken Google. But the mechanisms used to achieve diversity need to be examined and discussed, just not with the evolutionary biology claptrap above. That's where I criticize the Google echo chamber as much as the echo chamber in this thread. Is any examination and discussion going on at Google, or will this strengthen a shun-the-nonbeliever atmosphere at Google? I suspect the latter and that's why I say this guy was hurting, not helping. Quoted:
Quoted:
You do realize that you linked a Gizmodo article, correct? The same Gizmodo that is run by Univision, the parent company of Jezebel, Gawker, and Deadspin? A parent company that openly hates Trump and his policies to stem illegal aliens? Gizmodo went so far as to "phish for government leakers" by targeting them with ads on Facebook encouraging them to leak internal memos and stories to Gizmodo so they could propagate the information. Again, the memo states repeatedly "on average" as a caveat. He does not flatly label women as hysterical, crazy, inferior, or sub-par. Why are there less female software engineers? Because less females pursue the required degrees and skill sets. Full stop. Of those females that become software engineers, why do females gravitate towards the less stressful positions? Because they do not want the stress. They consistently score higher on the stress metrics Google provides. Full Stop. Why do female software engineers makes less money? Because they shy away from the stress filled bleeding edge of software engineering where male counterparts who handle stress better, due to less emotional variance, reside. Full stop. Lastly, the genders are different. They are wired differently. I would not want to procreate with a wife that was wired exactly as I am. Science is not sexist and as in all studies of biological nature, outliers exist. Those outlying women software engineers who handle stressful positions well and churn out product advancing code can and will hold the same positions as men, be paid the same as men, and will likely advance faster than men. You seem to be getting stuck at the mere mention of genders here. He is clearly writing this as a Senior Software Engineer who sees the Diversty programs as being a hindrance to Google hiring the best possible people to keep them ahead of the pack. The whole point of this memo was that Diversty is weakening the talent base at Google and that even mentioning that will get you shunned, threatened, or fired. All three of which have just been proven as true. Google covets Diversity and Social Marxism above their talent and ultimately their product. Share holders have just been put on notice. ETA: Social Marxism is also what Univision, Gizomodo, Gawker, and Deadspin all push. It's the new front of "Progressive Social Justice". In more familiar terms, and as the memo states in a citiation, it's Marxism that has shifted from focusing on economic oppression and has instead moved into identity oppression to deliver it's poison pill. White straight men are the source of all wrong in the world. But the mechanisms used to achieve diversity need to be examined and discussed, just not with the evolutionary biology claptrap above. That's where I criticize the Google echo chamber as much as the echo chamber in this thread. Is any examination and discussion going on at Google, or will this strengthen a shun-the-nonbeliever atmosphere at Google? I suspect the latter and that's why I say this guy was hurting, not helping. "White guy PHDs" created the technology possible to have microcomputers. "White guy PHDs" created the technology possible to have cell phones. "White guy PHDs" invented the Internet. "White guy PHDs" founded Google (PhD candidates.) "White guy PHDs" are all one needs to create the core technologies. HP, IBM, Microsoft, all global companies that went global before diversity was a thing. But Google hasn't been a tech company in years. Google is a social media company and for that, I can understand the need to be culturally sensitive. |
|
Quoted:
I agree. Which is why I am against the stupidity of lowering standards to hire women into roles where those biological differences make a difference in job performance. Navy SEALs, firefighters, etc. Arguing gender differences make women unsuited for technical jobs at Google is bullshit. It's the same bullshit my wife heard in the 70s at McDonnel-Douglas when she was told by her manager "women don't belong in technical roles because blah blah". Same bullshit as the Google guy, but he was more pseudoscience about it. As for merit vs. diversity, that's a false dichotomy. You can achieve both or neither or one or the other. I am against achieving diversity at the expense of merit, and avoiding that is the heart of the discussion I keep saying Google needs to have. Quoted:
Quoted:
Anybody who doesn't think that men and women are biologically different is someone not worth having a conversation with. Arguing gender differences make women unsuited for technical jobs at Google is bullshit. It's the same bullshit my wife heard in the 70s at McDonnel-Douglas when she was told by her manager "women don't belong in technical roles because blah blah". Same bullshit as the Google guy, but he was more pseudoscience about it. As for merit vs. diversity, that's a false dichotomy. You can achieve both or neither or one or the other. I am against achieving diversity at the expense of merit, and avoiding that is the heart of the discussion I keep saying Google needs to have. |
|
Quoted:
Except that the guy is arguing that less qualified people are being hired strictly for diversity reasons. He also points out that people are excluded from discussion groups based on race/gender, which defeats the whole purpose of diversity, right? Unless, of course, "diversity" means "anti white cismale"... Quoted:
Quoted:
As for merit vs. diversity, that's a false dichotomy. You can achieve both or neither or one or the other. I am against achieving diversity at the expense of merit, and avoiding that is the heart of the discussion I keep saying Google needs to have. 
|
|
Quoted:
where is he doing that? He's saying, "If there are not as many women programmers as men, it's not because of systemic misogyny. It's because not as many women want to be programmers. Shoving women into programming jobs who don't want to be there (or are unqualified to be there but hey we've got Diversity goals to reach) is unhealthy for them and the organization." Same for CEOs or other upper management. Frankly, I think the women who say, "I don't want to be executive VP for whatever because I'd rather stall out at one or two levels below that and have a fucking LIFE, get to see my husband, get to know what grades my kids are in, etc." are onto something. I respect a guy who has built a company or reached the CEO position but I don't always respect what they gave up to get there. Kinda like the threads where guys say, "I work 80 hours a week to support my family! It's not my fault I'm on my sixth divorce and my kids hate me! I'm a good provider!" Quoted:
Quoted:
Arguing gender differences make women unsuited for technical jobs at Google is bullshit. It's the same bullshit my wife heard in the 70s at McDonnel-Douglas when she was told by her manager "women don't belong in technical roles because blah blah". Same bullshit as the Google guy, but he was more pseudoscience about it. Frankly, I think the women who say, "I don't want to be executive VP for whatever because I'd rather stall out at one or two levels below that and have a fucking LIFE, get to see my husband, get to know what grades my kids are in, etc." are onto something. I respect a guy who has built a company or reached the CEO position but I don't always respect what they gave up to get there. Kinda like the threads where guys say, "I work 80 hours a week to support my family! It's not my fault I'm on my sixth divorce and my kids hate me! I'm a good provider!" |