Google done' goofed - fires employee for "opinions"

[child of wonder]

Google is well within their rights to fire him, however he is NOT a misogynist or sexist.

Fuck's sake.....

 

[Moonbeam]

Just imagine:

"I don't see what the issue is here. We have a similar problem recruiting Blacks to fill programming jobs, but the result has been that hiring of blacks introduces racial tensions into the work place. Non Blacks tend to want to avoid contact on a social level because of fear they may say something that might be taken as racists but isn't. Also, the average Black applicant suffers from educational and emotional difficulties as a result of growing up in sub standard environments, are often hostile and edgy as a result. You never know if or when you are going to get a knife in the back. It is therefore, vital, for Black inclusion numbers to rise, that the company focus on light skinned Blacks and ones who are well enculturated in white society. A general policy to pay them less also helps reduce the aggression of non Blacks toward them, making their (Blacks) experience at the workplace more pleasant and enjoyable. All of this can be demonstrated with scientific evidence.

 

[Moonbeam]

Surely you don't think I would consent to you being the judge of this challenge. I can imagine many ways to attempt to objectively judge our relative aptitudes (all of which flawed), and I am certain at least some of which would not be in my favor. Nonetheless, if you or anyone else has a reasonable way of trying to evaluate things I'd be happy to participate.

I believe that your interest is in examining the kinds of biases we bring to the table when we come to conclusions about the right or wrong of an issue whereas agent is interested in providing the correct answer. He believes that he has done all the examination of that sort that he needs and can now go directly to the truth of the matter. Your aim, it would seem to me is to make people more open to differing points of view and his interest seems to be to push his version of truth and to deflect any doubt as to its authenticity.

Now I believe that it is possible to have a clear and objective point of view, one I refer to sometimes as knowing nothing, and that can be realized only by questioning the beliefs that normally remain unconscious and unexamined, I feel that your path is the superior one. It's superiority, however, in my opinion, will not be seen by people whose certainty in their own opinions would be threatened by it. There are reasons why people do not examine what they believe. In my opinion it is the road down which lies the knowledge we don't know anything other that that unknowing state. We have all been conditioned, in my opinion, by being referred to as stupid, naïve and intellectually inferior in multiple ways,

So since the path you are on leads to an open place where the opinions of all are welcome, and given the record of people who have the one and only truth, I would say you have no need to contend since your way requires a greater gift to perceive. I declare you the winner.

I do think, also, he's not too far off on this Google thingi. I also chalked it up to gender inequality. Males have what I call the engineering gene, like realibrad, an inability not to feel the forest for all of the trees. Linear rather that holistic thinking. Paratus is a good example of not that. He synthesizes from data rather than riding the chain of reason. These are things words are at a disadvantage to describe, at least for me.

 

[J.Wilkins]

Most that I know in my career field (IT) got there because they liked to tinker with computers, and ended up following a path that led them into IT, they weren't doing it looking at the end-goal of job hunting. Not saying that's the case for everyone, but is this really a chicken-and-egg scenario or is it possible that women are just less inclined to *want* to be in specific fields, unrelated to the misogynistic nature of men or the inherent bias of society?

Is it possible that women do what is expected of them because if they don't they will inevitably have a harder time? Is it possible that if more girls saw adult women in a field and that it was not a problem for them to go into that field at all that they would pursue an education/career in that field?

Let's say that you KNEW you would be a lot less likely to get hired as a programmer, do you think your parents would ever encourage you to become one? Do you think your guidance counsellor would tell you to get into that field? Do you think you would ever pursue that career?

 

[cytg111]

Worker fired from company. Why is this a big story to you?


Ohhhhhhh, I see why.

That specter of male oppression rearing its head.

Get scared, man. Get REAL scared.

Hahaha all the low T betas running scared that their masculinity is under siege.
Thank god I am a free man.

 

[J.Wilkins]

I never said a biological reason is a "rational reason." On average, aggression is hardwired into males to a greater extent than females, for evolutionary reasons. Which doesn't mean that all resulting behavior is rational. A desire to rape, for example, makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint because the rapist is more likely to propagate his "desire to rape" gene by planting his seed where it isn't wanted. Either way, it's immoral in the context of human society, and so in that context the behavior is irrational on many levels. The concept of neurosis doesn't really apply here, certainly not in the way it has been discussed with the topic at hand, which is fitness for a high stress occupation.

Ah, the remnants of sociobiology are alive and well in some peoples minds.

No, raping isn't an evolved trait at all nor is there a "desire to rape" locked away in some genetic module in males brains.

Go look up the studies on the Ache population, they lived pretty much the exact same way as humans did for 100 000 years ago and rape was basically unheard of because it went against the social structure of the tribe and would lead to the death of the assailant.

 

[J.Wilkins]

One thing that I find curious here is that people are arguing that women are ill suited for IT because of stress and pressure but do not consider the job of the nurse at all.

I mean, compared to a job where a person frequently performs physically and psychologically stressful jobs and where life and death situations arise daily an IT job is very low stress.

 

[cytg111]

One thing that I find curious here is that people are arguing that women are ill suited for IT because of stress and pressure but do not consider the job of the nurse at all.

I mean, compared to a job where a person frequently performs physically and psychologically stressful jobs and where life and death situations arise daily an IT job is very low stress.

In my experience it is the other way around, women are handling those jobs better than men and I speculate that it is rooted in the fact that culturally it is more so accepted that women vents and speaks their feelings than us.

 

[woolfe9998]

Ah, the remnants of sociobiology are alive and well in some peoples minds.

No, raping isn't an evolved trait at all nor is there a "desire to rape" locked away in some genetic module in males brains.

Go look up the studies on the Ache population, they lived pretty much the exact same way as humans did for 100 000 years ago and rape was basically unheard of because it went against the social structure of the tribe and would lead to the death of the assailant.

I'm slightly familiar with your reference to the Ache population. If memory serves, they were some kind of hunter-gatherers. Low rates of rape among them are used to counter the socio-biological argument. I haven't read enough about it to understand its relative merit. But I'll say this. First off, male chimps are both aggressive and tend to rape female chimps:

https://www.livescience.com/48743-aggressive-chimps-reproduce-more.html

It could be that we evolved beyond it, but a few things are essentially not debatable. First, there is a biological propensity toward violence among homo sapiens (in addition to many other animals), particularly the males of the species. We know it is at least in part biological because there are several selection advantages to it. A propensity towards violence makes It is easier to over-power prey or fend off predators, and also, of course, to compete for access to female sexual favors. This and the fact that while the female protects the young, the male is off hunting for food. This explains why the male hormone seems to carry the propensity more so than the female ones. Second, we have the desire for sex, which is selected for because, well, those who really like sex are obviously more likely to reproduce. Males have a quicker arousal response. We go from 0 to 60 in no time, while females have a more gradual arousal pattern. Males are quick to arouse, and quick to become aggressive.

The convergence of these traits makes it highly implausible to me that rape is entirely a product of social conditioning. Strong sexual arousal + aggression = rape. And not just rape, but aggressive and violent behavior in general.

Don't get me wrong. Socialization i.e. "nurture" affects these things as well. It pretty much affects everything. It's just that leftist academia in the social sciences shifted too far in the nurture direction from what had previously been an all nature direction, to the point of ignoring where the science was pointing, which is that it's a mix.

I'll read an article or two on the Ache to see if it changes my mind on any of this.

 

[cytg111]

I think this is relevant here.

Male aggression: testosterone increases brain's threat response

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/280915.php

Plus testosterone is a sex driver for both men and women.

 

[Starbuck1975]

One thing that I find curious here is that people are arguing that women are ill suited for IT because of stress and pressure but do not consider the job of the nurse at all.

I mean, compared to a job where a person frequently performs physically and psychologically stressful jobs and where life and death situations arise daily an IT job is very low stress.

Interesting example. There is gender disparity in the field of nursing, yet you don't hear many calls to diversify nursing due to the inadequate representation of males.

You similarly don't hear such diversification calls for blue collar professions like iron workers, cable repair, plumbing or electricians.

What this is really about is money and power. Silicon Valley is where the money and power is today.

 

[J.Wilkins]

I'm slightly familiar with your reference to the Ache population. If memory serves, they were some kind of hunter-gatherers. Low rates of rape among them are used to counter the socio-biological argument. I haven't read enough about it to understand its relative merit. But I'll say this. First off, male chimps are both aggressive and tend to rape female chimps:

https://www.livescience.com/48743-aggressive-chimps-reproduce-more.html

It could be that we evolved beyond it, but a few things are essentially not debatable. First, there is a biological propensity toward violence among homo sapiens (in addition to many other animals), particularly the males of the species. We know it is at least in part biological because there are several selection advantages to it. A propensity towards violence makes It is easier to over-power prey or fend off predators, and also, of course, to compete for access to female sexual favors. This and the fact that while the female protects the young, the male is off hunting for food. This explains why the male hormone seems to carry the propensity more so than the female ones. Second, we have the desire for sex, which is selected for because, well, those who really like sex are obviously more likely to reproduce. Males have a quicker arousal response. We go from 0 to 60 in no time, while females have a more gradual arousal pattern. Males are quick to arouse, and quick to become aggressive.

The convergence of these traits makes it highly implausible to me that rape is entirely a product of social conditioning. Strong sexual arousal + aggression = rape. And not just rape, but aggressive and violent behavior in general.

Don't get me wrong. Socialization i.e. "nurture" affects these things as well. It pretty much affects everything. It's just that leftist academia in the social sciences shifted too far in the nurture direction from what had previously been an all nature direction, to the point of ignoring where the science was pointing, which is that it's a mix.

I'll read an article or two on the Ache to see if it changes my mind on any of this.

Sociobiology is dead and buried, the last remnants of it died in the late 80's.

You can't compare social behaviour between chimps and humans, we split off our common ancestor millions of years ago and human evolution has been ongoing ever since.

You do realize that humans have pretty much always been monogamous, always lived in societies of some sort, that the fit women and men have always hunted and gathered while the elderly and sick/injured stayed at home? Your ideas of what the stone age was like seem to come from some caricature and not reality.

Rape is not sex and sex is not rape, the two are vastly different and the former usually has to do with establishing dominance in a social species rather than sex. Desire to have sex is not the same as a desire to rape.

You do realize that the "leftist academia" were proven right with epigenetics, right? That is, genes are turned on and off through behavioural instruction (among many other causes) which is the definition of nurture.

 

[J.Wilkins]

Interesting example. There is gender disparity in the field of nursing, yet you don't hear many calls to diversify nursing due to the inadequate representation of males.

You similarly don't hear such diversification calls for blue collar professions like iron workers, cable repair, plumbing or electricians.

You start off with "interesting example", ignore everything in my post and start a discussion on another topic?

Could we start with the idea that women obviously can handle stress and that this isn't a good reason to keep them out of the cushy (in comparison to being a nurse) IT business?

What this is really about is money and power. Silicon Valley is where the money and power is today.

According to some people women don't want money and power and according to others they are not suited for having those kinds of jobs because it's too stressful for women to handle.

 

[bshole]

I liked Google

Ah, the remnants of sociobiology are alive and well in some peoples minds.

No, raping isn't an evolved trait at all nor is there a "desire to rape" locked away in some genetic module in males brains.

Go look up the studies on the Ache population, they lived pretty much the exact same way as humans did for 100 000 years ago and rape was basically unheard of because it went against the social structure of the tribe and would lead to the death of the assailant.

Not saying your wrong but don't you have to go further back? We did evolve from a primitive ape after all.

Male chimpanzees that wage a campaign of sustained aggression against females sire more offspring than their less violent counterparts, new research finds.

The results suggest that such nasty behavior from males evolved because it gave the meanest males a reproductive advantage, said study co-author Ian Gilby, a primatologist at Arizona State University in Phoenix.

This chimpanzee behavior could also provide some insight into the roots of sexual aggression in men.

https://www.livescience.com/48743-aggressive-chimps-reproduce-more.html

 

[pmv]

I had a quick read of his 'memo', and it mostly just struck me as extremely geeky and naive and lacking in social awareness (why would he think his employer would be OK with him prissily arguing against their policies on their own network? He sounded as if he imagined he was some sort of board-member or part-owner of Google).

For someone who, apparently, has a PhD, it didn't seem exactly academically rigorous or science-based either - above all it didn't seem to me that any of his 'references' supported his claim that these alleged differences were partly 'biological'.

However, I feel a bit sorry for him getting fired, the 'up the workers' part of me thinks he should have had the right to a warning and a reprimand first (plus maybe being told he needs to 'lighten up' and maybe 'find a hobby'). Though I wonder if I have a double-standard in that I don't think I'd be as sympathetic to someone who wrote something similar about alleged race differences? It just sounded kind of socially naive to me, as if he's always seen women as strange alien creatures, which makes me feel a bit sad for him.

 

[Grooveriding]

Most everyone is aware there are biological differences between males and females among all the species. Even if you do not have a basis of knowledge to understand what they are, if you have eyes you can see some of them every day. Don't think he should have been fired for this, but I have no sympathy for him. The workplace is for work and relationships with your fellow employees. It is not where you go to air your politics or social views, and there is plenty of straight-up subjective opinion in his diatribe.

He's a fool for distributing this communication forward if he expected to remain in his position (I doubt he expected to) and should have expected he was going to get shit-canned for it (probably did and wanted it to happen with the attention he expected to get from it). It's obvious his emotional investment in this subject took precedence for him and he thought he should open his mouth this way, rather than pursue it in a professional manner via management.

You rarely find sane discourse on this sort of subject, the zealots of either end of the spectrum inject their bullshit into it, said bullshit generally producing the stereotypes that get applied to the entire groups on either side of issues like these. Then the opportunists use these extreme examples from either group, the irrational ones that push crazed narratives, to paint the entire group of one side of the issue as being complicit with the extremists among them and no better than them.

 

[J.Wilkins]

I liked Google


Not saying your wrong but don't you have to go further back? We did evolve from a primitive ape after all.



https://www.livescience.com/48743-aggressive-chimps-reproduce-more.html

Of course not, we don't even have any example of the common ancestor to examine and to believe that it would be anything like a chimpanzee OR a human is quite obviously not true.

Genetic traits in one species do not mimic those in others. Humans have been monogamous since as far back as we know while chimpanzees never have, does this mean that our common ancestor that is nothing like us and nothing like a chimpanzee were monogamous? Who knows and who cares?

We have to go by what we know about humans since we're talking about our species.

 

[J.Wilkins]

Most everyone is aware there are biological differences between males and females among all the species.

Yes, but to extrapolate from that requires studying any given situation and not draw erroneous conclusions based on nothing at all but your own imagined reality.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Most everyone is aware there are biological differences between males and females among all the species. Even if you do not have a basis of knowledge to understand what they are, if you have eyes you can see some of them every day. Don't think he should have been fired for this, but I have no sympathy for him. The workplace is for work and relationships with your fellow employees. It is not where you go to air your politics or social views, and there is plenty of straight-up subjective opinion in his diatribe.

He's a fool for distributing this communication forward if he expected to remain in his position (I doubt he expected to) and should have expected he was going to get shit-canned for it (probably did and wanted it to happen with the attention he expected to get from it). It's obvious his emotional investment in this subject took precedence for him and he thought he should open his mouth this way, rather than pursue it in a professional manner via management.

You rarely find sane discourse on this sort of subject, the zealots of either end of the spectrum inject their bullshit into it, said bullshit generally producing the stereotypes that get applied to the entire groups on either side of issues like these. Then the opportunists use these extreme examples from either group, the irrational ones that push crazed narratives, to paint the entire group of one side of the issue as being complicit with the extremists among them and no better than them.

Will be interesting to see if there will now be any subsequent leaks of posts from extremists within the blue pill spectrum of Google employees, and if they face similar employment repercussions.

 

[Commodus]

Google is well within their rights to fire him, however he is NOT a misogynist or sexist.

Fuck's sake.....

Every woman I know who's read it sees it as sexist. It paints them as basket cases who can't lead and would need special accommodations to truly fit in as programmers. Just because the language is couched in pseudoscience and half-hearted attempts to sound positive doesn't change what it is.

Here's a challenge for you: show the document to a woman you know, and ask her what she thinks. Something tells me she won't be on your side.

 

[realibrad]

Ok let's use the climate change as an example.

Your positing the change we are seeing is due in part to biological differences. I'm not going to argue there aren't biological differences.

You then say that there are some societal factors.

Your problem is you are jumping to the conclusion that the biological differences are most likely the cause for the gender disparity in STEM fields.

No I'm not and its weird that you think that. I am saying that this guy saying there are some biological factors is not wrong, but I have not said the magnitude of the influence. Go back and read what I wrote. This guy is being called sexist because he said that there are some biological influences, and that being "female" carries with it some general preferences and aptitudes.

This is like saying the sun varies in intensity, showing that it does, saying that you know there's that CO2 thing but isn't it reasonable that the change in temperature is being caused by solar variation.

No, because you haven't proven the magnitude of the effects of solar variations are a major cause or even a minor cause of the warming. Then ignoring that the study's show the warming is definitively caused by excess CO2.

In the gender case you haven't proven that the biological differences are the major cause or even a minor cause of the gender ratio discrepancy.

The study I linked to specifically shows how teacher biases push girls away from math.

My own family also shows that girls who have a genetic aptitude for math (mother, father, and all grandparents excel in math), who are socialized to do well in math, excel in math. (I write this as I help my 7 year old learn long division)

There are many studies out there that show how schools fail intelligent girls. We have books on it due to fighting with the school on properly educating my kids.

Until you can show significant scientific evidence that gross biological differences between the sexes is the majority cause of gender disparity in STEM fields, that it isnt being exacerbated by improper education, and that proper education is somehow to costly to justify the benefits you don't have anything but an unsupported hypothesis (and I'm being generous here)

Finally if the guy had this much beef with Googles diversity standards he should have taken his concerns up with HR and his management. Instead he let it out to a large number of other employees obviously looking for a response and embarrassed his employer, in at-will state.

I think most of the above here was addressed in the other part. I urge you to actually read what this guy wrote. Its a quick read. Its 10 pages but its not an essay by any means. Here is the major part that people seemed to dislike.

"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."

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf

 

[realibrad]

Every woman I know who's read it sees it as sexist. It paints them as basket cases who can't lead and would need special accommodations to truly fit in as programmers. Just because the language is couched in pseudoscience and half-hearted attempts to sound positive doesn't change what it is.

Here's a challenge for you: show the document to a woman you know, and ask her what she thinks. Something tells me she won't be on your side.

Did you read it? From what I can tell most of the people that have an opinion on this did not read the doc.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf

 

[J.Wilkins]

No I'm not and its weird that you think that. I am saying that this guy saying there are some biological factors is not wrong, but I have not said the magnitude of the influence. Go back and read what I wrote. This guy is being called sexist because he said that there are some biological influences, and that being "female" carries with it some general preferences and aptitudes.



I think most of the above here was addressed in the other part. I urge you to actually read what this guy wrote. Its a quick read. Its 10 pages but its not an essay by any means. Here is the major part that people seemed to dislike.

"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."

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf

To be honest the paper reads as if he's arguing that race and gender should determine the position a person has in the company.

Mainly because that is EXACTLY what he's doing.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Every woman I know who's read it sees it as sexist. It paints them as basket cases who can't lead and would need special accommodations to truly fit in as programmers. Just because the language is couched in pseudoscience and half-hearted attempts to sound positive doesn't change what it is.

Here's a challenge for you: show the document to a woman you know, and ask her what she thinks. Something tells me she won't be on your side.

Confirmation bias tends to work that way.

 

[Commodus]

Did you read it? From what I can tell most of the people that have an opinion on this did not read the doc.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf

I already answered this. Yes, I did. Despite what you believe, it's not inevitable that people will read it and decide that he has a valid point.