The now-infamous Google diversity memo

[RoyalShock]

Here is how CNN chose to report on it:

CNN ✔ @CNN
A Google engineer argued that women aren't biologically fit for tech jobs. Was it protected under the 1st Amendment? http://cnn.it/2vJZr4K

11:00 AM - Aug 8, 2017

That's not at all what the engineer is arguing. (Fake news, anyone?) The tweet itself is misleading, insinuating that his [misrepresented] statement itself might not be protected speech. (A portion of the linked article is about whether Google can fire him over it.)

[shockmonster]

Here is how CNN chose to report on it:



That's not at all what the engineer is arguing. (Fake news, anyone?) The tweet itself is misleading, insinuating that his [misrepresented] statement itself might not be protected speech. (A portion of the linked article is about whether Google can fire him over it.)

SMH The left coast media seems to look for ways to misrepresent opinions and balance toward the left. Fox isn't perfect, but I watch them a lot because I just can't watch the interpretations of CNN and MSNBC, but Fox tries harder to be balanced than the other outlets imo. I refuse to watch the Fox morning show, Hannity, and usually not Tucker Carlson, but the other news anchors get closer to the truth, and tend to be more fairly critical of Trump imo.

[Walker]

Here's a pretty good interview that Stefan Molyneux (YouTube philosophy show) has with the former Google employee.

https://youtu.be/TN1vEfqHGro

[RoyalShock]

https://stream.org/what-the-google-memo-says/

A New York Times headline said Damore was fired for “Questioning Women in Tech.” CNN tweeted that Damore said “women aren’t biologically fit for tech jobs.” The Washington Post said Damore “wrote that women may be unsuited for tech jobs.” An alternate headline to the Post article, which appeared in a Google search, said Damore’s memo “bemoaned racial diversity.”

Damore links to several sources throughout his memo to back his claims. But Gizmodo posted a version that removes all hyperlinks, as well as charts from the original.

21st century journalism.

[jdshock]

The tweet itself is misleading, insinuating that his [misrepresented] statement itself might not be protected speech. (A portion of the linked article is about whether Google can fire him over it.)

I'm not sure I understand this portion of your statement. Were you saying the article was silly for questioning whether it is protected or that it's just a silly conversation in general?

His statement was absolutely protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment just doesn't protect you from a private company firing you.

And I'll offer an unsolicited lukewarm take on the subject: most people who draw major negative national attention to their employer (even if it is blown out of proportion or incorrectly interpreted) are probably going to get fired.

[Walker]

After reading the memo, I can find nothing that was all that controversial. He makes an argument, and provides a great amount of reason evidence to back up his argument. Rather than refute with a counter argument, they just drop him. Pretty crappy deal but I suppose Google has that right. To suggest that disparities in outcomes aren't always due to racism, sexism, etc. is to commit career suicide nowadays. Especially in big corporations and academia, anywhere "feels" are given greater importance than truth.

[RoyalShock]

I'm not sure I understand this portion of your statement. Were you saying the article was silly for questioning whether it is protected or that it's just a silly conversation in general?

His statement was absolutely protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment just doesn't protect you from a private company firing you.

And I'll offer an unsolicited lukewarm take on the subject: most people who draw major negative national attention to their employer (even if it is blown out of proportion or incorrectly interpreted) are probably going to get fired.

I'm pointing out that the CNN tweet itself is insinuating the linked article is about whether his statement is protected speech, when it's clearly about whether he can be fired for it. It's either intellectual and/or journalistic laziness or blatant click-bait.

[jdshock]

I'm pointing out that the CNN tweet itself is insinuating the linked article is about whether his statement is protected speech, when it's clearly about whether he can be fired for it. It's either intellectual and/or journalistic laziness or blatant click-bait.

Gotcha. That makes sense. The number of times I hear people say things like this can't happen because of the First Amendment makes me think we could all use more articles clarifying that the First Amendment doesn't protect you from being fired, but I hear what you're saying.

[RoyalShock]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/07/542020041/google-grapples-with-fallout-after-employee-slams-diversity-efforts

Another software engineer who used to work for Google, Kelly Ellis, says some women who still work at the company stayed home Monday because the memo made them "uncomfortable going back to work."

Irony?

[wufan]

Gotcha. That makes sense. The number of times I hear people say things like this can't happen because of the First Amendment makes me think we could all use more articles clarifying that the First Amendment doesn't protect you from being fired, but I hear what you're saying.

This is correct. I made a false statement earlier that it would be freedom of speech vs protection from it. That is not the case here.

[wufan]

I disagree that there are biological differences that make an aggregate of women worse coders than an aggregate of men. Historically, men scored higher on IQ tests than women. Then we started allowing women to go to school, and now there's functionally no difference between women IQs and men IQs: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/201207/men-women-and-iq-setting-the-record-straight

So instead of just saying "yeah, maybe there are biases in society" or even saying "maybe there are biases in the way we socialize women" people are still trying to point out these biological differences. But the same line of argument has been disproven historically.

The premise was not that biological traits make women bad coders. The premise was that biological traits, as an aggregate, make females less likely to choose coding than males, and that rather than forcing women to choose against an aggregate predisposition, that women and men should be judged individually based on merit. Second, the author suggested a few things that are more likely to lead to women choosing coding as a profession. If he stated that women were not as good at coding, please point that out.

[wufan]

As a coder, I also disagree with his premise. He says that women have more interest in people and men in things, which I think is just a systemic result of how we've conditioned boys and girls to have those interests. Also I think many women don't stay in STEM fields because of how they are treated by male peers. Having been in the classes, many men are either predatory or condescending towards women in STEM classes. They aren't treated as equals, and I can definitely see how that would get old and then bail out.

While being in the profession may lead you to some conclusions about the state of the occupation, it does not qualify you to determine biological predispositions, as an aggregate. Evolutionary psychology very clearly, and without controversy demonstrates that babies, less than six months old, have a neurological response to different things across the sexes. As an aggregate, baby boys respond to things and baby girls respond to people. This is also true of baby chimpanzees, and all other ape/monkey species.

Additionally, personality traits are different, as an aggregate, across adult men and women. These differences correlate to the biological predispositions as infants. I think before we say that it is societal, that we must consider these items either as truth, with an explanation, or that we must dispel them entirely. If you can link these items, I would appreciate it.

[wufan]

I disagree that there are biological differences that make an aggregate of women worse coders than an aggregate of men. Historically, men scored higher on IQ tests than women. Then we started allowing women to go to school, and now there's functionally no difference between women IQs and men IQs: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/201207/men-women-and-iq-setting-the-record-straight

So instead of just saying "yeah, maybe there are biases in society" or even saying "maybe there are biases in the way we socialize women" people are still trying to point out these biological differences. But the same line of argument has been disproven historically.

Follow up question...if there are no differences between men and women, then why is diversity valued? Won't they all have the same opinions as men?

[wufan]

10 minute video does a pretty good job with the logical fallacy of gender inequality at google. https://youtu.be/YgeCpK9pdzo

[jdshock]

10 minute video does a pretty good job with the logical fallacy of gender inequality at google. https://youtu.be/YgeCpK9pdzo

These kinds of videos drive me crazy because they're this "gotcha" style argument that really only persuades people who are already in his side.

1. The diversity committee almost certainly doesn't make every hiring decision for Google. Google could have discriminatory hiring practices coming from certain managers and the diversity committee would be put in place to combat that.
2. It just totally ignores that it could be that fewer women choose tech because of sexist reasons. Maybe we're socializing young girls improperly. Maybe women see tech as a sexist industry and don't choose to go that route. In order to combat those things, a company could choose to hire a disproportionate amount of women (i.e., 80% of coders are men and google hires 30% women coders).
3. It's not even a proper "gotcha." Like, yeah, maybe Google loses its lawsuit and is found to discriminate against women but as a liberal I still support a company embracing more diversity efforts. There's not some innate contradiction here.