GOOGL - Google

[John Hjorth]

"Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber"

 

This has gone viral. The presumptuous Mr. Damore lost his job at Google for doing this piece and spreading it internally, after which it leaked. Ouch. - Dent in Google's reputation?

 

Attached.

 

Edit:

 

Here is Mr. Damore's Twitter account. I don't consider my self mean, but this is hilarous."Fired4Truth". I need that T-shirt!

Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf

[clutch]

Yes, that was a pathetic response from Google to fire him. Although, this echo chamber / political correctness is pretty much prevalent in most of the silicon valley companies it seems.

[RichardGibbons]

Seems like a bad way to run a creative business--making people afraid to have dissenting opinions.  I wonder if it they were firing him just to be PC, or if they were worried about legal risk if they did nothing (e.g. someone suing Google for discrimination, and the opposing lawyer being able to say "Google is sexist because this employee published a sexist memo and Google's management did nothing about it.")

[Jurgis]

I completely support Google for firing the sexist alt-right asshole. This was great decision to show people that such behavior won't be tolerated.

[johnny]

I am of the opinion that the response to the memo was a bit hysterical and witch-hunty. He probably didn't "deserve" to be fired, but it makes perfect sense for Google to fire him.

 

All of these companies have a serious lurking political/regulatory problem in the gender/race area, and it's the correct strategy right now for each firm to try to keep its head down while putting enough resources into "good-faith" diversity efforts to hopefully forestall getting demolished by the Kamala Harris Department Of Justice in 2021.

 

So, even if all of those diversity efforts are ineffective (the before/after diversity numbers don't inspire confidence), it's still a real pain for the company for something like this to get out and agitate precisely the employees that will end up opting-in to the class the DOJ sues on behalf of.

 

Sometimes you have to throw the virgin in the volcano, not because she deserves death, but because the Volcano Gods require tribute.

[clutch]

I completely support Google for firing the sexist alt-right asshole. This was great decision to show people that such behavior won't be tolerated.

 

Just curious, on what basis do you label him as "sexist" and "alt-right"?

 

If you care about the other perspective, watch this Norwegian documentary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70

[rb]

Yea I read the dude's manifesto. So did my mom. She thought it was appalling and ridiculous. She's an engineer and has a long career in software development. My dad, also an engineer, did not read thing. However he when he head us talking about it he was able to guess most of the points the dude made. When we asked him how he knew that he said "Well, if I wanted to be a pig and try to justify it that's what I would say".

 

Now here's the thing about free speech: It's constitutionally protected from the GOVERNMENT. Basically you can say most of what goes through your head and the government can't shut you up or punish you for it. The constitution does not extend protections from private people and enterprises. Basically if you're being a dick the government can't do anything about it but people and businesses are also free to ignore, shun, and ostracize you. Some people have a problem understanding that.

 

In this case Google really didn't have a choice. I haven't seen Google's Code of Conduct but he almost surely broke it. He'd be outside any Code of Conduct I've ever seen. On top if this, keeping him around would amount would amount to a hostile work environment. Hello Lawsuits! Before going solo I worked for a couple of big banks and if he pulled this crap they would have fired his ass too. And a lot faster then Google did - that manifesto wouldn't have had any time to leak.

[RichardGibbons]

The problem with this situation is that I believe there's a lot of value in understanding how reality works, and making decisions based on that understanding of reality.  For instance, even if I'm really thirsty, I will generally not drink bleach, because science says that drinking highly basic substances can burn or kill me.

 

I think there's value in science spending time understanding the differences between the genders, and modifying behaviors based on those findings--not to restrict people based on those discoveries, but rather improve accessibility, opportunities, and happiness based on those discoveries.

 

Thus, eliminating someone's livelihood because they wrote something politically incorrect is quite a bad thing.  It's discouraging people from trying to understand how the world works, sending the message that if you violate these PC rules by daring to use the scientific method in certain areas, you will be persecuted.

 

What's more, I'm not sure why anyone on the right should have any reason to trust the scientific arguments about global warming from those on the left if the left immediately attacks scientific examination when it comes to gender simply because a) it makes us uncomfortable, or b) the results might not fit with a political agenda.  Heck, if you want to discard gender-based science for political reasons, then who's to say that Trump's wrong in cutting environmental science and science funding in general for political reasons.)

 

That said, I suspect Google was within their rights to fire the guy, and it was probably a sound business decision.  The message it's sending makes me sad for science though.

[Jurgis]

What the guy wrote was not science. It was sexist manifesto with some pretense of trying to sound like science. I am sorry Richard if you don't see the difference and that he managed to fool you with his guarding phrases and "sciency" sounding pieces. You want him to be treated like a legit scientist raising scientific questions and proposing scientific studies to address them. He is not. He might try masquerading as one, but he's just pushing his sexist worldview.

 

I'm not going to go through his puke point by point - there are a lot of other people who did this in way better way than I could do.

Edit: Nice writeup by Economist: https://www.economist.com/news/21726276-last-week-paper-said-alphabets-boss-should-write-detailed-ringing-rebuttal

 

I completely agree with rb.

I also completely agree with this guy: https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788

[Gregmal]

The manifesto itself was probably a boneheaded move. Yes everyone is entitled to their opinions and we are protected by free speech. Unfortunately, when you work for someone else and rely on them for a paycheck, it's probably not a wise idea to do something that rubs them the wrong way or makes them look bad. The story here again, is the media and its horrendous slanting and publicity it gives to certain issues that fit the liberal agenda. I mean look at the uproar over "Trump didnt single out white extremist groups". Which is funny, because CNN, HuffPost, Vox, etc never once had any issues with Obama's refusal to call out Islamic extremism. Now some dude is being railed for not only having the curiosity on a certain subject to write about it, but now has likely had his career threatened because of the "alt right" branding being done in mainstream media. Rather amusing it all is.

[rkbabang]

The thing about the left, whether it comes to economics or this gender nonsense is that they confuse what they want to be true (i.e. there is absolutely no discernible difference between cisgendered men and women in any way) with what is true (i.e. there are many differences between men and women as dangerous as that is to say).  The absolute physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral equality between men and women is like a religious tenet which can not be challenged.  I know a cis-woman who is 6'2" and a cis-man who is 4'5" so anybody who says that women are shorter than men is obviously an anti-woman sexist pig.  Don't you try to confuse me with your white male culture racist sexist homophobic bell curves.

 

[RichardGibbons]

What the guy wrote was not science. It was sexist manifesto with some pretense of trying to sound like science. I am sorry Richard if you don't see the difference and that he managed to fool you with his guarding phrases and "sciency" sounding pieces. You want him to be treated like a legit scientist raising scientific questions and proposing scientific studies to address them. He is not. He might try masquerading as one, but he's just pushing his sexist worldview.

 

I don't think he's a scientist--for instance, he isn't actually proposing doing any research.  However, I think he's citing scientific studies that I suspect are true and not funded by a red-pill club.  I don't feel like spending the time to verify for sure that the studies are true, Certainly this person thinks they're true.  It bothers me greatly that it isn't obvious that something this basic and core to the human experience doesn't have wide-known and generally accepted science behind it like, say, the case for global warming.

 

That said, the way I read his essay, he is proposing that Google examines the topic of diversity, think about what it means by diversity, and re-examine its own biases.  It's certainly sexist, but that's inherent in any discussion that distinguishes between males and females (e.g. Google "cultivating" diversity in the context of Danielle's reply to this missive is certainly Google implementing sexist policies, even if they are sensible.)

 

So to me, maybe he is an alt-righter, maybe he is biased against women.  I suspect if you put him and me in the same room to discuss how the world should deal with gender differences, we'd fight like honey badgers. :) But the core of his argument is "the aggregate populations of men and women are different.  We should try to understand these differences through science and try to figure out good ways to be open to all populations and a diversity of ideas."  To me, this is a reasonable argument.

 

That said, the thing that bothers me isn't that he specifically got smacked down.  But rather it's that there's a brilliant 15-year-old somewhere who was going to study gender differences, and figure out a way to both minimize gender biases and rearrange society to increase productivity by 5% and happiness by 4%.  Now, because Damore has very publically been fired for suggesting that we should examine gender differences, that 15-year-old has now decided it's not worth it, and will start a hedge fund instead.

[rukawa]

I don't think he's a scientist--for instance, he isn't actually proposing doing any research.  However, I think he's citing scientific studies that I suspect are true and not funded by a red-pill club.  I don't feel like spending the time to verify for sure that the studies are true

 

I think the studies he cites are horrendous and that is without even reading them :). But then I generally think most studies on psychology are really really awful.

 

What the guy wrote was not science. It was sexist manifesto with some pretense of trying to sound like science. I am sorry Richard if you don't see the difference and that he managed to fool you with his guarding phrases and "sciency" sounding pieces. You want him to be treated like a legit scientist raising scientific questions and proposing scientific studies to address them. He is not. He might try masquerading as one, but he's just pushing his sexist worldview.

 

I think what he cited was totally mainstream science and when scientists were asked they basically totally supported him:

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

 

That said I think most of this science is pure stinking garbage. Richard though is at least consistent in his support for mainstream science. You aren't!! We have argued before about Global warming. And consistently you have said that we should just trust experts. It should have read: we should just trust experts when they support my liberal ideology. The so-called experts hear are very very clear and you are very much on the wrong side of them.

 

I also find it interesting that liberals in this situation have started to confront the fact that science may not always be of high quality and can be biased. It just took someone questioning their cherished beliefs for that to happen:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/08/evolutionary_psychology_is_the_most_obvious_example_of_how_science_is_flawed.html

[Jurgis]

I'm gonna stop answering CoBF sexist clowns soon.

Just FYI picking 4 scientists who came out in support of Damore's manifesto does not mean that the manifesto is scientifically sound. Perhaps you should leave it to experts or at least also look at studies that do not support his claims: https://www.sciencealert.com/a-google-employee-was-fired-after-blaming-biology-for-tech-s-gender-gap-but-the-science-shows-he-s-wrong?perpetual=yes&limitstart=1

[rkbabang]

Why are male Kindergarten teachers almost as non-existing as female auto mechanics?

https://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/most_common_occupations_for_women.htm

 

Men and women have different likes, dislikes, and needs (On average. My auto mechanic happens to be a women which is why I used that as an example and not truck drivers or carpenters).  They are not the same.  I'm sure if anything there is probably reverse sexism at Google (not that there is anything wrong with that).  If a man and a woman applicant are equally qualified Google would most likely hire the woman.  Yet they still have a hard time finding women engineers.  I work in a building with a little over 100 electrical engineers and there are 3 women engineers here.  I know we'd love to hire more women, so it definitely isn't sexism in our hiring practices.  The guy mentioned in his original memo that maybe offering part time or mothers hours positions would encourage more women to enter the field.  I actually think that is a great idea.  Instead of pretending men and women are exactly the same, need/want exactly the same things, and blaming sexism for any disparity in numbers, why not try to offer work that more women would be attracted to?

 

[Gregmal]

I'm gonna stop answering CoBF sexist clowns soon.

Just FYI picking 4 scientists who came out in support of Damore's manifesto does not mean that the manifesto is scientifically sound. Perhaps you should leave it to experts or at least also look at studies that do not support his claims: https://www.sciencealert.com/a-google-employee-was-fired-after-blaming-biology-for-tech-s-gender-gap-but-the-science-shows-he-s-wrong?perpetual=yes&limitstart=1

 

See this is the entire hypocritical problem. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. The big social movement is about acceptance and allowing everyone to be themselves. Yet when  one has an opinion or belief that isn't supported by mainstream liberal media, they are ostracized and villainized for it. They are labelled racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. An exercise that is naturally exclusive and goes against everything these people supposedly stand for on an ideological basis. It's a one way street.

[rkbabang]

I'm gonna stop answering CoBF sexist clowns soon.

 

I love how left wingers can apply one of their favorite labels to you then go away thinking they've made some sort of argument and there is no longer a need to think any further about the subject.  A nuanced view is impossible.  Call me Hitler next time it is quite effective because then you get to punch me in the face.

 

[rb]

I'm gonna stop answering CoBF sexist clowns soon.

Just FYI picking 4 scientists who came out in support of Damore's manifesto does not mean that the manifesto is scientifically sound. Perhaps you should leave it to experts or at least also look at studies that do not support his claims: https://www.sciencealert.com/a-google-employee-was-fired-after-blaming-biology-for-tech-s-gender-gap-but-the-science-shows-he-s-wrong?perpetual=yes&limitstart=1

 

See this is the entire hypocritical problem. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. The big social movement is about acceptance and allowing everyone to be themselves. Yet when  one has an opinion or belief that isn't supported by mainstream liberal media, they are ostracized and villainized for it. They are labelled racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. An exercise that is naturally exclusive and goes against everything these people supposedly stand for on an ideological basis. It's a one way street.

As I've said in my previous post. Free speech ensures that the government cannot stop you from expressing your opinions. It does not ensure that people who are offended by your opinions or know better don't ostracize you. This doesn't have anything to do with the media.

 

When you write a memo in which you declare that men are likely to be better coders because they have a pair of balls you shouldn't be surprised when no women want to work with you anymore. That's not the media's fault either. Just your own.

[rkbabang]

When you write a memo in which you declare that men are likely to be better coders because they have a pair of balls

 

Who said that?

 

 

[rb]

When you write a memo in which you declare that men are likely to be better coders because they have a pair of balls

 

Who said that?

I'm paraphrasing parts of the memo.

[rkbabang]

When you write a memo in which you declare that men are likely to be better coders because they have a pair of balls

 

Who said that?

I'm paraphrasing parts of the memo.

 

I've got to go back and re-read it, because that isn't what I got from it when I read it a few days ago.

 

[rb]

Ok, when I wrote my post yesterday I wanted to just stick to the dude's firing and free speech because I didn't want to cause devolution into the whole male/female thing. But since we're there now let me add a little bit more.

 

I've mentioned that my mom works as an engineer for a software company. Most of the engineers for said company are women. Most of the women are from Eastern Europe. The owner of the company is a Chinese dude who's neither a feminist or liberal or anything like that. The only thing he cares about is performance. So I thought that was odd and I thought about it a bit and it makes sense.

 

Disclaimer: What I describe here refers mainly to how things worked in Romania but most EE countries were fairly similar.

 

When you went to school (pre un) there were no elective streams. You couldn't skip math after grade 10 because you're artsy. Everyone took the same courses. You don't like it? Tough! The curriculum was also had a lot of STEM subjects. So you had a healthy serving of math, physics, chemistry, and biology and if you knew what was good for you, you paid attention and learned. There was absolutely no talk in school of women or men jobs. When you were done high school you could go to any university you wanted.

 

Here's how university admission worked. Each university a number of spots of how many students it would take in. To get in you only had to have graduated high school and pass an entrance exam. That's it. When you write the exam the names are sealed until the exam is graded by two parties. Then admittance is awarded based on the exam grade in descending order until the spots were filled. When all was done, lo and behold there was no shortage of women in STEM programs. It was about evenly split between men and women. University graduation was also pretty evenly split.

 

It's amazing what happens when you do the most you can to pull bias from the system. Fast forward a bunch of years and a lot of immigration and we wonder why there are so many female engineers from Eastern Europe.

[Gregmal]

Ok, when I wrote my post yesterday I wanted to just stick to the dude's firing and free speech because I didn't want to cause devolution into the whole male/female thing. But since we're there now let me add a little bit more.

 

I've mentioned that my mom works as an engineer for a software company. Most of the engineers for said company are women. Most of the women are from Eastern Europe. The owner of the company is a Chinese dude who's neither a feminist or liberal or anything like that. The only thing he cares about is performance. So I thought that was odd and I thought about it a bit and it makes sense.

 

Disclaimer: What I describe here refers mainly to how things worked in Romania but most EE countries were fairly similar.

 

When you went to school (pre un) there were no elective streams. You couldn't skip math after grade 10 because you're artsy. Everyone took the same courses. You don't like it? Tough! The curriculum was also had a lot of STEM subjects. So you had a healthy serving of math, physics, chemistry, and biology and if you knew what was good for you, you paid attention and learned. There was absolutely no talk in school of women or men jobs. When you were done high school you could go to any university you wanted.

 

Here's how university admission worked. Each university a number of spots of how many students it would take in. To get in you only had to have graduated high school and pass an entrance exam. That's it. When you write the exam the names are sealed until the exam is graded by two parties. Then admittance is awarded based on the exam grade in descending order until the spots were filled. When all was done, lo and behold there was no shortage of women in STEM programs. It was about evenly split between men and women. University graduation was also pretty evenly split.

 

It's amazing what happens when you do the most you can to pull bias from the system. Fast forward a bunch of years and a lot of immigration and we wonder why there are so many female engineers from Eastern Europe.

 

Not for nothing, but all this tells me is that the bigger issue is cultural and as I've long thought, the American system is second rate and sets people up to fail. Requiring everyone to be educated is the biggest thing we can do, and yet, it's not done. Everyone should be taking STEM classes their entire way through school. Asian and Eastern European countries get this. If you have a certain knowledge base, which is immensely facilitated by knowing STEM subjects, you can be useful pretty much anywhere. If you can draw or sing, or write, well your options are fairly limited, in some places you are useless, and generally speaking, you dont have the same odds of prospering as others. So you are right in that it isnt necessarily a male/female thing. Maybe in certain areas those things come into play, but by and large its a societal issue that derives from living in this alternative American universe where everyone can be whoever/whatever they want to be. Thats just not how life works.

[ScottHall]

Ok, when I wrote my post yesterday I wanted to just stick to the dude's firing and free speech because I didn't want to cause devolution into the whole male/female thing. But since we're there now let me add a little bit more.

 

I've mentioned that my mom works as an engineer for a software company. Most of the engineers for said company are women. Most of the women are from Eastern Europe. The owner of the company is a Chinese dude who's neither a feminist or liberal or anything like that. The only thing he cares about is performance. So I thought that was odd and I thought about it a bit and it makes sense.

 

Disclaimer: What I describe here refers mainly to how things worked in Romania but most EE countries were fairly similar.

 

When you went to school (pre un) there were no elective streams. You couldn't skip math after grade 10 because you're artsy. Everyone took the same courses. You don't like it? Tough! The curriculum was also had a lot of STEM subjects. So you had a healthy serving of math, physics, chemistry, and biology and if you knew what was good for you, you paid attention and learned. There was absolutely no talk in school of women or men jobs. When you were done high school you could go to any university you wanted.

 

Here's how university admission worked. Each university a number of spots of how many students it would take in. To get in you only had to have graduated high school and pass an entrance exam. That's it. When you write the exam the names are sealed until the exam is graded by two parties. Then admittance is awarded based on the exam grade in descending order until the spots were filled. When all was done, lo and behold there was no shortage of women in STEM programs. It was about evenly split between men and women. University graduation was also pretty evenly split.

 

It's amazing what happens when you do the most you can to pull bias from the system. Fast forward a bunch of years and a lot of immigration and we wonder why there are so many female engineers from Eastern Europe.

 

Not for nothing, but all this tells me is that the bigger issue is cultural and as I've long thought, the American system is second rate and sets people up to fail. Requiring everyone to be educated is the biggest thing we can do, and yet, it's not done. Everyone should be taking STEM classes their entire way through school. Asian and Eastern European countries get this. If you have a certain knowledge base, which is immensely facilitated by knowing STEM subjects, you can be useful pretty much anywhere. If you can draw or sing, or write, well your options are fairly limited, in some places you are useless, and generally speaking, you dont have the same odds of prospering as others. So you are right in that it isnt necessarily a male/female thing. Maybe in certain areas those things come into play, but by and large its a societal issue that derives from living in this alternative American universe where everyone can be whoever/whatever they want to be. Thats just not how life works.

 

"That's just not how life works..."

 

I'm an almost entirely uneducated writer (dropped out of 4th grade) who is capable of writing a 10k word advertisement that generates millions of dollars of sales for clients, in approximately 20 days worth of time. I can write one ad a year and replace my salary from when I worked full time. If I write two I'm rolling in it.

 

When you say things like that, to me it shows a lack of creativity about what is possible in the world. In a society dominated by institutions, heuristics are key. But heuristics are heuristics, and have blind spots. If you exploit those blind spots, much more becomes possible than many realize.

 

I have never found formal education terribly useful, most of what is imparted is known knowledge. The most useful kind of knowledge is the type you synthesize yourself from unique life experiences. That is the sort of knowledge that can be uncharted... and sometimes, very valuable.

[rb]

I have never found formal education terribly useful, most of what is imparted is known knowledge. The most useful kind of knowledge is the type you synthesize yourself from unique life experiences. That is the sort of knowledge that can be uncharted... and sometimes, very valuable.

Yea, nobody's gonna pay you to synthesize a bridge from your unique life experiences.