221–230 of 1001 posts
https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-man...
It makes the clear case that this employee went beyond opinion and created a harmful situation for himself and his colleagues.
I haven't read the memo but I have read some summaries of it. Even before the memo was released I had a negative opinion of it. Not because someone spoke out their mind but because someone decided to just go and shout out their obviously controversial beliefs to the world expecting for his ideas to be taken seriously and for there to be no negative consequences. If you want people to care about what you think and hav…
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...
I do encourage people to read it and make their own opinion, there are so many other opinions on this now, the only way to get back to reality is to read it for yourself.
the author of the memo is completely correct and, as others have said, his memo is drastically misrepresented in the coverage it has received. he simply points out that women could have less desire to go into fields such as cs because of their biological makeup. he never says that women should leave google -- he only says that trying to reach a perfectly equal distribution is misguided. perhaps those who are red in t…
Try replacing "men and women" with "different skin color" and see if the idea that different groups could have different innate desires still makes sense.
it is important that we all broach the ugly subject of racial genetics with rational and compassionate minds. firing or punishing (socially and otherwise) people who try to discuss things such as this will lead to much worse outcomes in my opinion.
The author's arguments have been completely misrepresented. He pointed out widely-believed and sometimes scientifically-established differences in the DISTRIBUTION OF traits in men and women. He said that those differences make attempts to achieve numerical parity misguided, discriminatory, and harmful. What is his conclusion about how we should behave? "Treat people as individuals, not as just another member of thei…
Given that the document has (rightfully) alienated women inside and outside his organization, it becomes impossible for this person to be an effective member of the team:
- The next time a woman interviews for his team, and he votes against hiring, how does the hiring committee interpret that vote?
- The next time he's peer reviewed by a woman, how does that review get interpreted?
- The next time he peer reviews a woman, how does that review get interpreted?
- The next time a female candidate interviews with the author and is denied, how likely is it that the candidate will believe they had a fair interview, or is the organization perpetually exposed to increased legal risk forever?
Such a manifesto is not just fundamentally wrong, it's toxic and shows a profound lack of awareness for any professional.
I feel like most "rebuttal's" are like listening to Donald Trump. "He's wrong and we're right. We're definitely right.".
If you do have a link, please share!
I read the memo and didn't find it particularly persuasive; but this dismissal does further its core point. It's a bit tone deaf of Google to fire an employee concerned about groupthink.
You can't express vast generalizations that are stereotypes and expect the rest of us to feel comfortable working with you.
> Stereotype accuracy is one of the largest and most replicable effects in all of social psychology. Richard et al (2003) found that fewer than 5% of all effects in social psychology exceeded r’s of .50. In contrast, nearly all consensual stereotype accuracy correlations and about half of all personal stereotype accuracy correlations exceed .50.
From the code of conduct of google [1]: > Equal Opportunity Employment > Employment here is based solely upon individual merit and qualifications directly related to professional competence. How are you going to achieve 50/50 diversity in the company if the pool of candidates is far from that distribution? (unless you go and don't hire the best ones to balance the distribution) [1] https://abc.xyz/investor/other/goog…
Even if their hiring pool of candidates didn't have a fully diverse distribution, that doesn't automatically make it okay to have a company that ranks poorly on diversity. It suggests that you should examine how your pool is filled with candidates and whether you're committing serious errors that cause you to miss out on top-class talent - like only recruiting from ivy league schools, or excluding people without 4-year degrees. Both of those things could unfairly exclude people of all races and genders and it would further reduce the diversity of your candidate pool.
the author of the memo is completely correct and, as others have said, his memo is drastically misrepresented in the coverage it has received. he simply points out that women could have less desire to go into fields such as cs because of their biological makeup. he never says that women should leave google -- he only says that trying to reach a perfectly equal distribution is misguided. perhaps those who are red in t…
Try replacing "men and women" with "different skin color" and see if the idea that different groups could have different innate desires still makes sense.