261–270 of 507 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He didn't circulate one. He sent it to a mailing list which purported to be a safe place for open, honest sharing of opinions regarding diversity and hiring.
There are no safe spaces in the real world
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Objectively these careers are less well paid. We all have our opinions, but money is society’s way of prioritizing activities. And these jobs as essential as they should be, also get shittier shittier in average , as time goes on, which doesn’t help.
The median income for a pediatrician is ~170k vs the median income of software engineer at ~80k, but 75% of pediatricians are women. So no, it's not only the "less well-paid" jobs. And even if it were, a lot of the lowest paid jobs are almost entirely men, like garbage collectors and construction workers.
https://wire.ama-assn.org/education/how-medical-specialties-...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2012/07/20/the-b...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The firing has been a PR disaster, and amplified and exaggerated the effect of this issue (not to mention that it drew attention to other factors, like Google's institutional ageism). And while I don't want to diagnose over the internet, it seems like it's attacking someone on the spectrum for traits of being on the spectrum. By firing him they made him a hero to enormous groups, and doubled down on this discussion.…
Even 'punitive actions' would have been wrong as their is no punishable offence. Google supposedly wants to have an open culture so they should just have accepted the 'manifesto' as part of this open culture, something to use in discussions on the subject matter. Any other reaction - and certainly the current reaction - only goes to show the truth of the accusations about Google not having an open culture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure what you are arguing, can you be more explicit? You're saying that you agree with the fundamental point of the memo?
I'm saying that the scientific research agrees with the point of the memo. Whether or not I agree is irrelevant to the facts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand that statement.. or why you would agree with it. The auther of the memo was attempting to present facts. Why wouldn't I completely agree with facts that are true? Especially in this case, when most cognitive scientists seem to agree upon the facts as presented? [1] It really doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with facts... they are still reality, regardless. And I see very, very few people arg…
First, you have to accept that the debate isn't about all about scientific facts; it's about their implication in workplace policies. Reducing workplace interaction to science is a fallacy. When deciding how to act in the world, you have to use your judgement. When planning your diet, do you read a bunch of nutrition papers and decide what to eat 100% on what they say, or did you apply some cultural knowledge? Second…
"Everyone is equal" is absurd, fantastical thinking. A criminal serial killer with a 70 IQ is not equal to Einstein by any metric. Whereas, the precept of, "Everyone should be given equal opportunity under the ruleset," is a noble ideal worth pursuing at nearly any level of policy.
When I read Damore's memo, I was nodding, not because I was being uncritical, but because he's right, as far as I can tell.
He's saying Google is chasing a fantasy of equal outcomes, rather than providing equal opportunities. That's correct, they are. His suggestions were to treat people more as individuals, rather than ham-fisting treatment based on perceived group identity. I think that's very obviously a better approach.
And like most responses to his memo, you can't say (or haven't said) a single thing you think he is wrong about. You can't, or won't, dispute a single line he said.
Just because you come from a good family, and believe that centrism is always the way to go, doesn't mean you're automatically right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>No. His firing confirmed part of Demore's thesis; that Google has monoculture issues and sits in some sort of bubble. We're missing a large component of the discussion when we pretend that the content of the letter is the principal issue here. The thing the C-levels are thinking about is liability, because that represents the most direct threat to the company. Allowing Damore to remain on payroll could be interprete…
So... you don't like equal protection laws? I'm like really struggling to figure out the alternative interpretation here.
It's weird that Brooks paints the memo as largely factually correct, but clearly doesn't believe what is the main thrust of the memo.
The problem with the memo is not with any claims that are stated as fact, the problem is the FUD he's spreading by suggesting that the small and likely irrelevant biological differences we do know about might be responsible for the large differences in today's gender distribution in tech.
There is plenty of evidence that there are much, much larger factors in the distribution discrepancy today than any possible difference of ability, but Damore is casting doubt on that and suggesting that the current distribution might be the natural fixed point, that it could be at steady state already due to the biological differences.
Okay sure, he doesn't propose that as fact, he uses weasel words and doubt-casting to say it might be true, and that's the most damaging part. Getting people to believe it's possible is worse than any easily provable lie.
People like Brooks defending the memo's factual accuracy are hiding behind this idea that only things claimed as fact might be damaging. Not true, the things claimed as possibility are more damaging.
The obvious problem with suggesting that the current distribution might have settled to it's natural steady state is that it encourages turning a blind eye to the cultural sexism that we already know exists. It perpetuates sexism if we don't fix it first.
Honestly, I think he made the right move just from a PR perspective. His firing makes sense: the CEO and HR are both acting to protect the company. The author of the manifesto caused Google a PR disaster and created a huge state of internal conflict, valid or not. The shareholders are probably really happy that their CEO removed a person who managed to get Google so much bad press in so little time. This is the reali…
> Honestly, I think he made the right move just from a PR perspective The person who posted their thoughts did so in a _closed_ mailing list that was intentionally setup to discuss all this. The document was leaked. At best, he deserved a reprimand. Firing him makes it clear that there is no room for alternate thoughts in Google other than the ultra-progressive view point.
Whether you think it should have been controversial doesn't change what you do when something goes viral; the first thing is to stop the damage.
But since then, there's some evidence that he wanted the controversy - look where he's giving interviews now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He didn't circulate one. He sent it to a mailing list which purported to be a safe place for open, honest sharing of opinions regarding diversity and hiring.
Anyone who is willing to bet their job on a controversial posting about company policy to a broad company mailing list staying internal either doesn't mind being fired or is an idiot.
I am minded to agree. And that's a shame, because Pichai has done good things for Chrome and Android when he was leading those. The article doesn't really touch on Pichai's biggest mistakes here. Mistake one: Damore's memo alleged discrimination, both against men and conservatives. Gender and political affiliation are both protected classes in California and they just fired him for whistleblowing. He has now filed a…