Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

James Damore has filed a class action lawsuit against Google

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

931–940 of 1001 posts

Re: James Damore has filed a class action lawsuit against Google

#931

Post by wpietri »

Goladus wrote: post #828
wpietri wrote: post #649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I'd add that there's evidence (and plenty of anecdote) that the men who most object to diversity are not so good at what they do. Which makes sense; they are the ones who have the most to lose from an increased talent pool. [1] Personally, I'd be very interested to see Damore's code. We already know that he lied about both a PhD and being a chess master. [2] I would not be shocked at all to find out that he's not…

> We already know that he lied about a PhD No, he did not lie about this. You are lying about it. His linkedin listed him as having been part of a PhD program and people took it to mean he had a PhD. There is absolutely no evidence he ever intended to mislead anyone about this. So, please stop spreading lies. ==== PS I know because I actually saw the linkedin profile before he edited it. It did not say he had a PhD.…

I saw the LinkedIn profile too; I looked him up when the story first broke. I saw it and said, "Damn, a PhD in systems biology, he should know better than this." People who don't finish their PhDs either a) don't list the PhD, just leaving it as a Master's, or b) are explicit that they don't have the PhD. (E.g., "ABD in Systems Biology.)

So at the very best, his resume was misleading because he was incompetent at putting together a resume. That doesn't jibe with the theory that he's so very brilliant. The fact that he quickly edited it when called out confirms even he saw it as misleading; that he didn't comment or apologize suggests it was not a simple mistake.

Ah, and now that I go look for images, it did not list him as being part of a PhD *program". it just said "PhD, Systems Biology" under education:

http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/598b0f3776084a30198...

I'm glad to hear you weren't misled by that thanks to your expertise, but there's no denying that is misleading to a general-audience reader.

Re: James Damore has filed a class action lawsuit against Google

#932

Post by weberc2 »

smrtinsert wrote: post #878
stcredzero wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read what he wrote. It was (mostly) ugly but contained a lot of truth. Many of the media interpretations of what James Damore wrote were very biased, and effectively amounted to hit pieces. His use of terms like "Trait Neuroticism" were direct uses of psychological terms which just sound bad as everyday English. Evolutionary Biology also tends to have a "dismal" feeling to it, like Economics can. One can't take fie…

Just because a media outlet might have been aggressively attacked his memo, doesn't mean his arguments are valid. He cherry picked various pieces and came to conclusions that weren't causal. At the end of the day, his perception of what is happening at Google is just that, perception. My guess is that he will be settled with to avoid the annoyance or simply destroyed in court.

> Just because a media outlet might have been aggressively attacked his memo, doesn't mean his arguments are valid.

Many media outlets aggressively attacked his memo, but the argument isn't "his arguments are validated because outlets attacked his memo"; it's that the response to his memo was malicious and slanderous, and this is wrong even if his arguments are bad. Bad arguments should be met with good arguments, not hate and slander.

Re: James Damore has filed a class action lawsuit against Google

#933

Post by flukus »

Idontknowmyuser wrote: post #877
flukus wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like he was pretty good, but I wonder about this part: > Damore received the highest possible rating twice, including in his most recent performance review, and consistently received high performance How are these ratings done, by the team/manager or externally? IME when it's done by the same team then reviews are more about politics than performance.

so let me get this staright: when Damore is being rated politics have an effect on ratings and promotions when Damore speaks out against politics affecting hiring and promotion, he is wrong I'm fascinated how one can reconcile both beliefs

Sorry that was terribly worded, I meant politics/political in the personal sense, who's friends with who, etc.

Re: James Damore has filed a class action lawsuit against Google

#934

Post by nailer »

lurr wrote: post #518
vowelless wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I mentioned, I don't disparage "right wing". I actually enjoy Joe Rogans podcast, and also Dave Rubin and Jordan Peterson. All three of them are solidly classical liberal, which is probably right of center today (individualism vs. collectivism, equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome, etc). But AFAIK, damore never came to the young Turks, Chapo trap house, which are leftist podcasts. I could be wrong.

> All three of them are solidly classical liberal, which is probably right of center today Classical liberal just seems like yet another rebranding by people who don't want to just call themselves conservatives. I've yet to hear a "classical liberal" who doesn't seem like yet another libertarian/conservative.

I've consistenly voted Labour / Labor for all my life, and my poliics haven't changed. I still believe in looking after the elderly, children and the ill, and negotation. I loved Milliband. But the left (at least Labour in the UK) has been siezed by a hard left group called Momentum, that supports far-left political violence, is often openly hostile to people based on skin color and gender. Classical liberals haven't changed, the far-left has just taken over left wing politics.

Re: James Damore has filed a class action lawsuit against Google

#935

Post by apmee »

stcredzero wrote: post #499
vowelless wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true. If the memo wasn't enough, him immediately going to right wing YouTubers like Stefan Molyneux, Jordan Peterson, Mike cernovich, Joe Rogan, Dave Rubin, Steven Crowder, etc. is suspicious. [1] Generally I wouldn't have minded if he went to right wing outlets, as long as he had also gone to left wing outlets. I was willing to listen to his reasoning. But it became clear after the memo came out that he didn…

If the memo wasn't enough I read the memo. If one is familiar with the research and evolutionary biology, there is nothing in there to react that strongly against, unless one takes a biased, insincere reading of what he actually wrote. him immediately going to right wing YouTubers like Those were the only people who would talk to him without trying to make it a hit piece, same as Bret Weinstein. Stefan Molyneux, Not…

> I have yet to see genuine criticism of [Jordan Peterson] which stands up to scrutiny.

I don't believe Peterson is alt-right, but I do think there's a fair case for dismissing him as a source for anything but his specific field of clinical psychology. His sudden rise to the position of "public intellectual” (on the back of his alarmist and widely disputed take on Bill C-16 [1]) is troubling when his unwavering single-minded crusade against what he considers a global cabal of “postmodern neo-Marxists” colours nearly every view he has [2][3].

Examples of this can be seen in his bold proclamations against feminists, Disney films, the concept of white privilege, but also in his occasional habit of linking to junk-science blogs to inform his position rather than peer-reviewed research (such as when he propagated the debunked[4] claim that contrary to what nearly every climatologist, atmospheric physicist, geologist, glaciologist and oceanographer has been telling us, Earth's climate sensitivity is actually trending towards zero [5]).

He’s also demonstrably not one to allow gaps in his knowledge to get in the way of proudly displaying his confirmation biases [6][7].

So as a trained clinical psychologist, I’m sure he knows what he’s talking about when he stays in his own lane, but for an academic and supposed advocate for scientific rigour he seems remarkably lax in applying the same care and scrutiny to his positions on social issues.

1. http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-crimi...

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marx...

3. https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/79568716336716185...

4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFDnxMp0Hw8

5. https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/92041514135884595...

6. https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/95073630669433651...

7. https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/95077370882567372...

Re: James Damore has filed a class action lawsuit against Google

#936

Post by gizmo686 »

4WIW wrote: post #897

Most of the discussion here focuses on The Famous Document which I think is missing the point. TFD could be totally right, or totally wrong but the lawsuit is about wrongful termination and discrimination and has only remote relevance to the document. Would be interesting to hear the opinion of the people with legal experience: what are the merits of the lawsuit? My personal unqualified opinion is that they will sett…

>Since white males are not protected class.

Yes they are. Or at least whites and males are a protected class (at the suit alledges discrimination against these classes independently, not just their intersection).

It is true that the intent of the anti discrimination laws was to protect non-whites and females, codifying that into law would be a clear violation of the equal protections clause and make any such law unconstitutional.

>My personal unqualified opinion is that they will settle out of court for wrongful termination.

The wrongful termination argument defiantly seems stronger here. However, it is worth keeping in mind that they have not settled yet. I assume Damore's laywers would have tried settling before even filing [0]. If Google wanted to settle they should have done it back than, before the PR hit of the suit being filed happened. Coming up is the PR hit of discovery, which is going to bring to light a lot of skeletons that Google would rather keep hidden. (Even if Google did nothing wrong with regards to this case; no organization the size of Google can go through discovery without something coming out)

[0] Assuming their actual goal is just money. They claim to be doing this to effect change. While their public statements on motivation are highly suspect, it is within the realm of reason that they are actually interested in this case for the political agenda, in which case they would want to take it to court.

Re: James Damore has filed a class action lawsuit against Google

#937

Post by smsm42 »

wpietri wrote: post #931
Goladus wrote: post #828

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We already know that he lied about a PhD No, he did not lie about this. You are lying about it. His linkedin listed him as having been part of a PhD program and people took it to mean he had a PhD. There is absolutely no evidence he ever intended to mislead anyone about this. So, please stop spreading lies. ==== PS I know because I actually saw the linkedin profile before he edited it. It did not say he had a PhD.…

I saw the LinkedIn profile too; I looked him up when the story first broke. I saw it and said, "Damn, a PhD in systems biology, he should know better than this." People who don't finish their PhDs either a) don't list the PhD, just leaving it as a Master's, or b) are explicit that they don't have the PhD. (E.g., "ABD in Systems Biology.) So at the very best, his resume was misleading because he was incompetent at put…

So your argument goes like this:

1. Damore truthfully specified he's a PhD student

2. You (I assume innocently) and others (some innocently, some maliciously) misconstrued this as a claim that he has a PhD degree

3. Despite Linkedin information being completely true and whole error being contained in your bad reading alone, you and others called Damore a liar.

4. Damore removed that true information to avoid further confusion

5. You construe it as a proof that Damore was a liar, since if he removed completely truthful information that some people misread and used it against him, he must have intended to mislead from the start, and that's why he specified his PhD student status exactly as it truly was.

6. This also proves Damore was incompetent, since he wrote his Linkedin page in a way that a hostile or inattentive reader was able to misunderstand his page where it suited his preexisting notions, which would never happen if Damore was any good at writing Linkedin pages, as it is known that well-written (or merely competently written) Linkedin page is impossible to misread or misinterpret, no matter how much you try.

7. This is further proven by the image, since Linkedin design and forms do not allow to distinguish incomplete PhD study in progress from a finished one and display merely a length of the study but not the completion status, clearly Damore intended to mislead by using the only options available in the Linkedin interface.

This sounds like extremely tortured logic aimed at arriving at predetermined conclusion that Damore is a bad person. Looks like you're continuing to mine for something that explains why Damore is a bad person (failing at the premise he's a bad programmer above), to avoid addressing what he said on merits - since if he's a bad person, he can't be right on merits, obviously, no bad person has ever said anything true.

Note, you don't have to address it if you don't want to, but if you do, personal attack is not the best way to go, even if a very common one.

Re: James Damore has filed a class action lawsuit against Google

#938

Post by chillacy »

manfredo wrote: post #868
chillacy wrote: post #739

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is Damore responsible for the failure of some of people in managing their own emotions? That line of stoic reasoning really justifies anything though. Like, my co-workers should manage their anxiety just because I like to work with a firearm strapped to my chest and 2 grenades on my desk.

Citing peer-reviewed research about gender differences is not even remotely equivalent to openly brandishing explosives in an office.

Yes, but both result in a failure to manage one's emotions. The implication I think you're making is that if others are insulting you, you should control your emotions, if others are physically threatening you, it's understandable if you fear for your life. But the biological reality is that both produce amygdala responses and strong emotions.

Also, calling it "citing peer-reviewed research" is sort of missing the point. How about "politely and scientifically insinuating that some of my co-workers wouldn't be working here if it weren't for social programs at the company" which can be taken for insult. The validity of the research is besides the point.

So no, Damore is not responsible for people not "managing their emotions", he's responsible for not forseeing that people would not "manage their emotions". As in, he should have known better than to insult people at work.

Going back to guns, some people like to make demonstrations where they open cary in a Starbucks. They mean no harm, they're within the bounds of the law... but they're either counting on people to freak out to create media commotion or they're obtuse.

Re: James Damore has filed a class action lawsuit against Google

#939

Post by thomasahle »

ironjunkie wrote: post #498
BinaryIdiot wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? He actually does say that... > 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. [...] > This is all part of a politically driven agenda that destroys everyone trying to question the unique, politically-correct acceptable way o…

No, he didn't say that. He speaks about the `distribution of preferences and abilities`. Going from a distribution to state that `women are worse then men at engineering` is a false narrative and COMPLETELY different. You probably didn't realize that because you already made your own politically-correct version of the truth on that subject, and refuse any discussion about those topics. For example, what he said doesn…

I think he is somewhat confused or insincere about the maths here.

Given this `distribution of preferences and abilities` he said that women on average were lower, but if you only hire people above a certain threshold, there is no difference in the people you hire. This is not true.

Unless the `distribution` is binary "has ability / does not have ability", the people coming from the "higher average" distribution will still on average have more ability. For example, say X~N(1,1) and Y~N(2,1) are normal-distributed with standard deviation 1 and mean 1 and 2 respectively, then E[X | X > 3] ≈ 3.37, while E[Y | Y > 3] ≈ 3.53.

I am pretty sure Damore doesn't think preference and ability are binary, so unless he's confused about his maths, he does say that women at Google on average have less preference/ability.

Re: James Damore has filed a class action lawsuit against Google

#940

Post by chillacy »

OCASM wrote: post #748
chillacy wrote: post #739

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is Damore responsible for the failure of some of people in managing their own emotions? That line of stoic reasoning really justifies anything though. Like, my co-workers should manage their anxiety just because I like to work with a firearm strapped to my chest and 2 grenades on my desk.

Anxiety over close proximity to explosives seems justified. Anxiety over somebody stating ideas you simply disagree with doesn't.

There are disagreeable ideas that nobody has anxiety over though, so it's not just that.

But I think you can see that too. If you assume his ideas are correct:

1. His letter becomes well received, my employer changes their hiring policies

2. The current gender ratio was propped by non-gender-neutral hiring practices, without them, that will change back in-line to the base rate

3. My job is in danger

Is anxiety over losing one's job justified?

Or, another line:

1. His letter is well received, but my employer doesn't change their hiring policies

2. My co-workers now think that I have my job not because I earned it but because of the non-gender-neutral hiring practices

3. My job is in danger

I can produce more, but at the end of the day they all threaten either status or jobs, so I don't fault why people would defend their interests with all their effort.

Post reply on HN