And Lo, There Came A Great Bunching Of The Panties
“Everyone is allowed to share their opinion. I just hope he gets fired for it.”
Regarding the ongoing ‘Google memo’ saga, I thought I’d lift the following from yesterday’s comments:
To recap. A Google software developer with a PhD in biology writes a polite, conciliatory and politically centrist memo suggesting that there’s a leftist groupthink problem in the company that inhibits open discussion; that men and women on average have differing preferences and abilities, albeit with a large overlap, and so “diversity” policies might benefit from bearing that in mind; and that perhaps people should be treated as individuals rather than as mascots of allegedly oppressed identity groups.
This is immediately met with ludicrous and wilful mischaracterisation by “social justice” Twitter and the ‘progressive’ media, including deliberately deleting the memo’s links to supporting data; a general refusal to engage honestly with the author’s points, or in many cases even to read them; baseless accusations of every ‘ism’ going; personal doxxing; boasts of blacklisting; and demands that the author of the memo be fired for his heresy and never employed again.
On grounds that his arguments are “violently offensive” and in need of being “silenced.” He is, you see, “committing violence” with his statistics. All of which rather proves the author’s point about leftist groupthink and its reliance on distortion, intimidation and outright hysteria.
The employee in question has of course now been fired. Readers who wish to be violently offended can read the memo here.
Update:
Jordan Peterson interviews James Damore, author of the supposedly scandalous and “fascist” memo. Skip forward to 5’10:
“The thing that was disturbing to me about watching the response to you is that, so far as I can tell, there isn’t anything that you said… that violates the scientific literature as it currently stands.”
Update 2, via the comments:
Within the field of neuroscience, sex differences between women and men — when it comes to brain structure and function and associated differences in personality and occupational preferences — are understood to be true, because the evidence for them (thousands of studies) is strong. This is not information that’s considered controversial.
Update 3:
Allum Bokhari interviews a (pseudonymous) Google employee:
Several managers have openly admitted to keeping blacklists of the employees in question, and preventing them from seeking work at other companies. There have been numerous cases in which social justice activists coordinated attempts to sabotage other employees’ performance reviews for expressing a different opinion. These have been raised to the Senior VP level, with no action taken whatsoever… For conservative employees, this is obviously demoralising, but it is also dangerous.
Update 4:
The Quillette website, which published some strong support of Mr Damore’s memo, is currently experiencing a DDoS attack. A coincidence, no doubt.
Update 5:
When Black Lives Matter hysteria hit its peak, sometime in 2015, it became taboo to criticise identity politics, and later on, it became very dangerous to criticise any member of a minority group at all (even if the criticism had nothing to do with their identity).
Allum Bokhari talks with more (pseudonymous) Google employees.
Update 6:
A compendium of gender research by Sean Stevens and Jonathan Haidt at Heterodox Academy:
Damore is correct that there are “population level differences in distributions” of traits that are likely to be relevant for understanding gender gaps at Google. Even if we set aside all questions about the origins of these differences, the fact remains that there are gender differences in a variety of traits, and especially in interest/enjoyment (rather than ability) in the adult population from which Google and all other tech firms recruit.… Damore was drawing attention to empirical findings that seem to have been previously unknown or ignored at Google.
Unknown or ignored. By our self-imagined betters.
Update 7:
And for those with a taste for irony, here’s video of a talk by Michael Gurian, titled Leadership and the Sexes, given at Google HQ nine years ago. Curiously, the topic of psychological and neurological gender differences was, not too long ago, deemed suitable for discussion by Google management and employees, and indeed advantageous. During the talk, none of the ladies present seem particularly outraged, or oppressed, or in need of a fainting couch.
Update 8:
A Primer On Statistics to Help Quell Your Outrage at the Google Memo.
Or is it 401?
No.
I stand corrected.
I think that was it, was it not? Can we go home now?
Or is it 401?
Like Christmas morning it is gov’nor, as the dawn of a brand new page…
“Leadership and the Sexes,” a talk by Michael Gurian, given at Google HQ nine years ago.
This is the thread that doesn’t end.
Yes, it goes on and on my friend.
Some people started commenting not knowing what it was,
And they’ll continue commenting forever just because
This is the thread that doesn’t end…
What? Just thought I’d inject a little… humour into the proceedings.
“Leadership and the Sexes,” a talk by Michael Gurian, given at Google HQ nine years ago.
Compare and contrast. 🙂
Compare and contrast. 🙂
I make no claims for the particulars of the talk, but it’s interesting that the topic of psychological and neurological gender differences was, not too long ago, deemed suitable for discussion by Google management and employees, and indeed advantageous. And during the talk, none of the ladies present seem particularly outraged, or oppressed, or in need of a fainting couch.
I make no claims for the particulars of the talk…
Start around here, it has sciencey stuff not unlike that which Damore said.
is it just me or does it seem that the war of words is turning in our hero’s favour?
No, it’s not just you. But it only seems that way. If you read the longer responses of our hero’s defenders, you will find some really big buts (h/t Pee Wee Herman). From what I can see, the bigger problem here isn’t about science or freedom of speech or any number of other things. It’s the egos of these people. They are “smart”. They have been told that they are “smart” since early childhood. Thus they have very little internal self-correcting mechanisms or doubts about what they know. Their entire personalities have been built on being right, or being perceived as right, often enough that when they are wrong they have been able to bully their way through whatever situation they were wrong about. While many of them have been derided as social nerds, they have sought protection in the group-think of whatever bubble world they can retreat to where they are very in tune socially with that bubble group. The trick is that they fool themselves into seeing their retreat as an advancement of science or a coalescing of knowledge groups. Thus when met with cognitive dissonance, not only are they completely uncomfortable with it because they just can’t admit that there are things that they don’t or can’t know, but they must rally around whatever group-think with which they most closely align in order to protect their fragile world of #Knowledge.
Not sure I stated that clearly enough, but gotta go do real world, meat space work and it will have to do…
I’m 412th, Ian!
I presume you’re pleased about that because 412 is, of course, the first letter of the Hebrew Bible.
Is this thread still a thing? WTF?
412 is, of course, the first letter of the Hebrew Bible
Four-twelve is also the code name for Captain James T. Kirk.
You just made that up, didn’t you?
You just made that up, didn’t you?
What’s a four-twelve?
WTP,
That sounds very much like one of my ex-girlfriends. IQ of 140+, and the other day when I ran into her again she slipped into the conversation after a couple of beers that her pronoun is “they”.
…she slipped into the conversation after a couple of beers that her pronoun is “they”.
Did she say “My pronoun is they”, or, “Our pronoun is they” ?
Thus they have very little internal self-correcting mechanisms or doubts about what they know.
I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.
Is this thread still a thing
Yes, yes it is.
“Like Christmas morning it is gov’nor, as the dawn of a brand new page…”
Barkeep! A wee dram for the threadwinner, on me.
“she slipped into the conversation after a couple of beers that her pronoun is “they”.”
I’m seriously considering changing my pronoun to ‘Oy vey’, but I fear that I won’t be taken seriously.
Did she say “My pronoun is they”, or, “Our pronoun is they” ?
The former. And she was using personal pronouns normally, apart from that one utterance. I’m almost tempted to read up on how “they” is meant to be used, but I like to retain the mystery and magic of some aspects of life, so I’m just going to guess that that’s the word she wants others to use when referring to her and/or addressing her. But if we demanded these people be consistent in their own use of pronouns (refraining from using “I”, etc.), that might be fun.
Incidentally, with her the thing is she thinks that on the astral plane she’s a man. Hence her bisexuality, which (if anyone is wondering) ought to explain why I still like her. I could tell you a few stories about my time with the Wiccans if it looks like — at any point, ever — this thread is beginning to run out of steam. And if I’ve had enough to drink.
Or possibly that would finally bring it to a juddering halt.
I thought WTP was going to go full Steve Martin there for a moment…
“What I Believe.”
I believe in rainbows and puppy dogs and fairy tales.
And I believe in the family – Mom and Dad and Grandma… and Uncle Tom, who waves his penis.
And I believe 8 of the 10 Commandments.
And I believe in going to church every Sunday, unless there’s a game on.
And I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, wholesome and natural things… that money can buy.
And I believe it’s derogatory to refer to a woman’s breasts as “boobs”, “jugs”, “winnebagos” or “golden bozos”… and that you should only refer to them as “hooters”.
And I believe you should put a woman on a pedestal… high enough so you can look up her dress.
And I believe in equality, equality for everyone… no matter how stupid they are, or how much better I am than they are.
And, people say I’m crazy for believing this, but I believe that robots are stealing my luggage.
And I believe I made a mistake when I bought a 30-story 1-bedroom apartment.
And I believe the Battle of the Network Stars should be fought with guns.
And I believe that Ronald Reagan can make this country what it once was – an arctic region covered with ice.
And, lastly, I believe that of all the evils on this earth, there is nothing worse than the music you’re listening to right now. That’s what I believe.
But if we demanded these people be consistent in their own use of pronouns (refraining from using “I”, etc.), that might be fun.
“Our pronoun is they, so when you refer to me, I mean us, or is it we, when you refer to us we are they”
“OK, but what about him over there ?”
“No they are they too”
“I see, so you are they.”
“No, we are they”
“I thought you are we ?”
“No, we are us.”
“Lemme see if I have this straight, you are we, us, and they, and they are they, and both of they are us, but us are we ?”
Apologies to Abbott and Costello
Wow, 424 comments. This must be some kind of record.
Anyway, late to the party I know, but this example of flagrant mendacity (insanity? Difficult to tell if the person in question actually believes this nonsense) was too much not to share:
“Rodger” there is Elliot Rodger, who murdered six people in 2014, and “Lépine” is Marc Lépine, who murdered fourteen people back in 1989.
Apologies to Abbott and Costello
When I first saw that routine on television in the fifties, I literally wet my pants laughing. It remains hilarious to this day.
“Lemme see if I have this straight, you are we, us, and they, and they are they, and both of they are us, but us are we ?”
Hmm, I think the Beatles beat you to is: “I am, he is, you are, he is, you are me and we are all together.”
…but this example of flagrant mendacity (insanity? Difficult to tell if the person in question actually believes this nonsense)…
From this quote from her bio, you can bet the steamboat zer does.
One wonders whether as a “man” she takes advantage of her, or his, or whatever, male programmer privilege.
I think the Beatles beat you to is…
Us are the non-gender assigned ovum person, they are the large flippered aquatic mammal that may be be threatened by global climate disruption, goo goo goo joob
One wonders whether as a “man” she takes advantage of her, or his, or whatever, male programmer privilege.
For me, the question is whether [fill-in-the-pronoun] writes good code. If the link you provided is an example, I would say not.
These people need therapy.
Posted by: Rafi | August 08, 2017 at 09:05
No, they need deprogramming from the cult they’re in.
No, they need deprogramming from the cult they’re in.
Does the Guild have a deprogramming booth? Can it be lent out?
What’s a four-twelve?
Posted by: Geezer | August 12, 2017 at 16:20
Overacting. Let’s go.
Overacting. Let’s go.
Well done. Your next drink’s on me.
“Lemme see if I have this straight, you are we, us, and they, and they are they, and both of they are us, but us are we ?”
You-ness. Me-ness. Us-ness. We-ness.
Your-ness. My-ness. Our-ness. Happiness.
(The wedding vows in the hilarious, and woefully underappreciated film Serial.)
I haven’t commented as yet on this thread as I haven’t felt I have had anything I could add. But thanks folks, it has been a fascinating ride.
. . the hilarious, and woefully underappreciated film Serial.
With Christopher Lee as the head of a gay motorcycle gang.
We are tough dudes.
That was unexpected, huh? o_O
Apropos of present state of gender choice, this (newly female) person makes some interesting points:
https://mobile.twitter.com/Cobratate
Original announcement and justification for not actually changing anything wrt appearance/actions/behaviour, continuing to have sex with girls and attract praise/fame:
https://mobile.twitter.com/Cobratate/status/896341954346328064
Not to keep the thread going or anything…OK, I lie…but still on topic…
One aspect that I have seen little discussion of is the sudden discovery by certain factions of a corporation’s right to hire and fire based on their own policies. Another is the concern by supporters of our “victim” that he has lost his job. Two problems I have with this situation. One, rather minor, is anyone making the serious bank that a young guy with his credentials should be making should be able to deal with, should even be prepared for, a loss of income for a short period of time. It’s not like he’s unemployable in his field. I find it a bit hard to cry for the guy when people with far less bank and three kids in school has to deal with this in an environment where no one is going to stick their neck out for him.
The second, more obvious, is what is with this sudden discovery of private property rights? You can be fired for based on beliefs expressed outside of work now? So, if I attend a mosque where beliefs are expressed that violate HR’s rules, I can be fired? But of course, nuance and shit, right? I guess it serves this guy right for not finding a religion in line with his science. As if.
I don’t think anyone upset that Comrade Damore lost his job would be any less upset that a hypothetical parent had to deal with similar enforcement of a monoculture. Indeed, it’s Damore who stuck his neck out to try to challenge it, which is why he is being fêted, to the extent that that’s happening.
It’s not like he’s unemployable in his field.
Well, that IS the goal of his former Google comrades.
I don’t think anyone upset that Comrade Damore lost his job
I wouldn’t say anyone. There are a few from what I have seen. But not the major point. Look, I admire the guy for saying anything at all. But as I understand it, and forgive me if I have it wrong as I’ve seen it reported more ways than I have the time to investigate, our “hero” only expressed his concerns amongst a group of skeptics completely unconnected to Google itself. His expressed beliefs only got back to Google because someone reported him to Google’s HR. Again, as I understand it, he was then called to account by said HR to refute his heresy. His heroics do extend to his refusal to refute. So it’s not so much sticking his neck out but rather simply being honest about what he believes to be true. I will wait patiently as Google addresses other employee’s externally expressed beliefs that conflict with Teh Diversity.
Also, to US lawyers present, I’m curious about all this as it pertains to hiring. I work for a very small company and we are hiring. I am included on all interviews and have veto power to some degree. If I sense that a potential hire is…say…a socialist, and therefor believe that the nature of being a socialist obviously, tautologically, will conflict with our company achieving its goals, am I breaking any laws by voting him down?. Note I know should be asking our HR person this question but, well…he’s an idiot and I lack the patience to listen to him drone on and on for 30 minutes in the answer to some of even the most simple questions. And if anyone asks, I never said that.
Well, that IS the goal of his former Google comrades.
Well, be that as it may, the man is of some significant use. His Google comrades, putting aside their fellow travelers using government control, which I see as outside the present problem space but definitely a concern, should have no influence on his ability to find reasonable work elsewhere. Yes, he may need to leave the People’s Republic of Kalifornia, but hey…again, he should have the means and is in a much better position than the theoretical middle class guy with three kids I refer to above.
…anyone making the serious bank that a young guy with his credentials should be making should be able to deal with, should even be prepared for, a loss of income for a short period of time.
On the issue of whether we ought to feel less sorry for a single guy making over $100K a year than the hypothetical family with a combined income of half that, you could argue contra that the single guy has more potential future income to lose, and also that the family still has a welfare safety net. Then again, he’s a young guy and can probably get a job elsewhere, and will probably have some savings, and also expecting a family to fall back on welfare would be bad. So yeah, I agree that Damore was much more able to stick his neck out here.
But… it’s like saying that the achievements of the gentleman scientists of yore were somehow less magnificent because it was easier for them. My rebuttal would go along the lines that if good education and relative financial independence allows really outstanding achievement, rather than seeking to tear into those people we should perhaps consider the possibility that dependancy (including scientists who rely on govt/private funding, or academics who rely on the approval of peers to get and keep their jobs) is a bad thing, even though it’s purpose was and is to allow (respectively) free and rigorous inquiry.
We’re doing the same thing now with crowdfunding, of course: trying to give people like Peterson, Damore and Jack Phillips (of anti-gay-wedding-cake fame) the ability to survive against a hostile monoculture after the fact.
…our “hero” only expressed his concerns amongst a group of skeptics completely unconnected to Google itself.
I think you may be labouring under a misapprehension. The “skeptics@” list was just a group on Google’s internal message board.
The “skeptics@” list was just a group on Google’s internal message board.
OK, I see other reports and I stand corrected. There may still be an issue if said message board was established with the intent of fostering communication skeptical of … well, whatever.
it’s like saying that the achievements of the gentleman scientists of yore were somehow less magnificent because it was easier for them
Not sure to which But.. of mine you refer or how you infer that, but such was certainly not what I meant. Though to your point for some it was, for others not so much. Whole other issue that I’m not particularly interested in pursuing at the moment, though one I have pondered in various context in the past.
if good education and relative financial independence allows really outstanding achievement, rather than seeking to tear into those people we should perhaps consider the possibility that dependancy…is a bad thing
Agree. Though more directly to what I was saying and meant to point out but forgot…I think it’s a good thing, over all, that he was let go. It brings the problem more to the surface. One that has existed for decades but has finally festered and materialized in a place and manner that matters to enough people that it will now get discussed. Also, I would say it is overall a good thing for Mr. Damore. Even given that he is unhireable for a larger number of overly sensitive corporations, those corporations, to my mind anyway, may very well be on the decline. With that bad, there is the good that he is now noticed by a larger number of corporations and such that appreciate independent thinking and would never have known of him or known this positive aspect about him without this publicity. This is one instance where I would agree with there being no such thing as bad publicity. But of course, being of the nerdish type it wouldn’t surprise me if he’d rather not be in the spotlight he’s in. Whole other thing I’m just speculating on, but wth. Also on the positive side as I see it, he’s a useful, productive member of society who was previously expending his efforts for/with what I see as a corporation comfortable with evil. He likely will be working for a corporation or organization more in line with, for lack of a better word, good. Evil loses, Good wins. That’s a two point reversal, if you get my drift.
If I sense that a potential hire is…say…a socialist, and therefor believe that the nature of being a socialist obviously, tautologically, will conflict with our company achieving its goals, am I breaking any laws by voting him down?
Probably. That said, I don’t think there should be any such legal restraints on hiring and firing policies in private companies (government agencies are another matter). If I want to open a business and hire only green-eyed, negroid, left-handed, lesbian dwarves, that *should* be my business and mine alone. The only role the government should play is in ensuring that I don’t violate either my contractual obligations or the civil rights of my employees and customers.
Thus, Google should’ve been entirely within its rights to fire Damore for any reason or none at all (contingent on contractual language which might constrain Google’s freedom in that matter). Of course we, the public, are free to agree or disagree with Google’s reasoning on the matter and express our opinions with our wallets.
What the law actually says on any of this, I have no idea. I’ve long since given up on the notion that law and reason have anything more than a passing acquaintance with one another, if that.
Thus, Google should’ve been entirely within its rights to fire Damore for any reason or none at all (contingent on contractual language which might constrain Google’s freedom in that matter)
Agree, to a significant extent. Legally, anyway. Though I believe there should be some sort of reasonable-and-customary type clause that, if not stated in an employment contract, should be emphasized when not present. Whether such should be required by law itself is a whole other annoying argument that I’m not interested in at the moment. Either way, a person professionally employed should be fully aware that effectively/realistically such a thing applies. And if not fully aware at the time of termination, should be mature enough to understand that they SHOULD have known this.
Again, to be clear, in the context of this incident, I 100% believe it was wrong for Google to fire this guy. Note, I said “wrong for“. As in if I were a stockholder in Google, I would be very disappointed in how the company was being run because I believe in the long run that Google will suffer for this. Maybe not in a big way, maybe in a big way. Most likely in a way that we will never know. But to some degree I believe Google was more damaged by this incident than Mr. Damore was.
I’ve long since given up on the notion that law and reason have anything more than a passing acquaintance with one another, if that.
Yeah, when I have spoken of such in the past I have been informed by my “betters” that I don’t understand nuance. Idiots. 😉
I broadly agree with what’s been said, and apologies WTP if I misconstrued your earlier remarks (though I think you could have been clearer). I would just add that even if there were a legal environment in the UK or the US where companies could hire & fire based on any criteria whatsoever, it’s nevertheless almost a given (and I assume this is why it hasn’t been stated as far as I recall in this thread so far) from an economic perspective that any company with a large enough base of shareholders (i.e., any non tightly-controlled family-owned company) would seek the best employees regardless of their appearance/sex/race/etc.; and I would go further and argue that they would also probably try to be as generous as they could in tolerating strangeness of character (inc. political views, etc.) as long as it didn’t interfere with the business. This doesn’t apply so much to customer-facing roles, of course.
So much, so yawn… we’re all familiar with the arguments I’m sure. We need to pick a different topic or this thread will never reach 500… (and BTW, David seems to have lost interest so I think we’re on our own now)
On another point, which might get us another couple of comments, I wonder how Google is now going to deal with the NLRB complaint being pursued against them on the grounds that their hiring practices are sexist against women? IANAL, but have they perhaps shot themselves in the foot by effectively closing the door to arguments based on the psychological literature as put forward by Damore? I have no idea whether that would have any bearing on the case anyway, just thought I’d mention it. Maybe they’ll just point out that they’ve spent $246m on that stuff so they’re making good faith efforts, etc.
This is really getting silly now. The sequel to my last:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS5RPJQVh-Q