Google Employee behind Anti-Diversity Memo Is “Exploring All Possible Legal Remedies”

[dr.stevil]

 

[Deleted member 93354]

Google’s liberalism was clear at an internal town-hall meeting after the presidential election, where top executives commiserated with employees over Donald Trump’s victory, according to a recording of the meeting viewed by the Journal. Alphabet Chief Financial Officer Ruth Porat, who publicly supported Hillary Clinton, called the election results “a kick in the gut.” Executives fielded a variety of questions over the hourlong meeting but none of the questions were in support of Mr. Trump’s victory.

Jebuz. How stupid can you be? As a senior executive of any company, you should know point blank that reflection of any personal politics/religion will cost your company dearly. This is one of the most fundamental rules of running a business.

 

[Deleted member 93354]

View attachment 33095

SNOWFLAKE. There is no such thing as a safe zone when it comes to words. Mr Hadalgo needs to grow up.

I agree with Dr Stevil. If you want to show he's wrong, show up to work and show them you are better than he is. You don't cower in fear and claim there is violence.

I don't agree the media should be targeting or outing specific employees. But don't set yourself up with stupid comments in public if you don't want to be outed.

 

[sboucher]

But don't set yourself up with stupid comments in public if you don't want to be outed.

Words to live by in todays age!

 

[SilverSliver]

Jebuz. How stupid can you be? As a senior executive of any company, you should know point blank that reflection of any personal politics/religion will cost your company dearly. This is one of the most fundamental rules of running a business.

Unless it's a liberal stance, then it's fine.

 

[Armenius]

SNOWFLAKE. There is no such thing as a safe zone when it comes to words. Mr Hadalgo needs to grow up.

I agree with Dr Stevil. If you want to show he's wrong, show up to work and show them you are better than he is. You don't cower in fear and claim there is violence.

I don't agree the media should be targeting or outing specific employees. But don't set yourself up with stupid comments in public if you don't want to be outed.

 

[Blown 89]

It's pretty clear that very few people actually read the memo....including damn near every media outlet reporting on it.

 

[MikeTrike]

 

[wrangler]

You know what is so fucking funny to me.

This guy, as smart as he is, has actually drank the Kool-Aid.

He believes that there is a diversity problem. Hook, line and sinker.
But... He's smart, very high IQ and a mind for research, and he wants to fix it. Rationally and in an evidence based manner, he wants to fix it. Not with feelings. With FACTS.
He just found out that THEY don't want to fix it. He is shocked and hurt. I saw the interview with Jordan Peterson. He really thought he was making a contribution to the Google. The Google that he loves.

I ain't no genius but I would bet dimes to doughnuts that there is more than one of these guys out there. Sitting in their cubicle. Forced to behave in a way that is incongruent with the science on the subject.

What are the progressives going to do when a bunch of smart motivated people actually start looking into the actual evidence? The actual research?

I relish the thought.

 

[MikeTrike]

Just strolling through again...

 

[sboucher]

^

"I'm Feeling Fucked"

LOL!

 

[sboucher]

It's pretty clear that very few people actually read the memo....including damn near every media outlet reporting on it.

Amen to that. They just focus on the parts that can be easily twisted into anti-feminist or diversity politics in the harshest of ways, despite that not being the intention or message at all. But you see, that's been their agenda all along. Voice any sort of disagreement with them and be automatically labelled as a bigot, racist, or xenophobe. That's awfully convenient for their side of the argument, isn't it?

 

[dbr1]

1.) Terrible human being puts in writing his backwards beliefs that a half of all humans are intellectually inferior based simply on their gender

Not what he said. You obviously didn't read the memo. Here's a full copy with original charts

Full James Damore Memo — Uncensored Memo with Charts and Cites

To paraphrase, he said: Women and men are different. Some inherent differences (on average) between the sexes in career choices, lifestyle preferences/values and interpersonal behavior in groups may explain differential rates of employment/success at various professions. This would counter the widespread belief that both overt and more subtle 'implicit bias' are conspiring to keep women from succeeding, which must be corrected.

But seriously, read it.

2.) Company legitimately fires him.

Agreed, private company should be able to do what they want. Even if it is hypocritical.

3.) The entire underbelly of the internet, the alt right movement and Breitbart, the worst people on the fucking planet all stand up to defend the dude. I've had it with this conversation. I can't believe there are people out there in civil society that would actually defend this piece of trash.

I'm sorry, but if you legitimately believe that it is totally ok, to call someone intellectually inferior based solely on their gender or the color of their skin, and would defend someone for doing so, you are one of those worst people on earth. This is some straight up KKK Nazi bullshit, and it has absolutely no place in the modern world.

I'm done. Unsubbing. I can not deal with the turds of humanity that these threads cause to crawl out of the sewers where they belong.

You have worked yourself up into a seething hatred, without any justification. Your characterization of what Damore wrote in his memo and what others have written in his defense is completely inaccurate. The irony is that your conclusion that Damore and the many others (like me) who believe what he wrote is scientifically valid and not unreasonable are 'Nazis' justifies in your mind that they should be considered human trash and that their dissonant opinions should be suppressed. That's a lot closer to fascism than anything else I have heard in this conversation.

 

[D4rkn3ss]

 

[D4rkn3ss]

bump

 

[D4rkn3ss]

aand more, yep, aint stopping, yo

 

[BloodyIron]

This situation isn't black and white, and I don't have all the answers. I can't tell you whether firing people for their opinion is good or bad, right or wrong, fair or unfair, or whatever. From what I've seen in this world, the response varies from one company to the next, based upon how they want to run their business.

It should be known without saying that plenty of businesses have zero care for ethics, and most only really care about not breaking the law. So this kind of a thing isn't surprising whatsoever.

Even if it's acceptable in the workplace to express your opinion, where do you draw the line? "It is my opinion that the CEO fucks a horse on a regular basis", should this ever be acceptable?

The world isn't binary, despite it being ran by computers.

So a person's opinion is cause for termination? Questioning beliefs? Only management can disagree with policies?
Yeah i get it, that's how the world works. It doesn't make it right.
I don't think opinions should be grounds for termination. It should be based on work and work quality. It's already illegal to fire or hire someone based on political affiliation which is mostly opinion yet actual opinions are valid for termination?

 

[BloodyIron]

If you're right that his original message was written in such a fashion (internal forum), then yeah, that's a whole other story.

It depends, he was circulating it in an internal forum from the sounds of it. Its someone who got offended that took a screen cap and made the memo. If the initial discussion was in internal forum intended to be more permissive then he may have a leg if it was a different state. His views are also not extreme. Merit based hiring and promotions is Not Extreme. May ruffle the feathers of the cultural Marxists of the world.

 

[Gigus Fire]

This situation isn't black and white, and I don't have all the answers. I can't tell you whether firing people for their opinion is good or bad, right or wrong, fair or unfair, or whatever. From what I've seen in this world, the response varies from one company to the next, based upon how they want to run their business.

It should be known without saying that plenty of businesses have zero care for ethics, and most only really care about not breaking the law. So this kind of a thing isn't surprising whatsoever.

Even if it's acceptable in the workplace to express your opinion, where do you draw the line? "It is my opinion that the CEO fucks a horse on a regular basis", should this ever be acceptable?

The world isn't binary, despite it being ran by computers.

But this happens all the time on the non political scale. People at works disagree with their favorite sports teams and get into heated conversations about who they think should have won best picture at the emmys.
While it's a bit different than just coworkers getting into an argument about nothing, it is just a disagreement to the current policies that the company is creating. He never flat out refused to follow those policies, he just rationally explained why he believes they're not a good idea.
Plus i don't think he single out anyone. Your analogy of comparing his document/manifesto/whatever to slander isn't quite the same thing.

 

[Iching]

ADL - I have yet to see one black or Latino person over there.

 

[Deleted member 93354]

And now the heavyweight experts weigh in:

http://www.gurianinstitute.com/blog...-science-to-help-tech-companies-advance-women

For those of you who don't know, Michael Gurian is a Psychiatrist who studied the physical differences between men and women.

 

[Nytegard]

And now the heavyweight experts weigh in:

http://www.gurianinstitute.com/blog...-science-to-help-tech-companies-advance-women

For those of you who don't know, Michael Gurian is a Psychiatrist who studied the physical differences between men and women.

Overall, decent article, but he needed better formatting to make it a little more readable.

 

[Deleted member 93354]

So I read the memo finally in full. Like all academics he used large and generally vague terms to describe concepts which are open to misinterpretation.

That said he does back his studies with valid research. And while he does highlight valid characteristics of personality between men and women, he also suggest corrective actions to make tech jobs more appealing to women.

However where he went off the rails is where he made it a little too political. Nothing gets people's panties in a bunch when someone tries to assert their moral superiority (as I noticed over the last couple of days). He walked a very thin line with that one. And instead of opening a potential political firestorm Google swept him under the rug.

How many of us here got our panties in a twist over the smallest political statements her or on Facebook.

That memo was a fire waiting to happen. So instead of dealing with the potential fallout, Google fired him. This in of itself was risky as hell.

Likely Google will settle with him out of court for a tidy little sum to make this go away quietly.

 

[mope54]

So I read the memo finally in full. Like all academics he used large and generally vague terms to describe concepts which are open to misinterpretation.

That said he does back his studies with valid research.

He did not back up his statements. How closely did you read the link you posted earlier from gurianinstitute? The author explicitly stated:

This science is crucial to this conversation because Damore based much of his Memo on it. Both Davita and I wished he had footnoted his research—this might have helped him make his case more strongly--but the research he refers to is available to anyone who wants to pursue it. A quick and detailed way to validate the science would be to use Leadership and the Sexes (2008) and its endnotes. My later books update the endnotes further and you can also go to the website, www.michaelgurian.com/Research where you’ll find references to more than 1,000 primary studies. You can also get books by neurobiologists such as Louann Brizendine (The Female Brain, The Male Brain), and, you can go onto Google and/or Google Scholar to get further references.

[emphasis added]

One of the main issues with Damore's piece is that the generally vague explanations are allowing people to read things into the paper that simply do not exist...like the belief he backed up his statements when he did not.

 

[Deleted member 93354]

He did not back up his statements. How closely did you read the link you posted earlier from gurianinstitute? The author explicitly stated:

[emphasis added]

One of the main issues with Damore's piece is that the generally vague explanations are allowing people to read things into the paper that simply do not exist...like the belief he backed up his statements when he did not.

The link to Damore's original unedited statements contained embedded links on certain phrases and keywords. Maybe Dr Gurian didn't get a chance to see that version. Surely it would have been easier to read citations if he used proper APA format. And Mr Damore's statements would have been stronger if he cited more sources from professional peer reviewed papers.

As someone who read the initial media reports, I can say I fell for the hype of what was wrote. So I will admit I was wrong. After a review of his full paper he makes many correct assertions. The fact he made it political is what likely got him into trouble. He likely activated threat responses typical when someone is presented with contrary information to their own beliefs. And therefore he created a hotbed that could have spun quickly out of control. And it did get out of control, so google tried to put out the fire. But were they justified? That's not for me to decide. But like I said, I'm willing to bet there's a nice out of court settlement to make this go away quietly.

As someone who has attended Michael Gurian's lectures and reading various professional papers, I can safely say that what Mr Damore is saying is based somewhat in fact. Our own internal surveys at our mega corp reflect what he wrote. That doesn't mean women are less intelligent than men or less capable of doing the job. This is the same assert Mr Damore wrote and that if we are to attract more women into the field we need to address the way work is handled. And Michael Gurian comes to the same conclusion.

As to someone who likes to claim that computer programmers are generally require more intelligence, they would be wrong. On the 50th percentile we have an average IQ of 110. (src: Average IQ of a programmer with formal links) That's hardly higher than the average.

It turns out that really good programmers have excellent memory, which is a field women generally exceed men on in short term test. There is lots of informal studies that promote this idea. One study had people associate a number of rooms in a house and an object in that room. For example "Bed Room 1: Vase. Dining room: Lamp" It was a small study, but programmers at a whole did well at this. Knuth who took this test well into his 60's was able to remember well over 100 rooms. And if you don't know who Knuth is, go back to school and ask for your money back.



Any way the world needs to grow up. Whenever I see hysterics I think of this:

 

[mope54]

The embedded links are to wikipedia and various popular culture articles. The only academic articles he links to were rebutted by the author of the journal articles himself. I've read through it and I clicked on all of those links...and I did it numerous times much to my dismay and waste of time because every time someone linked the "true and authorized, totally unedited this time for real version" I told myself maybe this one really has some academic strength behind it. Unsurprisingly, it did not.

You have had multiple people with doctorates in this area, myself included, explain that the science he relies upon does not support his erroneous conclusions. We've already written lengthy replies about it. You are making critical logical errors in your assessment both of what he wrote and the kinds of conclusions that can be made regarding the research itself.

The research into what does or does not differ between the sexes has an unknown relationship between how they might play out in behavioral ways and even less when discussing a corporate setting. The argument borders on the ridiculous when discussing a field that would ordinarily be pulling from the cream of the crop--and that's ignoring the fact that the differences are too slight and the wrong kinds of differences to matter.

The things that Damore argued women were worse at than men are qualities that generally make better programmers. I explained how and why in my earlier posts.

 

[aeliusg]

He hardly cited a single primary source in his memo. I've seen more sources from 4chan posts than in his ill-fated call to reason. Kid should have lurked more. In the end it still wouldn't have helped him. He's either woefully naive or out for a payday himself. I hope for his sake that it's the latter.

 

[D4rkn3ss]

oh look, no difference between genders, actually, no genders at all, according to google

 

[Deleted member 93354]

You have had multiple people with doctorates in this area, myself included, explain that the science he relies upon does not support his erroneous conclusions. We've already written lengthy replies about it. You are making critical logical errors in your assessment both of what he wrote and the kinds of conclusions that can be made regarding the research itself..

You know you would have a great career as a politician. You act to be a professional in the fields of statistics, evolutionary biology, psychiatry/medicine, psychology, sociology, and organization psychology. After all you know what's good for society right? The Leviathan says so. But in the end, all you are is a professor in law according to your bio. In other words, you aren't a professional from which to back your credentials in the fields this entails. And if you actually sat down and read the links you would have seen how they are cited by professionals in the field.

As you can tell, you throwing around your PhD credentials rather irks me because your field has nothing to do with the issues at hand.

Mr Damore never once stated that women were in any way inferior, but that their end goals and motivations could be a core reason of why there are less women in STEM fields.

However, Mr Damore acknowledges there are some biases against women

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.

Here he is not stating the women are not inferior, but rather there's under lying reasons why they don't choose STEM fields.


Of personality differences he cites this wikipedia article which repeats much of what he asserts. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology#Personality_traits) This wikipedia article is cross correlated from 163 different articles in the foot notes. They are quite extensive and many professionally peer reviewed. So it's safe to assume that his statements here are backed by fact. I have read similar assertions by Dr Gurrian as well as other professional peer reviewed papers.


He then goes on to state why we shouldn't worry about the disparity of gender gaps so much as it is a global trend and highlighted an article which reflected real world business statistics as this fact. (http://quillette.com/2017/07/15/time-stop-worrying-first-world-gender-gaps/)


He then went on to say women are more risk adverse than men (quantitative metric), or at the very least the kinds of risk they are willing to take (qualitative metric). This is also a true fact backed by evolutional biology, psychology and statistics. Michael Gurian also asserts this. He unfortunately failed to back his statement here. But his assertion is not incorrect.


Real world business: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/288614#

Psychology: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0963721411429452

http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/risk-background-how-men-and-women-respond


This would also be cross correlated by the fact that men’s and women's frontal proprietor lobe develop at different rates. The front proprietor lobe is the location of Freud's Super Ego which moderates between the ego (wants desires) and id (fears to the risk associated) It's also associated with empathy. Females develop this area of the brain faster and use more of it. And while males do generally catch up by the age of 25, there is still a significant gap in amount of grey matter dedicated to these functions as Dr Gurian's MRI scans show. As a result men who moderate less thought into risky actions are more likely to engage in them.


Mr Damure also then supports potential solutions google has taken to the gender gap issues to encourage more women to enter STEM fields:

"And suggest ways to address them to increase women's representation in tech without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strikes in many of these areas, but I think it's still instructive to list them:"

He also states that removing competitiveness is dangerous to a company. He highlights this with references to a NIH paper (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5068300/) and an article to the Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/05/the-war-against-boys/304659/). Dr Gurian would also support this statement. He says trying to treat the sexes the same is actually harmful to the end goal.


He also states that women prefer a greater work-life balance. He then highlights this professional paper published in the British Journal of Guidance & Counselling which contains its own professional research references (https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2011/SPP457/um/23632422/Hakim_2006.pdf) Our own internal surveys at the mega-corp of (100,000+ employees) I work for reflect this. (Sorry I'm not allowed to represent my company on outside matter or opinions or I would list it.). One of our surveys asked why women didn't seek higher leadership positions at work. One of the reasons listed and selected was "Would affect a work life balance for the worse"


He also states there is a lowering of the bar to increase diversity, which in effect may hurt the company. He then hard links to internal documents for which you have to be an employee to see. So I cannot verify the veracity of this claim. But while diversity can increase the strength of a company, it should only be considered among equal candidates in terms of skill. In fact preventing discriminating based on race or background was one of the reasons EOA/EEO acts were established.


He also goes on to state that giving preferential treatment to another group may have a counter effect intending by alienating the disenfranchised group and can lead to stronger separation of factions. He then highlighted a wall street journal article. This is also true.


He then goes on to state that without discussion and only listening to supporting opinion (Confirmation bias with link) you operate in a vacuum. I have covered cognitive dissonance here myself multiple times. This is the end effect of presenting someone with contrary information to their own beliefs and how it activates a threat response in their own brain. (Also proven with MRI scans) This is one of the reasons you see such violent reactions to today’s world as it becomes easier to express counter opinion which raises threat levels in counter thinking individuals. This is the result of the proliferation of social media platforms which makes this easier to occur.


Areas where he made mistakes:


He divided it into left versus right ideas and values which tend to be blanket statements which automatically isolate the intended audience based on their core beliefs. He also made use of associated negative terms without properly backing them up by a professional peer review "labeled as a misogynist and a whiner" and backing it with a word press article was quite frankly ill-advised and not thought out as it's full of anecdotal evidence.


He then also goes on to state the problem with being overly politically correct. It talks about those driven by being political correct over socially correct, and how it can lead to violence when confronted. (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-personality-of-political-correctness/) This article is well researched. He talks about how being threatened to being overly political correct through use of violence and shaming is hurtful to culture. And these are indeed effects of those with politically oriented goals as highlighted by the article. The problem is he failed to cite where shaming or violence occurred in workplace. Although google firing him would be the irony of this situation that may prove him right.


He shouldn't have said phrases like "Stop alienating conservatives" It would have been wiser to say, "Stop alienating those with dissenting opinions" This is another place where he made it political. That's bad mojo. Also stating "Conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness" is just asking for trouble as it implies a moral high ground to being conservative.



Now if you think I'm some sort of pig, initially I came out against Damure's memo. But after reading it in full, most of his assertions and statements were of fact although sometimes poorly worded or cited. I also served on committees to encourage more women in STEM fields as well as outreach programs. I think diversity as a whole does benefit a company. And women are equally capable intelligence wise, but with different strengths than their male counterparts (as a whole general population) As such, Dr Gurian states, as well as Mr Damure, we must address how their needs are met differently and not treat them homogeneously the same in their career. And I agree with this assessment.

Now I wasted most of my free lunch hour on this reply I have to get back to work.

 

[dbr1]

You have had multiple people with doctorates in this area, myself included, explain that the science he relies upon does not support his erroneous conclusions. We've already written lengthy replies about it. You are making critical logical errors in your assessment both of what he wrote and the kinds of conclusions that can be made regarding the research itself.

This is the 'appeal to authority' fallacy. We should believe you because you are an expert? Nothing you have written in this thread, other than that assertion, would lead anyone to believe that that is true.

Doesn't matter anyway. Make a convincing argument. I invite you to 1) Cite a scientific assertion that Damore actually wrote that you disagree with 2) Make an evidence based argument that it isn't true.

Despite what you say, you haven't done it in this thread yet. If you believe that you have done so already, just copy and paste it.

 

[Gasaraki_]

Eh, it would be a stretch, but maybe he could take advantage of the California political action laws in the workplace: http://employmentattorneyla.com/fired-expressing-political-views-california/
Ultimately they can fire you for any reason. I really do hope that google gets some backlash on taking action on someone's thoughts.

Once you post it on a internal company memo, it ceases to be your thoughts. It became a company memo and if that violates company policy then you can get fired.

 

[Deleted member 93354]

Once you post it on a internal company memo, it ceases to be your thoughts. It became a company memo and if that violates company policy then you can get fired.

Now you have to prove it violates company policy.

 

[mope54]

You know you would have a great career as a politician. You act to be a professional in the fields of statistics, evolutionary biology, psychiatry/medicine, psychology, sociology, and organization psychology. After all you know what's good for society right? The Leviathan says so. But in the end, all you are is a professor in law according to your bio. In other words, you aren't a professional from which to back your credentials in the fields this entails. And if you actually sat down and read the links you would have seen how they are cited by professionals in the field.

As you can tell, you throwing around your PhD credentials rather irks me because your field has nothing to do with the issues at hand.

I suggest you be more careful with the assumptions that you make, especially when your knowledge regarding this field appears to be limited and you've demonstrated an unwillingness to conduct proper research.

First, you note that you initially drew conclusions about Damore's work prior to reading it. Then you make conclusions about my field and expertise despite me explicitly directing you to read the previous posts I had made. You then compound your error by concluding I must not have any expertise in this area rather than simply asking what my expertise is.

I'm providing a link to UC Irvine's Social Ecology program where a broad coalition of us work together within a transciplinary program to come up with solutions to problems that are multidisciplinary in nature--all those fields you listed as having something to say about this working together all under the umbrella of a "law" oriented program. The fact of the matter is that law is involved in every single thing we do, see, or think. Case in point--you end your lengthy post with a legal discussion. The assumption that those of us teaching legal concepts wouldn't have specific expertise about human cognition and development, or that those issues wouldn't have relevance to the legal field, or that people can be professors in a field that doesn't carry the same name as their doctorate degrees is naive, at best.

The following is not an exhaustive list, but one that demonstrates the breadth of expertise my "law professor" colleagues possess:
https://socialecology.uci.edu/faculty

http://faculty.sites.uci.edu/borelli/
http://faculty.sites.uci.edu/cauffman/
http://faculty.sites.uci.edu/scharles/
http://faculty.sites.uci.edu/jmchen/
http://faculty.sites.uci.edu/cschen/
http://faculty.sites.uci.edu/scole/
http://faculty.sites.uci.edu/ecurrie/
http://faculty.sites.uci.edu/phditto/
http://faculty.sites.uci.edu/heckhausen/
http://faculty.sites.uci.edu/eloftus/

None of us have ever stated we know what's best for society, as best I can tell. Beth was inducted into the top 100 most influential scientists a few years ago, however.

 

[mope54]

This is the 'appeal to authority' fallacy. We should believe you because you are an expert? Nothing you have written in this thread, other than that assertion, would lead anyone to believe that that is true.

I've already corrected your misuse of an appeal to authority. That only applies when you make the mistake DigitalGriffin did and assume that a "law professor" does not have expertise in the relevant areas. As I pointed out the last time you made this error, and corrected DigitalGriffin on, I do have specific expertise in this area and short of posting my CV there isn't much else to discuss on the matter.

 

[opfreak]

I've already corrected your misuse of an appeal to authority. That only applies when you make the mistake DigitalGriffin did and assume that a "law professor" does not have expertise in the relevant areas. As I pointed out the last time you made this error, and corrected DigitalGriffin on, I do have specific expertise in this area and short of posting my CV there isn't much else to discuss on the matter.

You keep saying people are making an error with misusing an appeal to authority, when in reality you are the one making the error. Your the one that keeps claiming your degree some how grants you more authority then others, when in reality you have pointed out nothing that would back that up.

Or wait you'll just tell us to trust you as being some expert again.


And for future reference, are you arguing that men and women are exactly the same? That there are no difference in gender?

 

[mope54]

And for future reference, are you arguing that men and women are exactly the same? That there are no difference in gender?

To the extent that differences exist, they do not explain who does or does not work for Google.

 

[mesyn191]

And if you actually sat down and read the links you would have seen how they are cited by professionals in the field.

Many of the links and information given in the original letter aren't quality cites or necessarily good papers though and are often on issues that are highly controversial in their given fields. Often calling them facts is a stretch and many of the studies he does link don't even say what he thinks they do.

And you don't have to be a expert in the field to come to that conclusion when there are plenty of other experts saying he is flat out wrong in his claims due to factual reasons.

Here he is not stating the women are not inferior

De facto he is doing exactly that even if he explicitly doesn't say the words "women are inferior". There is absolutely no evidence for any biological reasons why women in general will be worse at STEM fields or programming for that matter.

He then goes on to state why we shouldn't worry about the disparity of gender gaps so much as it is a global trend and highlighted an article which reflected real world business statistics as this fact.

An article that makes some breezy claims isn't a research paper or actual proof though. It does list some papers to try and make its point but at least some of those papers are legit bad since they rely on stuff like self reporting to make their assessments. IOW perceptions!

He then went on to say women are more risk adverse than men (quantitative metric), or at the very least the kinds of risk they are willing to take (qualitative metric).

There is good evidence to suggest otherwise, why don't those studies count for you? But even if it was true he'd also have to show clear cut evidence that would cause women to be unable to work in a STEM job environment for this to be actually relevant. Just saying, "well I think this means they're going to be weak and timid in a STEM job environment means they can't work in that situation" will not cut it.

He also states that removing competitiveness is dangerous to a company.

Removing social blocks by hiring women who were being subjected to sexism in the field isn't removing competitiveness though, he is stating a false premise. Or at best a vague and useless platitude. Neither the paper nor the article (one essentially says testosterone has mixed effects on men and the article is trying to make the case that women/girls aren't really being dealt a unfair hand in our schooling system which is LOL worthy) you link even touch on hiring practices that Google uses to try to increase sexual diversity among its employees or competition in the work place either.

He also states that women prefer a greater work-life balance.

How would something like that flat out biologically prevent them from working in STEM though??? Even the paper itself says the following:

“They are differences of degree, with large overlaps between men and women. They are not fundamental qualitative differences, as often argued in the past in order to entirely exclude women from ‘male’ occupations such as management, the military and the professions.”

How can you not realize that preference, even across a broad group like one gender, isn't the same as biology??? Preferences can and have been heavily shaped by society too you know.

He also states there is a lowering of the bar to increase diversity, which in effect may hurt the company.

Another vague and useless platitude. He'd have to prove that Google, or hiring women for STEM jobs at all, requires lowering the bar to have a point. Which he doesn't.

He also goes on to state that giving preferential treatment to another group may have a counter effect intending by alienating the disenfranchised group and can lead to stronger separation of factions. He then highlighted a wall street journal article. This is also true.

Its true the same way this statement is true: "if you stand in front of a tsunami wave you might experience moisture".

Which is to say in a vague and meaningless way. Like its a platitude or something. Hrrrm sensing a trend here.

He has to show conclusively that Google hiring women was absolutely causing a major problem, which he doesn't and didn't do.

He then goes on to state that without discussion and only listening to supporting opinion (Confirmation bias with link) you operate in a vacuum.

Some things really aren't worth discussing or encourage dissent over though.

The ideological merits of Nazism or eating poop for example are not areas which are worth keeping dissenting opinions around about. No one sensible would or should care about those things.

Same thing should be said about whether women can't function in a STEM work place for biological reasons. Its complete nonsense.

 

[FearTheCow]

Google is a liberal haven, employee points out Google's bullshit, liberals shit themselves and denounce employee because he doesn't agree with liberal mindset, so what's new?

P.s. “He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches.” So glad the men and women that taught classes for the degrees I went for actually worked in the field instead of being high and mighty wannabes who had no real world experience.

 

[potency]

Complaining about your employer is rarely if ever good for your future in the company, regardless of the basis of your complaints.

I worked in a place where I was mildly-to-heavily in disagreement with many opinions and I definitely did not fit in within the overall internal culture. But the last thing I was going to do was right a fucking memo whining about it. No one forced me to work there, and no one forced them to employ me. I would just shut the fuck up and do my job like a big boy, and save the bellyaching for my wife at the end of the day, the same as she did for me. It's called life, a concept that is employed less and less by each succeeding generation.

There is this useless misconception nowadays that you are entitled to make everyone hear your opinion. It's not a liberal thing, it's not a conservative thing, it's not male, it's not female, it's just self-delusion.

Anyone who works at any tech company in Northern California and doesn't know that it is filled with more snowflakes than are melted hourly by the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica is a fuckin idiot. Why would this guy choose to work there in the first place?

 

[mesyn191]

There is this useless misconception nowadays that you are entitled to make everyone hear your opinion. It's not a liberal thing, it's not a conservative thing, it's not male, it's not female, it's just self-delusion.

People in general don't seem to understand that the 1st Amendment is there to prevent the govt. from restricting speech in most any shape or form.

They don't seem to get that it won't stop others from disagreeing with them in a very blunt way nor will it protect them from public repercussions if the public at large decides they're being offensive.