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

M76 said:
Depends how you define shit talking. If you say things that are untrue then it's a problem. But if what you say is demonstrably true then you can shit talk about any country. Not mentioning a problem for fear of offending someone with it is the sjw way. If you see a problem with me or my country I want you to mention it so I can address that problem. An sjw would try to ignore the problem and leave me to continue to act stupid.
Click to expand...
I agree with you on this. The thing is, "shithole" is not a specific problem, just a general qualification. That's what I found wrong on your original comment.
But you know what? This ain't such a biggie for me to divert from the main topic, cheers from the third world ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: c3k
like this
sboucher said:
Not only that, he goes on to also imply that Google has lowered the entry barrier for 'diversity' applicants, resulting in diminishing quality of their product.

I very much liked your post by the way. Well put.
Click to expand...
Great minds, apparently, think alike...

:)
 
It's a private company and he's breaking their policy and can piss off. Maybe he can form his own company and set his own policies if he's as smart as he thinks he is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jtm55
like this
STR said:
There is zero evidence one sex is inherently better at math and logic than the other.
Click to expand...

Is this evidence?

MathSAT2015.jpg
 
If he is not an authorized spokesperson for Google then he can be terminated for making his opinion public. I got in trouble once for helping out on a technical issue and was immediately spoken to by legal team to cease and desist even though my suggestion was valid and the right suggestion. That's just how it goes at big companies. This guys opinion does not matter outside of the company. He should have kept it internal.
 
Axiomatic said:
If he is not an authorized spokesperson for Google then he can be terminated for making his opinion public. I got in trouble once for helping out on a technical issue and was immediately spoken to by legal team to cease and desist even though my suggestion was valid and the right suggestion. That's just how it goes at big companies. This guys opinion does not matter outside of the company. He should have kept it internal.
Click to expand...
He did. He's not responsible for his missive becoming public.
 
Regarding the SAT results posted above, it should be noted that the College Board has changed the SAT and how it is graded. It's probably not a good idea to compare the scores from the 70s and 80s with those of the 2000s and beyond. OTOH, since the post was made as a way to compare results by gender, I suppose it works okay for that.
 
thejokker said:
A typo is irrelevant to the fact that M76's argument is largely correct...
Click to expand...

It's not a typo. It's reflective of what too many people do: they find a study that confirms their pre-existing bias and then they think they're an expert on the topic.

I spent thousands of hours reading hundreds of studies on the genetic and environmental variance that produces variation in intelligence in graduate school and stay current on the topic. The fact is that even if you could meaningfully distill "intelligence" down to a single number (which is a dubious proposition at best), we do not entirely understand why some people are smarter than others. There are of course factors that can have major impact (eating lead paint chips will make you dumb), but there are no studies that are free of methodological issues that indicate 'men are smarter than women.' The issue is simply too complex for such a simple statement to be accurate. Google "missing heritability" - it is in fact one of the great unsolved problems in biology. There are studies that indicate men, in general, perform better on certain cognitive tests, and other studies that indicate women, in general perform better on certain cognitive tests. But those are hitting at levels of nuance that are simply not relevant at the level of a general population and arguably not even in highly specialized jobs, and probably only explain why men are likely to achieve outlier-level greatness at some tasks while women are likely to achieve outlier-level greatness at other tasks. IOW, these statistics have zero relevance to every day life, and are not much more meaningful than an intellectual exercise in probability.

Sorry folks, a bell curve that says what you want it to say doesn't make it so...
 
Dead Parrot said:
This mess and the "Rebels of Google" info might go a long way to explaining why Google is terminating a lot of its technology initiatives. If some of your best and brightest are increasing tasked to internal diversity projects, it is hard to roll out new stuff. Might explain the rather sudden halting of the Google Fiber deployment and resulting multiple Fiber CEO changes.

The resulting legal show might increase popcorn sales.
Click to expand...

Google Fiber hasn't been halted. They just installed into my apartment yesterday, in fact.
 
Gigantopithecus said:
It is only evidence of the fact that you do not understand the etiology of continuously variable phenotypes.
Click to expand...

Non-sequitur mumbo jumbo.

He wanted evidence that one sex is better at math than another. These results of course are average performance of each population. Obviously not all men are better at math than every woman. But the group effect is very consistent here, year to year.

This is evidence, please explain how it is not.
 
Last edited:
dbr1 said:
Non-sequitur mumbo jumbo.
Click to expand...

"Mathematical acumen" is a continuously variable phenotype. That's the language experts use to describe a trait that is expressed in a population along a continuum. Height is continuously variable. You're not either short or tall, you're 4'10", 4'11", 5', etc. That's called a continuum. You're not either good at math or bad at math, you have a specific, measurable ability to 'do math.'

The rule in biology is that continuously variable phenotypes are determined by the interaction of multiple genes with each other, and the interaction of those genes with the environment. This is as close to truth as biology knowledge currently exists, and it's what I and every other biology professor teach in Biology 101.

And the more complex the trait is, the more genes are responsible for it, and the larger the role of the environment is in determining it. That makes it increasingly difficult to figure out which genes are responsible for the trait, and which environmental variables are relevant.

We have a MUCH better understanding of why people are the height they are. We know for a fact that men are more likely to be taller than women from the level of the genes involved to the environmental factors involved to even the evolutionary pressures that ultimately drive this difference.

We are nowhere near that level of understanding of how genetics affects such a broad, nebulous concept as "math skill."

I apologize for speaking disrespectfully but the bottom line is that expertise matters and it's pretty clear the Google employee and a lot of people in this thread defending him are not experts on the topic. I am. You are incorrect, and if you want to educate yourself, take introductory biology at a local college.
 
Gigantopithecus said:
"Mathematical acumen" is a continuously variable phenotype. That's the language experts use to describe a trait that is expressed in a population along a continuum. Height is continuously variable. You're not either short or tall, you're 4'10", 4'11", 5', etc. That's called a continuum. You're not either good at math or bad at math, you have a specific, measurable ability to 'do math.'

The rule in biology is that continuously variable phenotypes are determined by the interaction of multiple genes with each other, and the interaction of those genes with the environment. This is as close to truth as biology knowledge currently exists, and it's what I and every other biology professor teach in Biology 101.

And the more complex the trait is, the more genes are responsible for it, and the larger the role of the environment is in determining it. That makes it increasingly difficult to figure out which genes are responsible for the trait, and which environmental variables are relevant.

We have a MUCH better understanding of why people are the height they are. We know for a fact that men are more likely to be taller than women from the level of the genes involved to the environmental factors involved to even the evolutionary pressures that ultimately drive this difference.

We are nowhere near that level of understanding of how genetics affects such a broad, nebulous concept as "math skill."

I apologize for speaking disrespectfully but the bottom line is that expertise matters and it's pretty clear the Google employee and a lot of people in this thread defending him are not experts on the topic. I am. You are incorrect, and if you want to educate yourself, take introductory biology at a local college.
Click to expand...

And have professors who preaches tolerance but won't admit that they are intolerant toward specific viewpoints.
 
thejokker said:
Wrong, wrong, wrong... No where does he say that women are inferior and to suggest his criticism of the feminist agenda is analogous in any way to the Tuskege Airmen is ridiculous.

Clearly you have not read the memo and are comfortable repeating distorted and false summations. Being a toady for the feminist agenda does not make you intelligent nor enlightened...

Here is the memo in question:
http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320
Click to expand...

“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,” he wrote, adding that those differences include assertions that women tended to be more social and artistic thus could not take high-pressure jobs, along with possessing traits such as neuroticism, higher anxiety and a lower tolerance to stress.
Click to expand...

Maybe you didn't hear everything he said/wrote.
 
crono15 said:
The problem is, he actually noticed the statistics associated with Google's internal peer reviews submitted by their employees. Also, Google has been pushing hard to hire more women for at least 5-10 years. There is nothing wrong with hiring more women. Google hasn't be as successful at this and is still pushing hard for it. This is what led the former employee to voice what he believe is the real problem. All of the sudden, many employees including women who shares very well with the company's current ideology get completely offended and can't tolerate what he just said. It is ironic because they regularly preach diversity and tolerance.
Click to expand...

I didn't say google didn't have a problem of "blindly favoring a female candidates over male candidates." This very well may be the culture they have promoted. This can be proven by looking over candidates scoring. It's also possible the scoring was performed by males who are in themselves discriminatory. This is easy to prove all by looking at the numbers if he has a statistically significant number of females in his department.

His other remarks though are discriminatory. It's absolutely asinine to propose that women are biologically inferior to the position. In fact such statements even increase the problem. You tell a young girl this she is less likely to succeed in the technology field, she will abandon even trying. You are potentially propagating a lie and embedding into a cultural bias. "I am female so the cards are stacked against me in tech fields" That is complete and total bullshit. When you put a girl up against a boy in lets say a calculus class, they do equally well. However from the pool of all women and men, women score lower on math because they aren't taking those advanced classes.

And no I'm not a SJW. I'm about as conservative as they get. But I'm no dummy. What I care about is if you get the job done or not. And what I say stands "If you want more women in tech, women currently in tech need to get OFF their ass and get into high schools and tell girls "Hey seriously look at this for your future." I could and have done it, but it's more powerful coming from a woman.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gigantopithecus said:
"Mathematical acumen" is a continuously variable phenotype. That's the language experts use to describe a trait that is expressed in a population along a continuum. Height is continuously variable. You're not either short or tall, you're 4'10", 4'11", 5', etc. That's called a continuum. You're not either good at math or bad at math, you have a specific, measurable ability to 'do math.'

The rule in biology is that continuously variable phenotypes are determined by the interaction of multiple genes with each other, and the interaction of those genes with the environment. This is as close to truth as biology knowledge currently exists, and it's what I and every other biology professor teach in Biology 101.

And the more complex the trait is, the more genes are responsible for it, and the larger the role of the environment is in determining it. That makes it increasingly difficult to figure out which genes are responsible for the trait, and which environmental variables are relevant.

We have a MUCH better understanding of why people are the height they are. We know for a fact that men are more likely to be taller than women from the level of the genes involved to the environmental factors involved to even the evolutionary pressures that ultimately drive this difference.

We are nowhere near that level of understanding of how genetics affects such a broad, nebulous concept as "math skill."

I apologize for speaking disrespectfully but the bottom line is that expertise matters and it's pretty clear the Google employee and a lot of people in this thread defending him are not experts on the topic. I am. You are incorrect, and if you want to educate yourself, take introductory biology at a local college.
Click to expand...

I understand and agree with what you are saying that there is no single identifiable math gene and as we discussed on the other thread, of course there is also no single identifiable computer programmer gene either. Mapping the human genotype is still at very early stages, as GWAS techniques progress specific genes may be identified which are more highly correlated with all types of traits including cognitive abilities.

But it is not likely 'intelligence genes' that cause differences in brain development between males and females as much as the effects of sex hormones, governed by the SRY gene on the Y chromosone found only in males. Effects of higher androgen concentrations cause the male brain to develop differently from the female brain. Structural and functional differences between male and female have been found in human brain areas, including those that are involved in mathematical reasoning, and as described in the paper summarized here:

Males and females differ in specific brain structures

“For the first time we can look across the vast literature and confirm that brain size and structure are different in males and females. We should no longer ignore sex in neuroscience research."

Specifically, males on average had larger volumes and higher tissue densities in the left amygdala, hippocampus, insular cortex, putamen; higher densities in the right VI lobe of the cerebellum and in the left claustrum; and larger volumes in the bilateral anterior parahippocampal gyri, posterior cingulate gyri, precuneus, temporal poles, and cerebellum, areas in the left posterior and anterior cingulate gyri, and in the right amygdala, hippocampus, and putamen.
​
And not to forget the original point: there is ample evidence that males on average outperform females on tests and other metrics of mathematic ability and achievement, including the SAT, which neither you nor the other guy have addressed.
 
Last edited:
MRAB54 said:
So you live your life not speaking your opinion for fear of repercussions? Get a grip man, that's not the way it is supposed to be!
Click to expand...
I've got a grip man... a firm one on reality. I find it's much easier to work with a large group of people (each with their own opinions) when their impression of me isn't colored by their approval (or lack thereof) of my personal opinions that have no bearing on our efforts. Fired or not, what are you going to think about your coworker who sends out a company-wide email warning everyone about the dangers of chemtrails? How do you think that'll impact that coworker's ability to be taken seriously on unrelated issues? I picked chemtrails because it's one of those things that MOST (I've got a coworker who believes in that shit and loathes all air force personnel) people would object to, but ANY opinion has two sides. The smart money doesn't say shit about things that don't relate to work.
 
capt_cope said:
. Fired or not, what are you going to think about your coworker who sends out a company-wide email warning everyone about the dangers of chemtrails? How do you think that'll impact that coworker's ability to be taken seriously on unrelated issues?
Click to expand...

"A firm grip on reality" but you liken someone considering there are differences between the sexes to chemtrails? Really? REALLY? Then you try to argue this guy's statements about performance of people hired for reasons other than performance/ability aren't work related?

How many logical fallacies did you commit just now?
 
Freedom of speech generally doesn't apply at work unless someone is running for political office and in such a circumstance in some states the employer could not fire said person for doing that.
 
dbr1 said:
I understand and agree with what you are saying that there is no single identifiable math gene and as we discussed on the other thread, of course there is also no single identifiable computer programmer gene either. Mapping the human genotype is still at very early stages, as GWAS techniques progress specific genes may be identified which are more highly correlated with all types of traits including cognitive abilities.

But it is not likely 'intelligence genes' that cause differences in brain development between males and females as much as the effects of sex hormones, governed by the SRY gene on the Y chromosone found only in males. Effects of higher androgen concentrations cause the male brain to develop differently from the female brain. Structural and functional differences between male and female have been found in human brain areas, including those that are involved in mathematical reasoning, and as described in the paper summarized here:

Males and females differ in specific brain structures

“For the first time we can look across the vast literature and confirm that brain size and structure are different in males and females. We should no longer ignore sex in neuroscience research."

Specifically, males on average had larger volumes and higher tissue densities in the left amygdala, hippocampus, insular cortex, putamen; higher densities in the right VI lobe of the cerebellum and in the left claustrum; and larger volumes in the bilateral anterior parahippocampal gyri, posterior cingulate gyri, precuneus, temporal poles, and cerebellum, areas in the left posterior and anterior cingulate gyri, and in the right amygdala, hippocampus, and putamen.
​
And not to forget the original point: there is ample evidence that males on average outperform females on tests and other metrics of mathematic ability and achievement, including the SAT, which neither you nor the other guy have addressed.
Click to expand...


Nice spin, too bad that paper doesn't at all support what you're trying to claim.
 
dbr1 said:
Is this evidence?

MathSAT2015.jpg
Click to expand...
This chart says that women are on average less likely to do as well on math. It doesn't say they aren't capable. But when you compare apples to apples (Women taking the same classes as their male counterparts) they do equally as well on average. It's a fact that most women don't pursue upper level math which would help in these scores.

It's how you interpret the data.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
This chart says that women are on average less likely to do as well on math. It doesn't say they aren't capable. But when you compare apples to apples (Women taking the same classes as their male counterparts) they do equally as well on average. It's a fact that most women don't pursue upper level math which would help in these scores.

It's how you interpret the data.
Click to expand...
Correct.

It would be also correct to say that more men take advanced math classes which also could explain the differences for the "averages". This is not to say that women are inferior or not suitable to do a particular tasks - that's absurd OTOH - on AN AVERAGE, as a whole, there's a difference which could explain for the rant / memo / manifesto's message of the fact that pushing for a diversity set for the sake of it isn't relative to the "averages" as a whole.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
Maybe you didn't hear everything he said/wrote.
Click to expand...
I just did and that partial quote is terrible. They start with the quote then paraphrase quite badly the rest. I really hate the media and news outlets today.

He didn't come off as biased and discriminatory as every news outlet has insinuated. He spends an inordinate amount of time trying be to less offensive when the subject seems to be so. Also he isn't condoning discriminatory stereotypes but rather the fact we HAVE to acknowledge them or we get no where. Hiring a higher percentage of women workers does not solve the problem at all. They just don't exist at a rational level from a performance stand point. Assume for a second (and this is really gonna be off the wall but a point needs to be made) we have two species. Thus far one has been the majority of our doctors. That particular species is very steady handed and the other has just the slightest of ticks (yeah I know stupid but again just a point). Well we now decide we need a better representation within the field of doctors. Does this sound like a good idea? Ok enough with the stupid example and bring it back to reality. I am not sure the percentage of graduates in the field but guessing by general stories parallel to this one it must be heavily in favor of males. If we assume 50% of each gender is a rational choice for employment does it sound reasonable that we should hire all females to increase their percentage when you realize that a large number of male applicants are better choices based on knowledge and skill? Besides what does this solve in the long run? Sure you have a higher % to better reflect gender population numbers but it doesn't change why so few are in the field to begin with.
 
I feel like his firing would be pretty much a done deal at any modern company. HR 101: you can't go saying prejudiced things about your colleagues and expect everything to be just fine.
His actions may even have been illegal under federal law, harassing a protected class (gender). If this had been less publicized, he might have gotten away with a formal warning and a promise to not do it again, but given how he documented it, emailed it out and how big it became, I don't think Google really had any other choice than to fire him.

This is not a matter of constitutionally protected free speech. The constitution only protects you from being persecuted by the government for your speech. It does not protect you from any non-governmental repercussions from employers, friends, family etc, for the things you say.
 
Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.

Suggestions
I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).

My concrete suggestions are to:

  • De-moralize diversity.
    • As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”
  • Stop alienating conservatives.
    • Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.

    • In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.

    • Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.
  • Confront Google’s biases.
    • I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.

    • I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.
  • Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.
    • These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.
 
crono15 said:
They inevitably fail the test when they attack someone for not having the same view that they hold. In other words, they are intolerant people that preaches tolerance to us. See the irony there?
Click to expand...
No I don't see the irony here. Did you mean hypocrisy?
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaulP
like this
I heard on the news today that about 56% percent of people working at google were white!!! The news commentators actually thought that statistic was news worthy and damaging to google somehow. I mean wow.....what a lack of diversity....oh the horror. Imagine having a work force of 56% White people in a country where the population is 61% white. That about sums up this media blowup.
 
Last edited:
Zarathustra[H] said:
I feel like his firing would be pretty much a done deal at any modern company. HR 101: you can't go saying prejudiced things about your colleagues and expect everything to be just fine.
His actions may even have been illegal under federal law, harassing a protected class (gender). If this had been less publicized, he might have gotten away with a formal warning and a promise to not do it again, but given how he documented it, emailed it out and how big it became, I don't think Google really had any other choice than to fire him.

This is not a matter of constitutionally protected free speech. The constitution only protects you from being persecuted by the government for your speech. It does not protect you from any non-governmental repercussions from employers, friends, family etc, for the things you say.
Click to expand...

Except from what I'm reading, he did not make the memo widely available. One of the people he was discussing it with circulated it within the workplace, and then someone else made it public.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top