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

I actually think that his essay is extremely polite as far as anti-sjw thinking goes. I don't think there would be a way to express these things any less offensively. There is absolutely nothing hurtful or discriminating or even factually incorrect in it. Everyone up in arms about it either
  1. Didn't read it at all
  2. Only read the summary pushed by media
  3. Read it but didn't interpret it accurately because of their pre-existing biases. (which is ironic since it's mostly about pre-existing biases)
  4. Or worst case scenario read it, but are misrepresenting it on purpose because they have a political agenda

Ok like button is not enough here... is there a LOVED it button.

Here ya go...

GOOGLE-HEART.jpg


What the actual fuck...

googlelogo_color_272x92dp.png
 
Ok like button is not enough here... is there a LOVED it button.
HAHAHA, he's factually wrong yet you love it. The guy who wrote it got the basic science wrong, he misquoted the scientists and cited wikipedia. When it's taken to task the response becomes...well it wasn't written for a doctoral dissertation. Funny that, you know because of the whole claiming to have a PhD thing, no big deal though, could have happened to anyone for any reason :p

Holy shit and this is your standard of evidence?
 
Who knows...I can only go by what the author himself claimed and that was he had received numerous emails of support and that people were posting on G+ about the topic. Their names were smudged in the articles, but the platform is not anonymous.

As to the offense level of what he wrote, generally the person being offended determines the level not the person doing the offending. You agree with what he wrote a priori so of course you find it inoffensive. Those of us who know the science better found it repulsive in its sheer audacity in lack of academic rigor, regardless of the claims.
You were doing ok till the last line. Really. That there is far worse than anything he wrote. You just insulted everyone here that has debated with or agreed with the ones who have.

But BS. Yes a person who is offended can say it is offensive but in this world toady, at least in the USA, seems the few are offended by everything. I am Cherokee, well 50%, and I am not offended by Indian, Redskin, or other names given over the decades/centuries. Yet seems some were and now long standing names with no negative affiliation, like the N-word (whole other topic there), get taken down because some few have thin skin and only think of themselves not what the name means in the context of its use or to those that have used it for the duration. Sorry I am not at all moved by these fear mongers and instigators interested only in their 5 minutes of fame.
 
I'm not talking about all that blather.

I can certainly be offended by someone who poses as a phd holder in a given speciality, mischaracterizes journal articles, and cites wikipedia to lend credence to 10 pages of opinionated position.

The fact that so many of you are eating it up as gospel substantiates my ire. Now I have to waste an hour of my time discussing this with my TAs because I know some mediocre student is going to waste class time bothering them with this "news" story in a few weeks.
 
HAHAHA, he's factually wrong yet you love it. The guy who wrote it got the basic science wrong, he misquoted the scientists and cited wikipedia. When it's taken to task the response becomes...well it wasn't written for a doctoral dissertation. Funny that, you know because of the whole claiming to have a PhD thing, no big deal though, could have happened to anyone for any reason :p

Holy shit and this is your standard of evidence?
It doesn't take a degree to be a decent person. It doesn't take a degree to have empathy. I am a white male but daily I get hit with the media telling me I am racist because I voted for Trump, regardless of my reasons which they know not of. I am told I have "white privilege" and that I have had it easy, SURE AS HELL DOESNT FEEL LIKE IT, and my checkbook doesn't reflect it either. I am told because I am male that I am sexist because... well I am not even sure why they are telling me this but doesn't stop them from labeling me as such. Maybe I should start a movement. Maybe you will back me?
 
I don't know what kind of movement you want to start, but my advice is to start with obtaining a stack of credentials because, regardless of how you feel about it, those are the currency used in academic circles. Unless you want to go into politics or start your own corporation, you'll need those credentials to gain any kind of impactful momentum.

If you truthfully are 50% Cherokee then you qualify for a free ride through any program all the way through a doctorate program. Send your application to Stanford or Harvard and explain your disenfranchisement. If you want any help honing your application packet, send it to me for review.
 
As to the offense level of what he wrote, generally the person being offended determines the level not the person doing the offending. You agree with what he wrote a priori so of course you find it inoffensive. Those of us who know the science better found it repulsive in its sheer audacity in lack of academic rigor, regardless of the claims.
I actually disagree with the way he excuses himself in every other paragraph, because my opinion is that if you are going to bring up tough topics, you are supposed to bring them up straight up and tough, so you could say it is offensively inoffensive for me. For that matter, you are not supposed to use wikipedia itself as a source but i guess that is a reason he does not have a PhD ^_^.

The fact that so many of you are eating it up as gospel substantiates my ire. Now I have to waste an hour of my time discussing this with my TAs because I know some mediocre student is going to waste class time bothering them with this "news" story in a few weeks.
Oh, so that's why you are so up in arms over it, you are in the field of people who create that cancer in the first place, i get it now.

HAHAHA, he's factually wrong yet you love it
While we're at it, let's have at it: what is factually wrong about it? So we're clear, you are to reference presently public pdf by page. His depiction of female and male psychological differences sure as hell reflects my anecdotal experience, though one could call it confirmation bias.
 
Oh, so that's why you are so up in arms over it, you are the sort of people who create that cancer in the first place, i get it now.
That's an interesting debate tactic. What sort of people am I? Which cancer am I creating? What do you think you get?

While we're at it, let's have at it: what is factually wrong about it? So we're clear, you are to reference presently public pdf by page. His depiction of female and male psychological differences sure as hell reflects my anecdotal experience, though one could call it confirmation bias.
If I'm creating cancer, then wouldn't any work I post to this board simply be indoctrination? That's the big boogie man here, after all. That professors somehow brainwash our students who, if the claim is true, can't think for themselves. Are you sure you want to risk that?

However, if you're feeling adventurous and strong-willed, here's a link so you can read through someone else's examination of his 10 pages:
http://www.businessinsider.com/google-james-damore-fired-tech-gender-gap-science-2017-8
 
This is by far the best rebuttal...it comes from Dr. David Schmitt (he's the scientist Damore cites in support of sex-based neuroticism suggesting women may be unfit for high stress positions):

In my view, claiming that sex differences exist in negative emotionality is not an "incorrect assumption about gender." It is an empirically well-supported claim (at least, based on the best psychological science we have so far).

Still, it is not clear to me how such sex differences are relevant to the Google workplace. And even if sex differences in negative emotionality were relevant to occupational performance at Google (e.g., not being able to handle stressful assignments), the size of these negative emotion sex differences is not very large (typically, ranging between “small” to “moderate” in statistical effect size terminology; accounting for perhaps 10% of the variance1). Using someone’s biological sex to essentialize an entire group of people’s personality is like surgically operating with an axe. Not precise enough to do much good, probably will cause a lot of harm. Moreover, men are more emotional than women in certain ways, too. Sex differences in emotion depend on the type of emotion, how it is measured, where it is expressed, when it is expressed, and lots of other contextual factors. How this all fits into the Google workplace is unclear to me. But perhaps it does.

[...]

Within this sea of gender bias, should Google use various practices (affirmative action is not just one thing) to especially encourage capable women of joining (and enjoying) the Google workplace? I vote yes.
-- https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sexual-personalities/201708/google-memo-about-sex-differences

I hope you read the entire thing. It is a direct rebuttal of Damore's use of Dr. Schmitt's work. That's, as they say, straight from the horse's mouth.
 
I don't know what kind of movement you want to start, but my advice is to start with obtaining a stack of credentials because, regardless of how you feel about it, those are the currency used in academic circles. Unless you want to go into politics or start your own corporation, you'll need those credentials to gain any kind of impactful momentum.

If you truthfully are 50% Cherokee then you qualify for a free ride through any program all the way through a doctorate program. Send your application to Stanford or Harvard and explain your disenfranchisement. If you want any help honing your application packet, send it to me for review.
I do not believe in using race of any sort or gender as a means for a free ride or help. Financial means yes. But no I am not interested, my time has passed, my children however... I hope to avoid mindsets like your here with them.

This guy gives his take and uses whatever means to show what he has seen. He doesn't in any way condemn or write off any gender or race. Yet you and others keep depicting him as some moron or self motivated discriminator just because you think your OPINION has more weight. Look hard enough there will be findings supporting both sides. Hell I could make a rather compelling argument the world is flat or that 1+1=3 using actual science. But in all my years I have to say I agree with him. Seeing how things are going I have to say it doesn't look good at all. Hiring women at the expense of quality does not fix the issue. Where are the women in this field coming from and why aren't there more? He addresses this mostly only giving his take as to why from his experience.

Actually thus far have any of you given alternative reason or have you just bashed and judged him all whilst touting your own prowess?
 
This is by far the best rebuttal...it comes from Dr. David Schmitt (he's the scientist Damore cites in support of sex-based neuroticism suggesting women may be unfit for high stress positions):



[...]


-- https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sexual-personalities/201708/google-memo-about-sex-differences

I hope you read the entire thing. It is a direct rebuttal of Damore's use of Dr. Schmitt's work. That's, as they say, straight from the horse's mouth.
I will read the rst but for know that post you quoted says not a damned thing. He is tap dancing around the issue, not really saying one way or another.
 
It doesn't take a degree to be a decent person. It doesn't take a degree to have empathy. I am a white male but daily I get hit with the media telling me I am racist because I voted for Trump, regardless of my reasons which they know not of. I am told I have "white privilege" and that I have had it easy, SURE AS HELL DOESNT FEEL LIKE IT, and my checkbook doesn't reflect it either. I am told because I am male that I am sexist because... well I am not even sure why they are telling me this but doesn't stop them from labeling me as such. Maybe I should start a movement. Maybe you will back me?


I think you are getting yourself all worked up over a misconception.

The concept of "white privilege" (which is a terrible name for it by the way, because the name immediately stirs up resistance in many who hear it) does not imply that everything is always easy for white people in general, or white men specifically. We all have challenges in our lives, some of us more than others. Yes, I know, that's not what you have heard some of the blue-haired chubby warriors with nose rings exclaim, but they aren't exactly the intellectual cream of the crop of either their movement or their gender.

What the concept of "white privelege" is trying to express is the following concept:

Imagine your struggles. Life hasn't necessarily been easy. Now imagine having all of your troubles, but on top of those, imagine also dealing with constant dismissal, harassment or hatred just because of your gender or race. Imagine maybe also growing up in poverty, not having a stable home where education was valued, where parents could help you with your homework, or where there wasn't a good school, or even a safe school, and having to deal with violence and fear all the time.

You by no means have it easy as it is, but imagine how much harder it would be to also have to deal with all of that. It would suck. The concept of "white privelege" is simply suggesting that this is not cool, and we ought to do something about it. It's a terrible name for it though. This idea tends to get more sympathy when instead you flip it around and talk about the "less privileged" or "those with fewer opportunities" or the "less fortunate", but the concept is the same none the less.


Now I know nothing about you, so I don't know what you do, or how you behave in public, or how you treat women, but when it comes to men being called sexist, a lot of the time it is true, even if the men themselves don't see it. Let me ask you this. How did you like that show that was on TV a few years back named "Sex ion the City"? If you are anything like me and most other men you absolutely hated it. You may have had a tricky time putting your finger on why that was, but it drove you up a wall. The reason for this - in large part - is because it treated men in the show like women often get treated in real life. Belittled, treated as objects rather than people, had their intellect put down just because of their gender, etc. etc.

I'm not saying you do any of these things, but very many men do, and many don't even realize they are doing it. That's why most companies have harassment training. It's there to help people identify the things they might be doing or saying that they don't realize themselves how they are being perceived by others.

Now I hate this modern extremist confrontational feminism as much as the next guy, but I understand why it has come to this. Les confrontational methods have been tried in the past, and they didn't get results, so I guess it was time to up the ante and try something, anything else in hope of improvement. This shit makes people angry, and when people are angry they don't necessarily become their most rational selves, they just lash out, and that is what the so-called SJW's are doing today.
 
Last edited:
This is by far the best rebuttal...it comes from Dr. David Schmitt (he's the scientist Damore cites in support of sex-based neuroticism suggesting women may be unfit for high stress positions):



[...]


-- https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sexual-personalities/201708/google-memo-about-sex-differences

I hope you read the entire thing. It is a direct rebuttal of Damore's use of Dr. Schmitt's work. That's, as they say, straight from the horse's mouth.
Ok read it and it said nothing of note only seemed they are hung up on BIOLOGY. I don't think he ever used the words GENES, DNA, or expounded on Learned behavior. He was tending to the perceived differences in general at this point in time. The article works hard to say it isn't BIOLOGICAL as in not tied to genes, but doesn't really prove any statement he made was wholly false.
 
Actually thus far have any of you given alternative reason or have you just bashed and judged him all whilst touting your own prowess?
I haven't bashed or judged Damore for anything he wrote other than to say it was poorly supported and contradicted by the bulk of scientific evidence.

I have, however, bashed the people on this forum for blindly following it simply because it confirms what they already believe to be true, which is what you just did here. I think that's poor reasoning and it's worse when you try and pass it off as "science" to lend credence to your argument.

You can not muster a reasonable argument that the world is flat. You might muster something that sounds reasonable to you, but not to someone knowledgeable on the topic, which is what is causing all this sideways discussion. Damore, and the people glomming onto his paper in this thread and elsewhere, don't have the necessary knowledge to evaluate it within the scientific literature that exists so it sounds reasonable...to you, not those of us with expertise in the area. Then, for whatever reasons, you want to castigate all scientists as cancerous. So which is it? Do you respect science and scientists? Or is that only for people who say what you already believe?
 
That's an interesting debate tactic. What sort of people am I? Which cancer am I creating? What do you think you get?
I've reworded it better, but anyways, treat it as personal note. Know thy opponent. As for cancer in question, it was well described in that memo if you pay attention.

If I'm creating cancer, then wouldn't any work I post to this board simply be indoctrination? That's the big boogie man here, after all. That professors somehow brainwash our students who, if the claim is true, can't think for themselves. Are you sure you want to risk that?
Get to the topic, man.

However, if you're feeling adventurous and strong-willed, here's a link so you can read through someone else's examination of his 10 pages:
Oh, so you have decided to simply avoid addressing my question altogether. That's kind of sad, really. Well, let's dig in to the article you linked thinking it would work as debunking.

Although some differences between men and women have been observed by scientists, they are mostly physical ones. Current research generally does not find evidence that variations in preferences, psychology, or personality stem from genetic or biological factors. Rather, they’re primarily attributed to culture and socialization.

Well, let's look at what this links to...

The differences model, which argues that males and females are vastly different psychologically, dominates the popular media. Here, the author advances a very different view, the gender similarities hypothesis, which holds that males and females are similar on most, but not all, psychological variables. Results from a review of 46 meta-analyses support the gender similarities hypothesis. Gender differences can vary substantially in magnitude at different ages and depend on the context in which measurement occurs. Overinflated claims of gender differences carry substantial costs in areas such as the workplace and relationships. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved)

Uhm... Meta-meta-analysis to confirm a hypothesis. Well, can't really comment on it further because it being a meta meta analysis already means i can't do jackshit without seeing article and frankly every 46 of the sources itself. Well played, but that argument is thrown out of window for being a Shrodinger's cat, since i am positive author of BI article did not do it either.

Next we have this brilliant one:

In fact, the study acknowledges: “Although most biologic scientists accept that sexual selection has led to sex differences in physical traits such as height, musculature, and fat distributions, many social scientists are skeptical about the role of sexual selection in generating psychological gender differences.”

Sorry folks, but that does not work as refuttal either.

Their next link that is used as rebuttal does not even link to correct article, that's just inexcusably sloppy, something you expect to see in tier F college's student thesis, not a quality article. Besides, even if the source of focus differences is motivation-based, that alone kind of proves memo correct.

Next paragraph mentions an essay that agrees that data reflects it and also reflects that both have equal interest in working with data (which by the way reflects my anecdotal experience, a good friend of mine ran from SE straight into statistics and data science in general, ain't that funny).

Again, Damore didn’t cite any evidence for this part of his argument. A 2005 analysis of 46 meta-analyses of gender differences suggests it’s false.

Well, meta meta analysis, our favorite thing, isn't it? What is the funniest thing ever is that next they link a different article, that states following:

In contrast, when self-ratings only are examined, men rate themselves as significantly more effective than women rate themselves.

And you guys have the guts to claim that men are not more assertive, eh?

Rest of article mostly pulls off this shit: "Yes, it is true, but we did not prove that it is biology caused so it is totally all social and cultural differences!", with the obvious clear implication that since we did not prove it is not biology, diversity hires are obviously a good policy.

And if you actually proceed to read the memo, Damore really does not claim that it is all biology caused (though does claim that most of it), though considering he has biology background, i would not be surprised if he does believe that most of it is biology.

P. S. This gets funnier once you consider that gender gap in CS is much smaller in countries that have worse treatment of woman than US (and most of the West in general).
 
Last edited:
Ok read it and it said nothing of note only seemed they are hung up on BIOLOGY. I don't think he ever used the words GENES, DNA, or expounded on Learned behavior. He was tending to the perceived differences in general at this point in time. The article works hard to say it isn't BIOLOGICAL as in not tied to genes, but doesn't really prove any statement he made was wholly false.
What are you talking about? You read it in a matter of a few minutes...so you skimmed it?

Damore used Schmitt's research article to claim that biological differences explain phenomena in Google's workplace. Schmitt writes a response piece stating that Damore misused his research.

You conclude that the response says "nothing of note."

That's bizarre. The main thing "of note" would be the author of a scientific article pointing out that anyone claiming his journal article claims X is incorrect because it does not actually claim X.
 
I think you are getting yourself all worked up over a misconception.

The concept of "white privilege" (which is a terrible name for it by the way, because the name immediately stirs up resistance in many who hear it) does not imply that everything is always easy for white people in general, or white men specifically. We all have challenges in our lives, some of us more than others. Yes, I know, that's not what you have heard some of the blue-haired overweight warriors exclaim, but they aren't exactly the intellectual cream of the crop of either their movement or their gender.

What the concept of "white privelege" is trying to express is the following concept:

Imagine your struggles. Life hasn't necessarily been easy. Now imagine having all of your troubles, but on top of those, imagine also dealing with constant dismissal, harassment or hatred just because of your gender or race. Imagine maybe also growing up in poverty, not having a stable home where education was valued, where parents could help you with your homework, or where there wasn't a good school, or even a safe school, and having to deal with violence and fear all the time.

You by no means have it easy as it is, but imagine how much harder it would be to also have to deal with all of that. It would suck. The concept of "white privelege" is simply suggesting that this is not cool, and we ought to do something about it. It's a terrible name for it though. This idea tends to get more sympathy when instead you flip it around and talk about the "less privileged" or "those with fewer opportunities" or the "less fortunate", but the concept is the same none the less.


Now I know nothing about you, so I don't know what you do, or how you behave in public, or how you treat women, but when it comes to men being called sexist, a lot of the time it is true, even if the men themselves don't see it. Let me ask you this. How did you like that show that was on TV a few years back named "Sex ion the City"? If you are anything like me and most other men you absolutely hated it. You may have had a tricky time putting your finger on why that was, but it drove you up a wall. The reason for this - in large part - is because it treated men in the show like women often get treated in real life. Belittled, treated as objects rather than people, had their intellect put down just because of their gender, etc. etc.

I'm not saying you do any of these things, but very many men do, and many don't even realize they are doing it. That's why most companies have harassment training. It's there to help people identify the things they might be doing or saying that they don't realize themselves how they are being perceived by others.

Now I hate this modern extremist confrontational feminism as much as the next guy, but I understand why it has come to this. Les confrontational methods have been tried in the past, and they didn't get results, so I guess it was time to up the ante and try something, anything else in hope of improvement. This shit makes people angry, and when people are angry they don't necessarily become their most rational selves, they just lash out, and that is what the so-called SJW's are doing today.
So is it good parent privilege? That sounds a lot more appropriate than white privilege given the circumstances your describing have everything to do with your parents being responsible and making the right choices while providing for your childhood.

I guess i have to point out that there are more white children who are living in poverty in the US than Hispanic or black children who are living in poverty.
 
Why do you keep writing "meta meta analysis?"

Please educate yourself on what a meta-analysis is. Your responses are becoming increasingly ridiculous.
 
So is it good parent privilege? That sounds a lot more appropriate than white privilege given the circumstances your describing have everything to do with your parents being responsible and making the right choices while providing for your childhood.

I guess i have to point out that there are more white children who are living in poverty in the US than Hispanic or black children who are living in poverty.

Yep it's a combination. Call it "bad luck at birth bingo". If you are born to a household that has any of the below, you wind up having a greater challenge in life. The more of them you have at the same time, the harder it gets.

  • Being poor
  • Being a minority
  • Being a girl
  • Being gay or transgender
  • and many more

Nothing says you can't have a tough life without these disadvantages at birth. Life certainly isn't a walk on roses, but its certainly more challenging for those who either lack the benefits of a stable home, wealth or living where they can safely go to a good school, or spend their lives being mistreated for their gender or the color of their skin.

I feel like this should be something everyone can agree on, and that it really isn't cool and that maybe, just maybe something should be done to stop it.
 
I think you are getting yourself all worked up over a misconception.

The concept of "white privilege" (which is a terrible name for it by the way, because the name immediately stirs up resistance in many who hear it) does not imply that everything is always easy for white people in general, or white men specifically. We all have challenges in our lives, some of us more than others. Yes, I know, that's not what you have heard some of the blue-haired overweight warriors exclaim, but they aren't exactly the intellectual cream of the crop of either their movement or their gender.

What the concept of "white privelege" is trying to express is the following concept:

Imagine your struggles. Life hasn't necessarily been easy. Now imagine having all of your troubles, but on top of those, imagine also dealing with constant dismissal, harassment or hatred just because of your gender or race. Imagine maybe also growing up in poverty, not having a stable home where education was valued, where parents could help you with your homework, or where there wasn't a good school, or even a safe school, and having to deal with violence and fear all the time.

You by no means have it easy as it is, but imagine how much harder it would be to also have to deal with all of that. It would suck. The concept of "white privelege" is simply suggesting that this is not cool, and we ought to do something about it. It's a terrible name for it though. This idea tends to get more sympathy when instead you flip it around and talk about the "less privileged" or "those with fewer opportunities" or the "less fortunate", but the concept is the same none the less.


Now I know nothing about you, so I don't know what you do, or how you behave in public, or how you treat women, but when it comes to men being called sexist, a lot of the time it is true, even if the men themselves don't see it. Let me ask you this. How did you like that show that was on TV a few years back named "Sex ion the City"? If you are anything like me and most other men you absolutely hated it. You may have had a tricky time putting your finger on why that was, but it drove you up a wall. The reason for this - in large part - is because it treated men in the show like women often get treated in real life. Belittled, treated as objects rather than people, had their intellect put down just because of their gender, etc. etc.

I'm not saying you do any of these things, but very many men do, and many don't even realize they are doing it. That's why most companies have harassment training. It's there to help people identify the things they might be doing or saying that they don't realize themselves how they are being perceived by others.

Now I hate this modern extremist confrontational feminism as much as the next guy, but I understand why it has come to this. Les confrontational methods have been tried in the past, and they didn't get results, so I guess it was time to up the ante and try something, anything else in hope of improvement. This shit makes people angry, and when people are angry they don't necessarily become their most rational selves, they just lash out, and that is what the so-called SJW's are doing today.
Let me explain so it helps a bit.

I don't let the whole white privilege or my race, again half Cherokee, define me. I am a singular individual with my own thoughts and most of which are my own not dictated by others. I don't tend to follow blinded but have my own set of opinions. I believe in truth so I don't lie. I believe in respect and empathy, traits greatly disappearing at an astounding rate. I use this particular way of looking at things to see if it is fair and how any action may affect others: pretend you are God looking down on us as a whole. You are not white, black, male or female, you are just God. You make decisions because they are the right thing to do and simply because they don't affect you one way or another, you can empathize and see all equally.

It is why I understand how this guy feels. Just from a strickly scientific perspective ( meaning devoid of emotion not hypothesis and findings based on research) employees should be chosen on ability and merit. If that leans too heavily on a particular race or gender then we need to look at why those not making the cut are not, and discussing how to change that. We could do it like the Chinese and force those races/genders into schools to fill those percents, but then that goes against or founding freedom does it not? So how is only allowing only particular races or genders any different. Perspective helps, just as that last point shows. Change the order and see how ridiculous it really sounds.

Let me give you another point to take here. Doing these type of things only garners more hate and rarely fixes the issue it set to fix. A male qualified greatly over the applicant that got the job only begins to foster hate for the practice. It becomes counter productive. We grow up thinking we have to prove our worth only later to find out that our skin color or gender is what matters in the end. Starting to sound familiar yet? Yes go back 60 years or more and this is what many a colored male felt likely. Difference is that was racism and hatred by individuals. This new affirmative action is sanctioned racism/sexism by the very government founded to protect from such things.

Anyway I think too many are trying to hard to make hard and fast points from his paper/memo. It should be taken at face value, as in what a white conservative male in google sees and what he sees as a solution. Doesn't mean he is 100% right, and who knows what is 100% right.
 
These few members of this board are not going to agree with your premise. They feel *they* are the disadvantaged ones and that minorities have advantages over them. That's the source of their ire.
 
Just from a strickly scientific perspective ( meaning devoid of emotion not hypothesis and findings based on research) employees should be chosen on ability and merit.

A male qualified greatly over the applicant that got the job only begins to foster hate for the practice. It becomes counter productive.
You keep making this assumption that simply because Google is choosing to hire females for a position that it's passing over more qualified males. Why do you make this assumption?

I don't know why you are making it, but Damore's stated reasons for the assumption is that women are biologically inferior to men when it comes to the work that Google does. That's what he says. Do you agree with him?

That's the syllogism he has created.

Women are less qualified than men in this workspace.
Google is preferring to hire women over men.
Therefore, Google is passing over more qualified men for under-qualified women.

The problem is in the premise that women are less qualified than men to work at Google.

I won't dispute that Google may prefer to hire women over some men for some positions. But do you actually believe there are no qualified women out there wanting to work at Google? Do you think Google goes and hires people from Walmart just to amp its female quota? Come on now...
 
It is research done by people who do not have resources to pull off a proper research in a scientific field.


Because that's what it is, note how i only refer to a single study like that.
You used the term multiple times.

A meta-analysis is a statistical methodology, it doesn't have anything to do with not having enough resources to pull of a proper research paper. A "meta meta analysis" doesn't even exist. What you wrote doesn't even make sense and just highlights how out of your element you are. Please stop for your own sake.
 
These few members of this board are not going to agree with your premise. They feel *they* are the disadvantaged ones and that minorities have advantages over them. That's the source of their ire.
Are you saying they are not? In the case of affirmative action it is exactly the same as it was decades ago only, as I stated before, decades ago it was hate or ignorance by individuals, now it is sanctioned by a government setup initially to protect it citizens from such things.
 
Are you saying they are not? In the case of affirmative action it is exactly the same as it was decades ago only, as I stated before, decades ago it was hate or ignorance by individuals, now it is sanctioned by a government setup initially to protect it citizens from such things.
I don't see any evidence from Damore's own CV that he was disadvantaged in any way. He hasn't presented anything from his tenure at Google to substantiate that he was disadvantaged but maybe it will come out during his lawsuit.

As for the people on this board, I have no idea what their backgrounds are. I can only say that from the responses lately it's clear that many of the people championing this 10 page paper don't have the scientific or academic background to properly evaluate the claims laid out in it and that they are hostile to the scientific community if they perceive them to not substantiate their beliefs.
 
Yep it's a combination. Call it "bad luck at birth bingo". If you are born to a household that has any of the below, you wind up having a greater challenge in life. The more of them you have at the same time, the harder it gets.

  • Being poor
  • Being a minority
  • Being a girl
  • Being gay or transgender
  • and many more

Nothing says you can't have a tough life without these disadvantages at birth. Life certainly isn't a walk on roses, but its certainly more challenging for those who either lack the benefits of a stable home, wealth or living where they can safely go to a good school, or spend their lives being mistreated for their gender or the color of their skin.

I feel like this should be something everyone can agree on, and that it really isn't cool and that maybe, just maybe something should be done to stop it.
Are asians a minority? Do they have it worse?
Are indians a minority? Do they have it worse?
Being a girl means you have it worse? How so?
Gay and transgendered is a privileged class (privilege in the classical sense as there are laws that give them more rights).

What really makes a difference is if you come from a two parent home and if they instill good values in you.
It's not a privilege if some parents suck and shouldn't have kids. It's just called bad parenting.
 
What you wrote doesn't even make sense and just highlights how out of your element you are.
Quite the opposite, i am getting right into my element, because you got so hung up on myself making fun of that silly review that you have claimed that it was not quantitative. Since i cannot read it, i presume you did, and it really is not quantitative. In which case... well, half of that article you mentioned just became irrelevant because it ain't science if it does not have numbers. My philosophy prof really knew what he was talking about, eh.

A "meta meta analysis" doesn't even exist.
Because that term sounds too stupid to use in a serious paper. But it fits article in question like a glove, doesn't it?

You used the term multiple times.
And all 2 or 3 times it referred to the same study. I know i wrote a wall of text, but come on.

It's not a privilege if some parents suck and shouldn't have kids. It's just called bad parenting.
Yeah, but "bad parenting" does not provoke a sense of guilt in any third party, does it?
 
I do not believe in using race of any sort or gender as a means for a free ride or help. Financial means yes. But no I am not interested, my time has passed, my children however... I hope to avoid mindsets like your here with them.
It'd be helpful if you quite making assumptions about me.

FWIW, I was offered a scholarship to Stanford decades ago based on my native heritage but I declined for the same reasons you post here.

You wrote about me supporting you and I offered you a partial solution that exists already. That doesn't say anything about my mindset other than providing you with information about one possible resource.
 
Quite the opposite, i am getting right into my element, because you got so hung up on myself making fun of that silly review that you have claimed that it was not quantitative. Since i cannot read it, i presume you did, and it really is not quantitative. In which case... well, half of that article you mentioned just became irrelevant because it ain't science if it does not have numbers. My philosophy prof really knew what he was talking about, eh.


Because that term sounds too stupid to use in a serious paper. But it fits article in question like a glove, doesn't it?


And all 2 or 3 times it referred to the same study. I know i wrote a wall of text, but come on.


Yeah, but "bad parenting" does not provoke a sense of guilt in any third party, does it?
A meta-analysis is a quantitative study. It's a statistical methodology. That's why I wrote you don't have a clue what you're complaining about and that you are highlighting your own deficiencies in this discussion and now you've doubled down on it.
 
You keep making this assumption that simply because Google is choosing to hire females for a position that it's passing over more qualified males. Why do you make this assumption?

I don't know why you are making it, but Damore's stated reasons for the assumption is that women are biologically inferior to men when it comes to the work that Google does. That's what he says. Do you agree with him?

That's the syllogism he has created.

Women are less qualified than men in this workspace.
Google is preferring to hire women over men.
Therefore, Google is passing over more qualified men for under-qualified women.

The problem is in the premise that women are less qualified than men to work at Google.

I won't dispute that Google may prefer to hire women over some men for some positions. But do you actually believe there are no qualified women out there wanting to work at Google? Do you think Google goes and hires people from Walmart just to amp its female quota? Come on now...
So you stoop to sidestepping and putting words in his mouth. Read his paper again, he mentions this at the very beginning. Also mentions the shift from tech to sensitivity training and feelings meetings in its place.

He nor any of us have said women are less qualified (you gave the typical media response here). We stated that the lack of women in the field to pull from is far smaller or too small to meet their quota meaning the probability of hiring less qualified applicants because of their gender is far more likely. And none of his premise was women being less qualified in general but reasons why the pool is so low and the approach by google was less likely to impact the pool size and quality. Again hiring a higher percentage of women does not fix the base issue of quality and adequate training to match their male counter parts. I was in a typing class once. Took me all of 5 seconds to see why secretaries were generally women. Granted this was long ago but I had a new found appreciation for them because of that, they stomped my behind. So when I say women tend to make better secretaries does that mean men are not as good? No but based on the certain attributes, finger size, nimble, and such, women at the time definitely had an advantage. I didn't see it as sexist requirement or demeaning ( I really didn't give money much weight, rich or poor it is more about the person not their wealth).

For now it is fair to say certain races and genders have strengths and weakness in general. It wont always be this way, things change. Nor does it mean that anyone person cant try. I could go today and ride a horse in the Kentucky derby ( in theory because no way anyone would actually hire me) does it mean I can win... NO, and I mean NO WAY. I am 240lbs (healthy and in shape) so no matter how hard I train I will likely never win. Should I sue because no one will hire me? No because I know I am not qualified. But apparently in todays world I should and the government is supposed to make it so.
 
I don't see any evidence from Damore's own CV that he was disadvantaged in any way. He hasn't presented anything from his tenure at Google to substantiate that he was disadvantaged but maybe it will come out during his lawsuit.

As for the people on this board, I have no idea what their backgrounds are. I can only say that from the responses lately it's clear that many of the people championing this 10 page paper don't have the scientific or academic background to properly evaluate the claims laid out in it and that they are hostile to the scientific community if they perceive them to not substantiate their beliefs.
For every paper on one view point with a study to back it, there is another counter with equal weight stats. Besides, much like polls, they are rarely conclusive. Actually I haven't seen any proof provided in direct contradiction. Sure some sidestepping and some vague references to indifference, but nothing that contrasts his points as not usual or directly contradicting science. But he does cover what many here have seen and some may have experienced. I have worked in jobs that honestly had far higher numbers of women, most where I was the only male. I did the job better than most if not all the females when traditionally they fair better than men. Point is because of my background and possible ADD-like issues I excelled and can easily see that most men would not and the traditional likelihood of women doing the job better or having a greater affinity to do those jobs still stood. I am not so daft to believe that any job can not be done by any one well or that a person not traditionally seen in the field can not excel. But I can see that any form or gender or race bias excluding one is wrong no matter the reason.
 
JustReason
Am I misunderstanding what you wrote or did you just tell me that neither you nor he are arguing that women aren't necessarily inferior to men but that there aren't enough qualified women for Google to hire so they will necessarily pass over more qualified men to hire women?

And then double down with you recognizing that women are better secretaries than men based on 5 seconds in a typing class?

LOLFAIL
We both know you did not understand what a meta-analysis is. It's simply not possible to refer to a meta-analysis as a qualitative methodology if you know what it actually is unless you didn't realize that statistical methodology is quantitative.
 
Sorry but I'm going to a pool party. You guys are doing catastrophic damage to your own arguments, though.
 
Are asians a minority? Do they have it worse?
Are indians a minority? Do they have it worse?
Being a girl means you have it worse? How so?
Gay and transgendered is a privileged class (privilege in the classical sense as there are laws that give them more rights).

What really makes a difference is if you come from a two parent home and if they instill good values in you.
It's not a privilege if some parents suck and shouldn't have kids. It's just called bad parenting.


If you seriously can't see how life might be harder if you are constantly dismissed for being a woman, have to constantly worry if you are going to be attacked and raped (women) or beaten to death (gay/trans, minorities) and are intentionally discriminated against when it comes to opportunities, then I don't even know what to say. Maybe you should try walking a mile in someone else's shoes some day.

I'm not quite sure what you are referring to when you say that gay and trans people have more rights than everyone else. I'm really quite curious. Could you explain?

One thing I will agree with is that bad parenting can have a profound effect on the entire lives of children. Sometimes it isn't even bad parenting. Sometimes it's just that they are poor and need to work three jobs just to afford rent and just can't be there as much for their kids as a parent under better circumstances might. In either one of these cases though, it is not the childs fault. They were born into their circumstances not out of choice, but just out of old fashioned bad luck.

We shouldn't be striving to give everyone the same outcomes. That is just wrong. We shouldn't be hiring less qualified candidates just because of their race, their gender or anything else. These actions are just bandaids, and don't solve the underlying problems.

What we should do, what we have a moral responsibility to do, however, is to fix the underlying root causes of these conditions so that everyone can, if they have a will to work hard, have an equal opportunity. And this is going to take things like regulation of workplace environments to discourage discrimination, and massive spending in K-12 education and DCF programs to aid underprivileged children and help them get the same opportunities to learn and work hard and become successful as the lucky ones born into wealthy and caring families. Everyone hates taxes, myself included, but if it takes forgoing a few tax cuts for wealthy people to pay the trillions programs like these are going to cost, then it is our moral obligation to do so.
 
Checking in on page 7..

yep, cold blooded conservatives vs. bleeding heart liberals fighting it out. No opinions being changed. Moving on.
 
We both know you did not understand what a meta-analysis is. It's simply not possible to refer to a meta-analysis as a qualitative methodology if you know what it actually is unless you didn't realize that statistical methodology is quantitative.
We also both know that you have no fucking clue of what you are talking about because you were too lazy to click on article i am referencing. I can excuse a journalist being sloppier than a bad student, but someone who talks of academic credentials really should not be nearly as shameless as to not have a slightest clue of context. Good luck at party, btw.


If you seriously can't see how life might be harder if you are constantly dismissed for being a woman, have to constantly worry if you are going to be attacked and raped (women) or beaten to death (gay/trans, minorities) and are intentionally discriminated against when it comes to opportunities, then I don't even know what to say. Maybe you should try walking a mile in someone else's shoes some day.
Yeah, i am all for nuking middle east from orbit, but what any of that has to do with modern West?

One thing I will agree with is that bad parenting can have a profound effect on the entire lives of children. Sometimes it isn't even bad parenting. Sometimes it's just that they are poor and need to work three jobs just to afford rent and just can't be there as much for their kids as a parent under better circumstances might.
I'd argue it is bad parenting anyway, it is not that hard not to have kids if you can't afford to support them.

What we should do, what we have a moral responsibility to do, however, is to fix the underlying root causes of these conditions so that everyone can, if they have a will to work hard, have an equal opportunity.
I kind of agree with that, but from my perspective, even if it is feasible (it's not), it is not quantifiable.

And this is going to take things like regulation of workplace environments to discourage discrimination, and massive spending in K-12 education and DCF programs to aid underprivileged children and help them get the same opportunities to learn and work hard and become successful as the lucky ones born into wealthy and caring families
Uhm, and this is where it goes wrong. Let's just say that cheating natural selection has not gone well in last 5 or so billions of years and that's largely the crux of your proposition. Besides, to quote a certain person: "They are going to school to spray a gun". No amount of spending into education is going to fix bad parenting.
 
Back
Top