Google Memo Firing

[Ein]

Oh yeah. Google fired the employee, James Damore, who spoke out against the echo chamber in Google. The memo he wrote had a bunch of citations from peer reviewed research/studies which got many a people angry at how men and women have biological differences and how those make a difference. Damore has been demonized by the MSM and left wing outlets for saying how men and women have differences that are scientifically proven.

Then again science in general is being attacked as feelings must take precedent. Over science. Society is fucked.

Being guilty of wrong think is becoming a huge issue lately as many left leaning outlets are censoring, harassing, intimidating, and firing those who challenge or criticize the left or support the right.

Summarization of the memo here: http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320/amp

I can't find the actual 10 page memo/letter again so if someone can link it please do.

[Res]

Feelings aren't taking priority over science. Damore's memo is full of scientific inaccuracy and/or misinterprets the studies he is quoting. 

This Wired article actually quotes the author of one of the studies Damore quoted as disagreeing with Damore's analysis. 

This article cites many experts who disagree with Damore's memo and also examines some of the sociological explanations for the conclusions drawn, including the supposition that women are more neurotic/anxious than men. (This is something I've seen evidenced for myself, working in tech companies in the Bay Area). Basically, women's higher levels of work stress comes not from the work itself, but from male colleagues.

[Time the Crestfallen]

Leaving aside the fact that half your post is nothing more than left/right flame-baiting, as Res stated the science is very much not behind him on this. Evolutionary Psychology is at best, a proto-science that doesn't have any real relevance yet because of how under-developed it is and at worse right up there with Astrology and Alchemy in terms of pseudo-scientific bullshit. The things he said is the kind of stuff I'd expect out of a Red-Piller or an Incel.

48 minutes ago, Res said:

This article cites many experts who disagree with Damore's memo and also examines some of the sociological explanations for the conclusions drawn, including the supposition that women are more neurotic/anxious than men. (This is something I've seen evidenced for myself, working in tech companies in the Bay Area). Basically, women's higher levels of work stress comes not from the work itself, but from male colleagues.

To add on to this;

 

Edited August 16, 2017 by Mortarion

[Life]

10 hours ago, Res said:

Feelings aren't taking priority over science. Damore's memo is full of scientific inaccuracy and/or misinterprets the studies he is quoting. 

This Wired article actually quotes the author of one of the studies Damore quoted as disagreeing with Damore's analysis. 

This article cites many experts who disagree with Damore's memo and also examines some of the sociological explanations for the conclusions drawn, including the supposition that women are more neurotic/anxious than men. (This is something I've seen evidenced for myself, working in tech companies in the Bay Area). Basically, women's higher levels of work stress comes not from the work itself, but from male colleagues.

Well, no, that's actually incorrect. Like, scientifically.

How about a clinical psychologist who actually teaches personality?

 

That's just for starters but everything Demore stated is actually backed up by empirical fact.

And here's a list of sources to back up every single claim.

Here are a series of references buttressing the claims of James' memo:

Sex differences in personality/cognition:
Lynn (1996): http://bit.ly/2vThoy8
Lippa (2008): http://bit.ly/2vmtSMs
Lippa (2010): http://bit.ly/2fBVn0G
Weisberg (2011): http://bit.ly/2gJVmEp
Del Giudice (2012): http://bit.ly/2vEKTUx

Larger/large and stable sex differences in more gender-neutral countries: (These findings run precisely contrary to social constructionist theory: it's been tested, and it's wrong).

Katz-Gerrog (2000): http://bit.ly/2uoY9c4
Costa (2001): http://bit.ly/2utaTT3
Schmitt (2008): http://bit.ly/2p6nHYY
Schmitt (2016): http://bit.ly/2wMN45j

Differences in men and women's interest/priorities:
Lippa (1998): http://bit.ly/2vr0PHF
Rong Su (2009): http://bit.ly/2wtlbzU
Lippa (2010): http://bit.ly/2wyfW23
See also Geary (2017) blog: http://bit.ly/2vXqCcF

Life paths of mathematically gifted females and males:
Lubinski (2014): http://bit.ly/2vSjSxb

Sex differences in academic achievement unrelated to political, economic, or social equality:
Stoet (2015): http://bit.ly/1EAfqOt

Big Five trait agreeableness and (lower) income (including for men):
Spurk (2010): http://bit.ly/2vu1x6E
Judge (2012): http://bit.ly/2uxhwQh

The general importance of exposure to sex-linked steroids on fetal and then lifetime development:
Hines (2015) http://bit.ly/2uufOiv

Exposure to prenatal testosterone and interest in things or people (even when the exposure is among females):
Berenbaum (1992): http://bit.ly/2uKxpSQ
Beltz (2011): http://bit.ly/2hPXC1c
Baron-Cohen (2014): http://bit.ly/2vn4KXq
Hines (2016): http://bit.ly/2hPYKSu

Primarily biological basis of personality sex differences:
Lippa (2008): http://bit.ly/2vmtSMs
Ngun (2010): http://bit.ly/2vJ6QSh

Status and sex: males and females
Perusse (1993): http://bit.ly/2uoIOw8
Perusse (1994): http://bit.ly/2vNzcL6
Buss (2008): http://bit.ly/2uumv4g
de Bruyn (2012): http://bit.ly/2uoWkMh

To quote de Bruyn et al: high status predicts more mating opportunities and, thus, increased reproductive success. “This is true for human adults in many cultures, both ‘modern’ as well as ‘primitive’ (Betzig, 1986). In fact, this theory seems to be confirmed for non-human primates (Cheney, 1983; Cowlishaw and Dunbar, 1991; Dewsbury, 1982; Gray, 1985; Maslow, 1936) and other animals from widely differing ecologies (Ellis, 1995) such as squirrels (Farentinos, 1972), cockerels (Kratzer and Craig, 1980), and cockroaches (Breed, Smith, and Gall, 1980).” Status also increases female reproductive success, via a different pathway: “For females, it is generally argued that dominance is not necessarily a path to more copulations, as it is for males. It appears that important benefits bestowed upon dominant women are access to resources and less harassment from rivals (Campbell, 2002). Thus, dominant females tend to have higher offspring survival rates, at least among simians (Pusey, Williams, and Goodall, 1997); thus, dominance among females also appears to be linked to reproductive success.”

Personality and political belief:
Gerber (2010): http://bit.ly/2hOpnHa
Hirsh (2010): http://bit.ly/2fsxIzB
Gerber (2011): http://bit.ly/2hJ1Kjb
Xu (2013): http://bit.ly/2ftDhOq
Burton (2015): http://bit.ly/2uoPS87
Bakker (2016): http://bit.ly/2vMlQ1N

Occupations by gender:
http://bit.ly/2vTdgPp

Problems with the measurement and concept of unconscious bias:
Fielder (2006): http://bit.ly/2vGzhQP
Blanton (2009): http://bit.ly/2vQuwEP (this one is particularly damning)

Microaggressions: Strong claims, weak evidence:
Lilienfeld (2017): http://bit.ly/2vS28lg


And, just for kicks, two links discussing the massive over-representation of the left in, most particularly, the humanities:
Klein (2008): http://bit.ly/2fwdLrS
Langbert (2016): http://bit.ly/2cV53Q8

Edited August 16, 2017 by Comrade

[Res]

I have to wonder if you actually read either of the two links I posted since they address the issues with many of the studies you quoted, and specifically name a few (Schmitt is the author who disagrees with Damore, and Baron-Cohen is also named, for a start).

The question isn't whether biological differences exist, or whether 'on average' women differ from men. A lot of the base facts aren't necessarily in dispute. The Wired article even says:

Quote

 In fact, one recurring finding in sex difference research is that in cultures seen as more egalitarian, differences in preferences between men and women become more pronounced. With more opportunity, says one hypothesis, men and women are more likely to follow their respective blisses.

What's questioned is its relevance to working in the tech industry and its application to anti-discrimination practices, especially as the tech industry is not an 'average' one.

Quote

The first-order criticism here is easy: Damore oversells the difference cited in the paper. As Schmitt tells WIRED via email, “These sex differences in neuroticism are not very large, with biological sex perhaps accounting for only 10 percent of the variance.” The other 90 percent, in other words, are the result of individual variation, environment, and upbringing.

And to look at some of Damore's suggestions in the memo:

Quote

● Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things ○ We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration.

● Women on average are more cooperative ○ Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive.

● Women on average are more prone to anxiety ○ Make tech and leadership less stressful.

- Making software engineering more 'people-orientated' and 'co-operative'. How is this any better for anyone involved? Women who go into software engineering are probably partially drawn in by the lack of people interaction. Let's also not forget that computer programming used to be considered women's work (just as teaching used to be considered men's work) and no women had issues with the very nature of the work then. What women in tech have said, time and time again, is not that the work itself or the applications it has needs to change, but that male employees simply need to listen to and not dismiss their female colleagues. 

The majority of my work is in accounting and a large part of why I like it is because it requires very little interaction with people. Accounting is largely insular and largely math-based and yet it is a career fairly evenly divided between men and women; it does not have the same societal perception that it's a 'man's job' and women's abilities are not routinely in question.

- Making 'tech and leadership less stressful'. Not only is this vague and unhelpful advice, but again, there's no evidence to suggest the work itself is a root cause of stress for women. To quote the second article:

Quote

He implies that stress and anxiety are personality traits inherent in females, but more likely they are due to the pressures and discrimination women face on the job that men do not. For example, a 2008 report sponsored by major companies, “The Athena Factor,” found that women in high positions in male-dominated fields, such as tech, suffer harsher penalties than men when they slip up. Women don’t get second chances. Men do.

Here's another response from a female tech worker who expounds upon the above points:

Quote

To be a woman in tech is also to always and forever be faced with skepticism that I do and feel all those things authentically enough to truly belong. There is always a jury, and it’s always still out.
...

If, as the manifesto’s defenders claim, the population averages do not have anything to say about individual Googlers, who are all exceptional, then why is Google the subject of the manifesto’s arguments at all? What do averages have to do with hiring practices at a company that famously hires fewer than one percent of applicants? In the name of the rational empiricism and quantitative rigor that the manifesto holds so dear, shouldn’t we insist that it only cite studies that specifically speak to the tails of the distribution — to the actual pool of women Google draws from?

For example, we could look to the percentage of women majoring in computer science at highly selective colleges and universities. Women currently make up about 30 percent of the computer science majors at Stanford University, one key source of Google’s elite workforce. Harvey Mudd College, another elite program, has seen its numbers grow steadily for many years, and is currently at about 50 percent women in their computer science department.

Yet Google’s workforce is just 19 percent female. So even if we imagine for a moment that the manifesto is correct and there is some biological ceiling on the percentage of women who will be suited to work at Google — less than 50 percent of their workforce — isn’t it the case that Google, and tech generally, is almost certainly not yet hitting that ceiling?

...

He does make some recommendations, but they range from impotent (“Make tech and leadership less stressful”) to hopelessly vague (“Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive”) to outright hostile (“De-emphasize empathy”).

In the end, focusing the conversation on the minutiae of the scientific claims in the manifesto is a red herring. Regardless of whether biological differences exist, there is no shortage of glaring evidence, in individual stories and in scientific studies, that women in tech experience bias and a general lack of a welcoming environment, as do underrepresented minorities. Until these problems are resolved, our focus should be on remedying that injustice. After that work is complete, we can reassess whether small effect size biological components have anything to do with lingering imbalances.

Now, if you want to argue whether or not Damore should have been fired for his memo, that's a different matter. I can agree that he should not have been fired. It also sounds as if his memo was not given a proper platform at Google and the female employees were not given an adequate chance to respond to it. But just throwing a bunch of linked studies does nothing to dispute the rebuttals to his memo.