FYI, what you consider as "obvious" is false. The only thing I read online that prompted this thread was the memo itself, and various headlines/articles from left-leaning tech blogs and mainstream publications (CNN, NYT, Atlantic, etc.) which blatantly misrepresented the contents of the memo. I subsequently saw some headline from the National Review that appeared to champion what he said, but I didn't read the article. And if you are annoyed by the fact that his firing will add ammunition to "the other side" -- well, yeah. Maybe if people took a more dispassionate view of what he wrote and stuck to either looking for common ground or on refuting the scientific claims they considered to be false, rather than drumming up outrage and insisting he be fired over it, that wouldn't have led us to where we are. In the back of my mind, I kind of figure that this was where we might be heading, which had something to do with my "outrage over the outrage", as you put it.
The issue is who said it. Blacks don't like whites telling them how to pull themselves up either. Kinda works that way.... It also doesn't help having an Assburgery (aspergers) engineer guy trying to make social commentary in a profoundly stupid way that deserves to be fired, without question. Overly sensitive liberals overreacted right on time and limp-dick MAGA bros chest bumped. Meanwhile, I think the bigger issue is the surprising stupidity that social media causes. This bloke will be forgotten in 3 weeks max, and for whatever reason him and a bunch of other people think that just blabbing about what you believe in does anything. Social media has turned our society into a hot take, rapid reaction society.
Take this for what it's worth but I'd rank the following relevant fields for this issue in this order for reproducibility of research results: 1. Biology 2. Neuroscience ... 438. Psychology Not ranked because experiments very hard to control and usually impossible to reproduce: Sociology
So, out of curiosity, I perused this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences Lots of scientific studies cited there that show evidence for sex differences relating to brain anatomy and how that can lead to different cognitive abilities. I take it that linking to this page or mentioning some of the conclusions of scientific studies cited on this page, at work, is grounds for termination according to many people here. I'm curious, as a scientist, whether you find anything wrong with that?
Based on this comment, I would probably just fire you for sheer stupidity, to be honest. You don't seem very capable of making logical connections at all.
You are assuming he was fired for saying men and women have different neuroscience and that there are cognitive functions that are sexually dimorphic. Again, that was not his argument. He was speaking in terms of explaining performance and ambition. The problem with the idea of going there is it reflects gender stereotyping. The science does not support differences in job performance. So to extrapolate that from scientific studies that are very narrowly focused and not intended to speak to broader human behaviors isn't just careless, it's biased. And when you express bias towards a group of people you work with based on sex - a company has every right to fire you. If he didn't try to extrapolate in grossly stereotypical and unscientific ways he would be fine.
Wow. Not sure how to respond to that, since I'm not into the whole "you insult me, I insult you" thing. I'm sorry that's how our conversation on this topic had to end.
He was fired because its BAD timing right in the CURRENT climate of COMPLAINTS Google is getting about lack of woman. He's making their PR image and legal problems worse. Even IF Google can agree, they can't afford the public to turn on them. So the PUBLIC has tossed him out as much as Google did. (Google not having the stones or interest to stand up against it). If there wasnt any discrimination controversy, its probably different. The guy was rational enough to me. But throughout it all, still you CANNOT make biological/gender differences and gender measurements CODIFIED into analyzing candidates. Its directly telling women "You're biology more built to be a homemaker and waitress, but thank you for applying here! We'll see where we can put ya!"
Agreed. I do defend and agree 1/2 with memo writer. I've seen parents themselves say they raised their boy & girl kids neutral and they still showed "stereotypical gender" behavior regardless. (Though I think kids are still impressionable enough toward whatever is fed to them) But again its the abuse potential of putting biological differences into decision making. It can maybe explain some women, but it obviously doesnt explain all women. Yet the women that arent still have to get pre-judged by that. Basically a company isnt in position to make biological determinations on genetic differences INTO POLICY, if its to maintain the fair hiring standard. You just have to accept/assume that the candidates you get OVERCAME the limitations its why theyre there
I don't think I overreacted. Sexism and racism in the industry is real. The bias, lack of promotion, or credibility given to women is sometimes subtle and cliquish. Other times it's a frathouse brothel. I won't discount that there's dead weight that comes with questionable hires from quotas or anywhere, except if the dead weight was a white or Asian male, it wouldn't come with half the scrutiny or hidden agenda. So it isn't a hot take for me, much like others here who work in IT with mostly white/Asian dudes. For me at least, I'm more in a position to say and do something about it.
He was fired, apparently, for promoting stereotypes. What this really amounts to is that he made claims about biological/psychological differences between men and women and said they might explain differences in the applicant pool, hiring rate, and advancement of men/women within the company. If the first part of that is based on evidence from science exploring gender differences, and apparently it largely was, then the objection must be that he posited that there is a potential connection between the first part and second part. I still fail to see why this is an objectionable hypothesis. Does it only become wrong because it's not the sort of question that should be raised in a work environment because of how it might make people feel? I.e. Certain inquiries, while on their own might be the basis of legitimate science, should not be brought up in the workplace because they intersect with hot-button social issues? I find it bothersome, personally, that a legitimate scientific question should be treated as taboo for open discussion among educated and scientifically-literate adults, in any context. There are two separate issues. One is regarding the performance and upward mobility of women who are already employees at Google. The other is the number of women who apply and are hired at Google, relative to men. On the first issue, I don't know what studies have been done to assess job performance between men and women at companies like Google. It seems like it would be difficult to get that information publicly. On the second issue, the performance of women who are already hired (which may be as good or better than men, I don't know) does not necessarily explain why there are fewer women in general who apply. On whether his reference to narrowly-focused scientific studies is careless, I would agree that it is if he made a definitive statement like "women are X, Y, and Z, and this is why they're not represented in the same way." But that is not what he said. He wrote "women, on average, are X, Y, Z, compared to men, and this *may* explain why they're not represented in the same way." A few words that make a big difference, in my view. And, again, if he is making claims that are simply not supported by the science, then why not challenge him on those grounds? It should not be a fire-able offense to be mistaken on what the science says. Correct him and/or find some common understand of what the science actually supports, and then move on from there. Now, the official reason for why he was fired, apparently, was that he was advancing negative stereotypes. Re stereotypes: the main problem isn't that they're baseless (sometimes they are, sometimes not). It's that people often use them to make rash judgments about individuals that are not logically sound. In the context of his memo, he was not evoking stereotypes to critique any individual person. He was discussing possible explanations for statistical differences in representation. Scientists, political scientists, and the news media do this all the time. I feel like I'm making this point over and over, but it's not landing for whatever reason. Can you offer an explanation for why you find this point unconvincing? I don't agree that's what he was doing, but maybe this discussion has reached the end of the road. Do you want to seek out some common ground here, or end it?
At no point does he suggest that would be appropriate. He says very clearly that you can't apply it to individual evaluations.
I came across this 2005 debate "THE SCIENCE OF GENDER AND SCIENCE" which looks like it will be interesting to go through (haven't yet done so): https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/debate05/debate05_index.html Haven't gone through it yet, but posting it in case others are interested in particular on the nature vs nurture question in regard to gender differences. I also came across these 4 reactions to the Google memo from four scientists who are in this field: http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/ I've never read stuff from "quillette.com", but in case people are wondering according to mediabias fact check it has a center-right, libertertarian "bias" but is considered generally factual and a well written source: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/quillette/ Sam Harris is an obviously well known persona in the neuroscience arena, known perhaps for some controversial opinions of his own. Here is his "hot take" of this topic on his subreddit which I found interesting:
This guy got fired because he raise a discussion that the left does not want to have... it isn't very complicated.
Can't remember who was claiming the content was not the problem but where he posted it. It was posted and discussed in "considered-harmful" and "harmful-discuss" which blows that argument up. There is also a mile long list of studies showing personality difference between the sexes, even the one posted earlier showed significant differences in areas.
We actually have no idea why they fired him, honestly. Maybe his performance sucked ass and he knew this was coming. Maybe there were already myriad internal HR complaints about him. But if they did fire him because he was a distraction or bad for business, I assume conservatives would celebrate that employer sovereignty, no matter what dude wrote. This in part is an answer to what you asked me, @durvasa .
