The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it


  • :belt_onion:

    @hungrier said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    @wharrgarbl said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    Because you have to judge people on their own merit

    What are you some kind of sexist woman-hating misogynist? That's exactly what the guy said in his essay:
    0_1502299843584_319cda8e-05bd-4b2d-bee8-36cf8743ce57-image.png

    and that is one of the good points of his essay.

    if he could go back and chop out the part where he lists reasons why women are genetically unfit for difficult/stressful/logical work, i think everything would have been fine for him. It's a 10 page document - yay 1 sentence is sensible. Too bad that's about 0.0000001% of his dissertation (actually it's probably more like 60/40, but i'm talking specifically about the above highlighted line in his defense)


  • BINNED

    @sumireko It's not ironic, it just follows the trend. Modern liberalism is the opposite of liberalism, just like social justice is the opposite of justice, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is actually a totalitarian feudal monarchy, and the Great October Socialist Revolution wasn't that big at all, was Bolshevik instead of socialist, was more like a coup d'etat than a revolution, and happened in November.


  • BINNED

    @darkmatter I think the part you're talking about would have to be there first.



  • @anotherusername said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    affirmative action-type recruitment -- hiring people who are under-qualified just because they happen to be from a particular group that you want to include purely for the sake of diversity -- is not necessarily good or productive.

    Actually, affirmative action-type recruitment is necessarily evil and counterproductive. Why? If you hold women to lower standard then men, you will make underperformance actually correlated with being a women. So when somebody gets a woman assigned to their team, they'll tend to treat her as idiot (people with great technical intelligence tend to lack on the social one and not be diplomatic). Not because of superstition, but because of experience. Congratulations, you've made the work environment worse for the group you wanted to attract! And one that cares a lot at that, as women—on average—give more weight to interpersonal relationships.

    @anotherusername said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    Yes, but again, I think it's a motivation thing, and there, the roles are reversed; there aren't very many men in those positions. I think it's probably equally correct to say that the fact that engineering/technology jobs involve working long hours doesn't help motivate women to enter those careers, and the fact that medical jobs involve working long hours doesn't help motivate men to enter those.

    … which shows that the hours don't matter that much when the work is considered interesting. The article linked by @boomzilla (here) has an explanation that does work pretty well.



  • @bulb said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    people with great technical intelligence tend to lack on the social one and not be diplomatic

    Nice stereotype. Maybe you can provide more than anecdotes to prove that statement?


  • kills Dumbledore

    @bulb said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    If you hold women to lower standard then men, you will make underperformance actually correlated with being a women

    If there is actual institutionalised sexism, then women will on average be more qualified and capable than others at the same level, as they have to demonstrate more competence to get to the same level. This is actually used as a way to identify institutionalised prejudice in organisations (remind me later and I'll try to dig out the article I'm remembering this from).

    In that case, "lowering the standards for women" would actually be trying to force the same standards on them. I agree that this wouldn't work though, because the perception would be that they are less qualified and so the prejudice wouldn't go away. It's trying to treat the symptom rather than the disease, like cutting off your hand because you broke a finger and it hurts


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @jaloopa said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    It's trying to treat the symptom rather than the disease

    Not entirely, because that particular symptom has a psychological effect which makes the problem worse.



  • All of this is actually meh.

    Some say, he draws correct conclusions (treat people as unique individuals) from incorrect premises (women are less fit for stressful work, lulwat?), or that he draws incorrect conclusions (because WE NEED MOAR QUOTAZ FOR TEH DIEVRSITY!) from correct premises (brains are wired quite a bit differently between sexes). I say, I'm not a biologist, fuck it all.

    The Damore guy is a typical nerd, of the basement-dwelling variety even if he doesn't actually live in one. The moment my subjective, label-spouting eyes saw him move on the Youtube video, I knew he too lives in a bubble of his own. There's nothing wrong with such people per se (apart from them not getting laid too often which again is not my problem), and they can reason logically and shit, but they totally cannot into politics. And this issue of diversity is so fucking political that I wouldn't poke it with a pole 10 miles long, no matter how brilliantly I'd fix it if I were a Dark Overlord.

    And yes it does matter who presents you with an idea, no matter what the actual idea says. Because the person gives a context. A person who committed one or more social faux pas (there are hearsays circulating about his time in college) just recently cannot be taken seriously on social topics. It is that fucking simple.

    You know why? I won't give any citation, but people are wired to do such things. They label, they generalize, they tag other people all the time. Because judging and categorizing people and all other stuff, and estimating accompanying risks is a fucking survival trait. If you send a strong "not one of us" signal and give a fucking advice at the same time, you kinda welcome people to go full berserk on you.

    Wait, it was that same memo which advocated working around what we perceive as an unfortunate social deficiency instead of going full frontal attack. How ironic.

    But anyway. I see the same patterns emerge in any recent shitstorm. This is where things get actually interesting and welcome research.

    • A schmuck says or does something which provokes outrage
    • Media totally misrepresent everything in their version of the story, because they only read Twitter or Facebook these days
    • Two camps can be identified very soon, some strongly and blindly defending the victim, some just as strongly and just as blindly defending the "agressor", with people seeking a kind of a middle ground and objective truth being few and far between
    • A day or two into the shitstorm someone throws a compromising and sensational gossip/fact/insinuation/whatever about the victim so "folks, he's not as saint!" (Dr Dao had a criminal record! Damore doesn't have a PhD! The donglegate guy was on the verge of firing long before the incident! You name it)
    • More shitstorm ensues, the camps get divided by the new information
    • No one does fact checking, ever
    • Behind the scenes, the actual parties realize they are neck deep in shit and settle
    • A few days later everyone forgets what was the rage. People move on with their lives until the next shitstorm.

    My own conclusions: if I were a dark overlord, I would shoot, hang, and gas all the journalists. Good journalists would receive good funerals. They are outliers anyway.

    I hope Google settles matters with Damore, and Damore uses the money to come outside a bit more.


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @blek said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    the Great October Socialist Revolution wasn't that big at all

    If you look at it in terms of impact on the course of world history, it was one of the most significant events this side of the American Revolution. We're still feeling the repercussions today.




  • ♿ (Parody)

    @tsaukpaetra said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    I didn't like toy dolls or toy diggers.

    I liked both, though my dolls were of the violent action figure variety (GI Joe, Star Wars, He Man, etc), not the baby / play house types.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @darkmatter said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    if he could go back and chop out the part where he lists reasons why women are genetically unfit for difficult/stressful/logical work, i think everything would have been fine for him.

    Sure, just leave out the science.


  • :belt_onion:

    @boomzilla said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    science.

    😆

    oh, you were serious.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @darkmatter said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    @boomzilla said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    science.

    😆

    oh, you were serious.

    Yes. Did you read anything other than people confidently proclaiming that he got the science wrong without actually knowing anything about the current state of knowledge of the subject?

    I posted a couple of links near the start of the thread if you're interested.



  • @blakeyrat said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    Particularly in suggesting strongly that biological differences are responsible for there being fewer women in technology. Schools in the Middle East and central asia prove him wrong

    He goes on to say that changes in the work environment could support women in technology.

    It's hard to compare with central asia. Totally different culture group.

    Biological differences determine expression, expression changes on the culture. They work in concert.

    He might have a point about biological differences resulting in fewer women in technology in our tech work environments.



  • @darkmatter said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    Too bad that's about 0.0000001% of his dissertation

    I read it.

    The entire thing, including the parts where he notes biologically differences, are geared towards coming up with alternative ways to promoting women in the workplace based on scientifically examining the differences and gearing the workplace to fit women better.

    EVEN IF he's wrong about women being less fit for difficult/stressful/logical work, then the result should be a conversation to determine which factors are right, and how to alter the workplace environment to support women by the determined factors. Not firing him.

    Even the head of Diversity at Google said as much, before the CEO stepped in with his stupidity.

    Besides, the part about difficult/stressful/logical work was actually this "women show a preference for work/life balance" "men are guided by status symbols are are more likely to take on the work".

    His point was that upper management is a bad fit for ANYONE, and that women were more likely to recognize that than men. It was a negative trait for men, not women.

    It's been shown that women enter upper management and don't last long. They leave due to family commitments. The harder feminists press to eliminate the stay-at-home mom role, the more women leave the workplace.


  • :belt_onion:

    @boomzilla said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    Did you read anything other than people confidently proclaiming that he got the science wrong without actually knowing anything about the current state of knowledge of the subject?

    I wasn't laughing at the science being wrong or nonexistent, just the application of the science to the situation to cry about women getting opportunities at google. Again, I didn't think he deserved to be fired for it, but a lot of the content that was presented looked very concern trollish to me.

    Here, have a read about what one of those scientists that is actually referenced in the memo had to say:

    David P. Schmitt :
    A Google employee recently shared a memo that referenced some of my scholarly research on psychological sex differences (e.g., personality traits, mate preferences, status-seeking). Alongside other evidence, the employee argued, in part, that this research indicates affirmative action policies based on biological sex are misguided. Maybe, maybe not. Let me explain.
    I think it’s really important to discuss this topic scientifically, keeping an open mind and using informed skepticism when evaluating claims about evidence. In the case of personality traits, evidence that men and women may have different average levels of certain traits is rather strong. For instance, sex differences in negative emotionality are universal across cultures; developmentally emerge across all cultures at exactly the same time; are linked to diagnosed (not just self-reported) mental health issues; appear rooted in sex differences in neurology, gene activation, and hormones; are larger in more gender egalitarian nations; and so forth (for a short review of this evidence, see here.)
    But 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 (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 less than 10% of the variance). So, using someone’s biological sex to essentialize an entire group of people’s personality would be like 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.
    As to sex differences in mate preferences and status-seeking, these topics also have been heavily researched across cultures (for a review, see here). Again, though, most of these sex differences are moderate in size and in my view are unlikely to be all that relevant to the Google workplace (accounting for, perhaps, a few percentage points of the variability between men’s and women’s performances). Sex differences in occupational interests, personal values, and certain cognitive abilities are a bit larger in size (see here), but most psychological sex differences are only small to moderate in size, and rather than grouping men and women into dichotomous groups, I think sex and sex differences are best thought of scientifically as multidimensional dials, anyway (see here.)

    There have been (and likely will continue to be) many socio-structural barriers to women working in technological jobs. These include culturally-embedded gender stereotypes, biased socialization practices, in some cultures explicit employment discrimination, and a certain degree of masculinization of technological workplaces. 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. At the same time, should we be able to openly discuss and be informed by some of the real psychological sex differences that might account for variation in men’s and women’s workplace performance? In the right context, I vote yes to that, too.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @darkmatter said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    I wasn't laughing at the science being wrong or nonexistent, just the application of the science to the situation to cry about women getting opportunities at google. Again, I didn't think he deserved to be fired for it, but a lot of the content that was presented looked very concern trollish to me.

    Maybe. And yes, I did read this response. There's a good argument that he over / misinterpreted some things. But also, this statement:

    So, using someone’s biological sex to essentialize an entire group of people’s personality would be like operating with an axe.

    Reads like a strawman to me.

    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.

    And he's in agreement with the author there.


  • :belt_onion:

    @boomzilla said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    Reads like a strawman to me.

    lol. ok? I'm pretty sure that's what people in the business* like to call a metaphor**. I am almost certain that he is not literally comparing the two.

    @boomzilla said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    And he's in agreement with the author there.

    didn't say he wasn't partially in agreement with the author. As noted, I am too.

    * by "the business", i mean "the collection of idiots that don't know the difference between similes and metaphors"
    **simile



  • @darkmatter said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    lol. ok? I'm pretty sure that's what people in the business like to call a metaphor. I am almost certain that he is not literally comparing the two.

    What bz said was that the guy didn't actually do that. It was just what people assumed that he did due to a combination of oversimplifying, misinterpreting, and just flat out not bothering to actually read what he wrote.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @darkmatter said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    @boomzilla said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    Reads like a strawman to me.

    lol. ok? I'm pretty sure that's what people in the business like to call a metaphor. I am almost certain that he is not literally comparing the two.

    :rolleyes: I was obviously talking about "essentializ[ing] an entire group of people’s personality," which is what he's been accused of but is certainly not what he did, blakey.





  • @anotherusername said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    @darkmatter said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    lol. ok? I'm pretty sure that's what people in the business like to call a metaphor. I am almost certain that he is not literally comparing the two.

    What bz said was that the guy didn't actually do that. It was just what people assumed that he did due to a combination of oversimplifying, misinterpreting, and just flat out not bothering to actually read what he wrote.

    Because saying there is a difference at all is creating a harmful stereotype.

    It doesn't matter if it's true or not.

    The information is harmful, and therefore not allowed.

    And this is the frustrating eggshell people have to walk around. The statements from the "progressives" in this case is that there is nuance and there is a way to state facts that don't create harmful stereotypes. They have yet to produce an example, so it's disingenuous at best, and outright hostile at worst. This creates the pushback that says they are anti-science, etc.

    Until they demonstrate a statistical comparison that isn't classified as a harmful stereotype, I can't take them at their word, and neither should anyone else, less they be judged so harshly.


  • BINNED

    @xaade said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    The statements from the "progressives" in this case is that there is nuance and there is a way to state facts that don't create harmful stereotypes. They have yet to produce an example

    You mean "teach men not to rape" doesn't count?



  • @antiquarian said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    @xaade said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    The statements from the "progressives" in this case is that there is nuance and there is a way to state facts that don't create harmful stereotypes. They have yet to produce an example

    You mean "teach men not to rape" doesn't count?

    FUCK..... FUCK FUCK....

    Ok, look, I give up.

    So sick of trying to make something sensible.


  • Garbage Person

    @karla said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    She later insisted on X-rays and other procedures that I had to refuse additional medical treatment and leave AMA.

    Could be worse. She could have been a claims adjuster and denied you coverage.


  • BINNED

    @xaade said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    So sick of trying to make something sensible.

    The Quixotic Ideas thread is over there :arrows:.

    Seriously, though, why would you expect something sensible to come out of this? People who object to stereotypes while stereotyping other groups themselves can't be reasoned with.


  • :belt_onion:

    @xaade which is why he was doing ok until a couple of pages in.

    If he actually wanted to be helpful, then he simply says, here are some other ways we could try to reach out to women that might work better than our current approach, like adding some jobs that involve more interaction, etc, no one bats an eye.

    Instead he complains about how men are getting screwed and discriminated against for nothing because the extra opportunities for women won't work because women aren't suited for tech jobs anyway, and maybe we should change the jobs so women might like it.

    Now he and all conservatives are trying to claim he was just trying to help, which is the biggest crock of shit I've ever heard. In the end it looks like a giant woe is me and my conservative brethren concern trolling.



  • @darkmatter That was my original premise.

    The problem isn't that this guy is some kind of horrible monster, but he definitely should have had someone read and edit (with a BIG RED MARKER) before he published it for other human beings to see.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @darkmatter said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    Now he and all conservatives are trying to claim he was just trying to help, which is the biggest crock of shit I've ever heard. In the end it looks like a giant woe is me and my conservative brethren concern trolling.

    I'm not saying he couldn't have been more politic with his writing, but I'm definitely disagreeing with you on this.


  • :belt_onion:

    @hungrier said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    Simile.

    yes damnit. i knew i'd screw that one up.

    @boomzilla said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    I was obviously talking about "essentializ[ing] an entire group of people’s personality," which is what he's been accused of but is certainly not what he did, blakey.

    You mean the long lead in about how "women on average" are blah blah blah followed by a section of so we should/shouldn't do this because of that, is not essentializing?

    @blakeyrat said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    That was my original premise

    blakey agrees with me... i'm screwed.

    @boomzilla said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    I'm definitely disagreeing with you on this

    Perfectly understandable, it was only my opinion anyway.



  • @darkmatter said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    Instead he complains about how men are getting screwed and discriminated against for nothing because the extra opportunities for women won't work because women aren't suited for tech jobs anyway, and maybe we should change the jobs so women might like it.

    That's not exactly how I interpreted it.

    I interpreted it as this.

    "Quotas won't work because the workplace isn't designed with women in mind. Let's fix the workplace so that we get qualified women, rather than just pass on men at interviews because we haven't filled a spot with a women yet."


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @darkmatter said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    You mean the long lead in about how "women on average" are blah blah blah followed by a section of so we should/shouldn't do this because of that, is not essentializing?

    Yes.

    @darkmatter said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    blakey agrees with me... i'm screwed

    Yes.

    OK, to expound on the first statement, he was very careful to talk about what population characteristics mean with respect to individuals. If he hadn't done that then you'd have a good point. But he did so you don't.

    Unless you're taking the concept of using any statistical tendencies to guide action to be the most efficient or whatever as being essentialist. But that would mean that the axe simile doesn't apply. Basically, I see that comment as describing some of the hysterical reactions to the essay, not to the essay itself.



  • @darkmatter

    If he's right about the workplace not attracting women, then it will inevitably require hiring less qualified women.

    This actually will harm any effort to advance women in the workplace.

    If he's just saying that women can't work as tech workers, then I disagree with him, but that takes a lot of questionable interpretation to get to that point.


  • :belt_onion:

    @boomzilla said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    certainly not what he did, blakey.

    look what you've done. first you call me blakey and now he's agreeing with me.
    oh right we're all your alts anyway, of course this is how it goes


  • :belt_onion:

    @xaade said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    "Quotas won't work because the workplace isn't designed with women in mind. Let's fix the workplace so that we get qualified women, rather than just pass on men at interviews because we haven't filled a spot with a women yet."

    Given the current ratio that can only be accomplished by either hiring more women than men to even it out, or firing more men than women. And Damore did end up helping them out - by casting his vote for firing more men ;)

    *edited out first part because sentence wording sucked and i didn't like how it read; kept the second part because i liked my joke


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @darkmatter said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    And Damore did end up helping them out - by casting his vote for firing more men

    I doubt that even Google can afford to balance out that way, but we'll have to wait and see what the settlement is.


  • :belt_onion:

    @boomzilla said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    I doubt that even Google can afford to balance out that way

    i doubt they can afford to balance that way due to the talent loss that would come with that method, not the likelihood that any of the fired men could reach a settlement for it.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @darkmatter said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    i doubt they can afford to balance that way due to the talent loss that would come with that method, not the likelihood that any of the fired men could reach a settlement for it.

    The media / twitter / tumblr interpretation of your post would be 🍿.



  • @boomzilla said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    I doubt that even Google can afford to balance out that way, but we'll have to wait and see what the settlement is.

    If they fired 75% of their YouTube team and replaced them with rando new hires from, say, Colorado, I can't imagine how the product would get worse. I wager it'd get a lot better.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @blakeyrat I was referring to the financial cost of illegally firing people, sex being a protected class.



  • @darkmatter said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    he was doing ok until a couple of pages in.

    Wouldn't have mattered if he'd left it at that by the time the lynch mob got wind that he'd written it.


  • :belt_onion:

    @boomzilla said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    i doubt they can afford to balance that way due to the talent loss that would come with that method

    note that i did not say relative talent loss, blakey
    Firing half of your men so that you have the same number of men as women = less total employees = less total talent.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @darkmatter said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    note that i did not say relative talent loss, blakey

    You think the mobs are down with that sort of verbal nuance?



  • @boomzilla said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    @blakeyrat I was referring to the financial cost of illegally firing people, sex being a protected class.

    That's easy. "We're having a layoff. Bye!" They don't have to give a reason.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @dcon said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    @boomzilla said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    @blakeyrat I was referring to the financial cost of illegally firing people, sex being a protected class.

    That's easy. "We're having a layoff. Bye!" They don't have to give a reason.

    Yeah, but they don't have to in order to get in trouble for that sort of thing.


  • :belt_onion:

    @boomzilla said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    Yeah, but they don't have to in order to get in trouble for that sort of thing.

    They can layoff using other criteria and target men via subterfuge

    *i think i can actually hear @boomzilla's head exploding after he read that
    ** this joke jeffed for raisins


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @darkmatter Yeah, they'd have to disguise what they're doing and definitely can some women.


  • Trolleybus Mechanic

    @karla said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    @wharrgarbl said in The Google Memo and the terrible reporting of it:

    @cartman82

    I was actually going to see if I could find this image.

    A long while ago I remember reading about a gender stereotype study that let little boys play with whatever. When most of the boys chose to play with dolls it almost always ended up becoming Sgt. Barbie or Barbie Slaughter type play.


  • :belt_onion:

    @boomzilla I am disappoint son. no retort about the gender pay gap myth? HAVE YOU SEEN THROUGH MY TROLLING?! Or was the implied gender pay gap troll joke not implied hard enough? 😢


Log in to reply