Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=bitches;53139755]Let's say you have 10 new positions. You've got 800 men and 200 women looking to be hired, and 20% of applicants are what Google thinks of as high quality. Now you've got 160 men and 40 women looking to get hired, but only 10 people get in. Are you claiming that it would be discriminatory if Google didn't hire 8 men and 2 women?[/QUOTE] No, but it would absolutely be discriminatory if Google looked at collection of 160 men and 40 women and then picked an even number of both every single time. Google doesn't round up hundreds of "good enough" candidates and then throw darts. Their interview process is designed to sieve through all candidates and pick the best ones. It's extremely competitive, and it simply doesn't end with them looking at a spread of hundreds of candidates and then picking 10. Think about it. If you had 200 candidates remaining, why would you just arbitrarily pick some instead of actually figuring out which the best were?

lmao I just noticed the fine print at the bottom [QUOTE]We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status [B](which is illegal and I’ve seen it done)[/B].[/QUOTE] wow why did this guy get fired really makes me :thinking:

[QUOTE=phygon;53139803]No, but it would absolutely be discriminatory if Google looked at collection of 160 men and 40 women and then picked an even number of both every single time. Google doesn't round up hundreds of "good enough" candidates and then throw darts. Their interview process is designed to sieve through all candidates and pick the best ones. It's extremely competitive, and it simply doesn't end with them looking at a spread of hundreds of candidates and then picking 10. Think about it. If you had 200 candidates remaining, why would you just arbitrarily pick some instead of actually figuring out which the best were?[/QUOTE] So if you had a large pool of candidates from which there was no discernible difference in talent among the top percentile (because it's fucking Google), it would be [I]discriminatory[/I] and out of line to break that tie such to increase diversity?

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53139800]page 6, under "The harm of Googles biases".[/QUOTE] So let me expand on my point here: Again, James Damore isn't saying that Google needs to restructure their workforce in the [b]present[/b], and this is more of him pointing out biases than saying the people are utterly not talented. The "diversity" employees are most likely talented, but if Google is implementing a focus on diversity over meritocracy for hiring, then it is fair to point out that this is a bias and probably not the optimal method in the sense of productivity. But even then, the main point of the memo is to address methods to closing the gender gap. You failed to include the preface for the beliefs he made on that page too. [quote=James Damore]I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices: [/quote] I think it is unfair to include this when it is clearly stated he isn't for removing the focus for diversity.

[QUOTE=bitches;53139817]So if you had a large pool of candidates from which there was no discernible difference in talent among the top percentile (because it's fucking Google), it would be [I]discriminatory[/I] and out of line to break that tie such to increase diversity?[/QUOTE] I didn't realize that we were arguing about imaginary situations, my bad. Google's application culling process is both brutal and thorough. They aren't going to end up with 20x the applicants than the position they are filling by the time that they're done culling possibilities.

[QUOTE=Tudd;53139822]So let me expand on my point here: Again, James Damore isn't saying that Google needs to restructure their workforce in the [b]present[/b], and this is more of him pointing out biases than saying the people are utterly not talented. The "diversity" employees are most likely talented, but if Google is implementing a focus on diversity over meritocracy for hiring, then it is fair to point out that this is a bias and probably not the optimal method in the sense of productivity. But even then, the main point of the memo is to address methods to closing the gender gap. You failed to include the preface for the beliefs he made on that page too. I think it is unfair to include this when it is clearly stated he isn't for removing the focus for diversity.[/QUOTE] So we should totally take his word on Google, a company who could choose any granular level of demographic ratios among its employees at will and not lose out on talent due to being an industry leader coveted by engineers above almost all others, hires women at the expense of the company for social brownie points. Interesting.

We will certainly find out when google responds to the class-action suit

[QUOTE=Tudd;53139822]So let me expand on my point here: Again, James Damore isn't saying that Google needs to restructure their workforce in the [B]present[/B], and this is more of him pointing out biases than saying the people are utterly not talented. The "diversity" employees are most likely talented, [B]but if Google is implementing a focus on diversity over meritocracy for hiring, then it is fair to point out that this is a bias and probably not the optimal method in the sense of productivity[/B]. [/QUOTE] This is essentially saying what bitches posted but more flowery to make it seem like you aren't saying what you are really saying. [QUOTE]the women and minorities you work alongside didn't earn their positions.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate[/QUOTE] [QUOTE] The "diversity" employees are most likely talented, but if Google is implementing a focus on diversity over meritocracy for hiring, then it is fair to point out that this is a bias and probably not the optimal method in the sense of productivity. [/QUOTE] All three of these arrive at the exact same conclusion despite different words and phrases. [QUOTE=Tudd;53139822]But even then, the main point of the memo is to address methods to closing the gender gap.[/QUOTE] But he does that only after setting up his criticisms of Google. [QUOTE=Tudd;53139822]You failed to include the preface for the beliefs he made on that page too. I think it is unfair to include this when it is clearly stated he isn't for removing the focus for diversity.[/QUOTE] I didn't include it because it wasn't relevant to your particular claim. Literally nobody on this board takes your standard of fairness seriously.

[QUOTE=bitches;53139794]A method different to the supposedly discriminatory practice of increasing minority representation amongst equally-skilled candidates? He complains over and over throughout the memo that Google's hiring practices are bad for their business.[/quote] Again this is how he states this issue. [quote=James Damore]I hope it’s clear that I'm not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn't try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism). [/quote] [quote]What would [I]you[/I] describe their current hiring practices as?[/QUOTE] Why should I have to respond this if you won't back up any of these statements I called out specifically? [quote]He released it as a highly publicized smear piece for the public eye[/quote] Just wrong. [quote] how the women and minorities you work alongside didn't earn their positions.[/quote] Doesn't make any attempt to say current employees should be removed or replaced. I guess sorry he pointed out in a quota focus vs meritocracy focus that people aren't the most optimal choices? He would probably recognize that most people at Google are still talented. And then you failed two times to represent his memo accurately; Especially your critique on his biases of the left and right, which he clearly stated you need a mix of both to have a functioning society and company as they correct each other. Besides it is an answer that is just going to be similar to James Damore's; So were back at square one.

[QUOTE=Tudd;53139852] Doesn't make any attempt to say current employees should be removed or replaced. I guess sorry he pointed out in a quota focus vs meritocracy focus that people aren't the most optimal choices? He would probably recognize that most people at Google are still talented.[/QUOTE] That they are still talented doesn't mean anything, the point is that they aren't talented enough to be there over someone who he feels would have been hired were it not for some diversity requirement. Again, no, he doesn't explicitly say current employees should be removed but again, it's not really relevant either way.

[QUOTE=Tudd;53139852]Again this is how he states this issue. Why should I have to respond this if you won't back up any of these statements I called out specifically? Just wrong. Doesn't make any attempt to say current employees should be removed or replaced. I guess sorry he pointed out in a quota focus vs meritocracy focus that people aren't the most optimal choices? He would probably recognize that most people at Google are still talented. And then you failed two times to represent his memo accurately; Especially your critique on his biases of the left and right, which he clearly stated you need a mix of both to have a functioning society and company as they correct each other. Besides it is an answer that is just going to be similar to James Damore's; So were back at square one.[/QUOTE] thanks for at least confirming that you believe google hires less qualified individuals for the sake of quota

[QUOTE=bitches;53139864]thanks for at least confirming that you believe google hires less qualified individuals for the sake of quota[/QUOTE] Not sure why that is a surprise to you. At least I am being honest here. [quote]He released it as a highly publicized smear piece for the public eye [/quote] Could you at least just state you are wrong on how this memo was disseminated to the public? Don't even have to talk about my other direct points to you; Just this one would be nice to see some recognition. I am just curious if you are ever going to engage this debate in any honesty instead of side-stepping everytime.

[QUOTE=Tudd;53139720]How is that, " women and minorities you work alongside didn't earn their positions?" as you proclaimed. He never stated at any point he felt like the people he worked with didn't earn their positions and only stated what he thought was a more effective approach to diversity.[/QUOTE] Late to the party, but how can you interpret "google is using unfair hiring practices to favor certain groups" as anything but "certain employees belonging to said groups are not deserving of their positions." [editline]ohh hamburgers[/editline] [QUOTE=Tudd;53139887]I am just curious if you are ever going to engage this debate in any honesty instead of side-stepping everytime.[/QUOTE] Hah

[QUOTE=Tudd;53139887]Not sure why that is a surprise to you. At least I am being honest here. [/QUOTE] It's a surprise because you intentionally argue and debate in nebulous ways that allow you to change your position freely at any time so it's often impossible to actually respond to your posts in a meaningful way.

[QUOTE=bitches;53139710]google has a finite number of employees to hire for its engineering positions one of the most desirable places in the world for an engineer to work surely draws enough talented female applicants to fill ALL of its positions if they so chose so what is your point? i'm not arguing about the industry as a whole here are you saying that google has hired women less qualified than male applicants just because they were women? [editline]17th February 2018[/editline] his claim is that google uses discriminatory hiring practices instead of what he believes would be genuine efforts to attract more women to the company this cannot be separated from the implicit claim that google has turned down male applicants who had more talent than the women hired instead[/QUOTE] [IMG]https://i.imgur.com/13clioi.png[/IMG] [IMG]https://i.imgur.com/c58DBTb.png[/IMG] Well, according to Damore in his lawsuit, they did engage in discriminatory practices. Whether or not they're true we'll find out later on, but that's what Damore is accusing them of, yes.

[QUOTE=Paramud;53139918]Late to the party, but how can you interpret "google is using unfair hiring practices to favor certain groups" as anything but "certain employees belonging to said groups are not deserving of their positions."[/QUOTE] Why does one lead to the other? You can realize that adding an additional measure of value on top of standard qualifications is fundamentally discriminatory and renders employment more of a zero-sum game. You can have equally qualified people take the job over you because of characteristics they were born with, but there is nothing you can do to compete on this matter. You can only hope that once some sort of parity is achieved, although thanks to the nebulousness of the systemic racism argument and its lack of a clear end goal we don't know when this will happen, you can compete for positions on truly equal and on race-blind grounds. It also brings up other points of consideration, whether we should look at other needs besides standard qualifications. For example, what if one applicant has a family to take care of and another doesn't? How do we measure the importance of these needs past merit and compare them to each other without getting political? I don't see how you can, which is a problem because this is letting a total form of politics penetrate all aspects of life and really does reflect on the apparently endless troubles of a postcolonial society that are greatly worsened by a growing class divide. This actually reminds me of Marx's argument against equal pay: [quote]But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.[/quote] The problem with trying to become equal is that you need to be unequal to achieve it. This is treated as righteous and progressive, but it isn't liberal and is ironically an injustice against the individual.

It seems like the claim is that criticizing the system is inherently wrong because it implies that some people don't deserve to be there. So, what, the solution is to just [i]never question the system?[/i] Maybe it [i]is[/i] fact that some people were "diversity hires." Maybe it's not. We'll never know, because questioning it is bigoted.

[QUOTE=geel9;53139986]It seems like the claim is that criticizing the system is inherently wrong because it implies that some people don't deserve to be there. So, what, the solution is to just [i]never question the system?[/i] Maybe it [i]is[/i] fact that some people were "diversity hires." Maybe it's not. We'll never know, because questioning it is bigoted.[/QUOTE] Not only that, but it's a completely subjective judgement. It's hard enough to judge whether two people will make a company the same amount of money. Then you have to add on top of that some kind of subjective judgement on how much value should be placed on an individual's born characteristics to offset a disparity. It's also impossible to measure how much of that disparity is due to oppression, and when our society stops being oppressive. That debate will probably never end. It's impossible to not have identity politics compromise meritocracy or individualism, or not devolve into rent-seeking behavior. We are not precise or rational enough as a whole to be 'corrective', we can only strive towards equal opportunity rather than equity/equal outcome. Our society is too complex to attempt the latter without causing excesses that are unjust

[QUOTE=Tudd;53139887]Not sure why that is a surprise to you. At least I am being honest here. Could you at least just state you are wrong on how this memo was disseminated to the public? Don't even have to talk about my other direct points to you; Just this one would be nice to see some recognition. I am just curious if you are ever going to engage this debate in any honesty instead of side-stepping everytime.[/QUOTE] I have to question the stability of an employee if some of his peers found the memo so disengenious they couldn't actually keep it a secret, but had to leak it in order for others to find out just how divisive this guy is.

[QUOTE=Paramud;53139918]Late to the party, but how can you interpret "google is using unfair hiring practices to favor certain groups" as anything but "certain employees belonging to said groups are not deserving of their positions." [/QUOTE] I honestly don't see how you can claim he means the latter when he says the former. Hiring people from one group because they're from that group while ignoring others is unfair, regardless of whether they're qualified or not. It's unfair to hire someone because of their skin colour or gender or anything else when compared to another candidate of equal skill. It doesn't matter if you're a racist hiring a white person over a black person or a 'progressive' hiring a black person over a white person, the fact that your reason for choosing is outside of the person's skill set and compatibility with the team is discriminatory. I don't agree with a lot of what this guy thinks, but the sheer number of people willing to make up bullshit to act like he's vying for the position of Grand Dragon is disgusting.

[QUOTE=geel9;53139986]It seems like the claim is that criticizing the system is inherently wrong because it implies that some people don't deserve to be there. So, what, the solution is to just [i]never question the system?[/i] Maybe it [i]is[/i] fact that some people were "diversity hires." Maybe it's not. We'll never know, because questioning it is bigoted.[/QUOTE] I don't like how diversity is being framed here because A) I seriously doubt these "diversity hires" were hired just because they're black or whatever. If there's any proof of this I'm willing to be corrected B) I feel like the logical conclusion of Damore's complaints is to uh start hiring conservatives? for political diversity?

Wouldn't the argument that a company that has 80% men hired is "unjust", "unbalanced", or "discriminatory" [i]also[/i] be implying that "a number of your coworkers aren't qualified to be there"? Because they're, say, "anti-diversity" hires? Isn't that also, by the same logic that condemns Damore, discriminatory? Yet Google seems to have no issue with that mindset whatsoever. [editline]18th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Lambeth;53140013]A) I seriously doubt these "diversity hires" were hired just because they're black or whatever. If there's any proof of this I'm willing to be corrected [/quote] Isn't this kind of what's being [i]explored[/i] here? [quote] B) I feel like the logical conclusion of Damore's complaints is to uh start hiring conservatives? for political diversity?[/QUOTE] The logical conclusion of his complaints is the [i]specific recommendations he makes in his memo.[/i] Have you read them? Does he say that we should "uh start hiring conservatives?" You would know, since you've read it, right?

[QUOTE=geel9;53140017] The logical conclusion of his complaints is the [I]specific recommendations he makes in his memo.[/I] Have you read them? Does he say that we should "uh start hiring conservatives?" You would know, since you've read it, right?[/QUOTE] I can't extrapolate from what a dude says? [QUOTE] Stop alienating conservatives. ○ Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently. [/QUOTE] I'm not sure why I should respect conservative opinions since they sound borderline fascist nowadays.

[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;53140009]I honestly don't see how you can claim he means the latter when he says the former. Hiring people from one group because they're from that group while ignoring others is unfair, regardless of whether they're qualified or not. It's unfair to hire someone because of their skin colour or gender or anything else when compared to another candidate of equal skill. It doesn't matter if you're a racist hiring a white person over a black person or a 'progressive' hiring a black person over a white person, the fact that your reason for choosing is outside of the person's skill set and compatibility with the team is discriminatory. I don't agree with a lot of what this guy thinks, but the sheer number of people willing to make up bullshit to act like he's vying for the position of Grand Dragon is disgusting.[/QUOTE] I'm not arguing in any way about the validity of diversity quotas or Affirmative Action. My post was entirely about what Damore claimed in his memo.

-delete-

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53140034]I can't extrapolate from what a dude says?[/QUOTE] When you provide a limited quote without context, I don't think it's fair to make your extrapolations. There's a difference between saying "don't alienate conservatives [who already work at Google]" and "hire more conservatives." He speaks for some time about how Google's internal culture is alienating towards conservative viewpoints. [editline]18th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Lambeth;53140034] I'm not sure why I should respect conservative opinions since they sound borderline fascist nowadays.[/QUOTE] Dude, of course you're not going to like the viewpoints you're being asked to respect. It's not difficult to "respect" viewpoints you agree with. The entire challenge behind [i]being a tolerant person[/i] is [i]doing it even when it's difficult.[/i]

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53140034]I can't extrapolate from what a dude says? I'm not sure why I should respect conservative opinions since they sound borderline fascist nowadays.[/QUOTE] Damore seems to think that if you reject individualism and seek equity, you inevitably dispose of pluralism of values as a natural 'mission creep' You trade one frankly more important form of diversity for another kind. I think we know which kind of homogeneity is outright more exclusive for the individual and a product of actually rigging a game or not letting pieces fall where they may

[QUOTE=geel9;53140041]When you provide a limited quote without context, I don't think it's fair to make your extrapolations. There's a difference between saying "don't alienate conservatives [who already work at Google]" and "hire more conservatives." He speaks for some time about how Google's internal culture is alienating towards conservative viewpoints. [/QUOTE] I don't think I'm making a wild totally out there leap of logic though. [QUOTE] Dude, of course you're not going to like the viewpoints you're being asked to respect. It's not difficult to "respect" viewpoints you agree with. The entire challenge behind [i]being a tolerant person[/i] is [i]doing it even when it's difficult.[/i][/QUOTE] Within reason, I don't want to tolerate intolerance. though I'm speaking more generally about conservative thought, not what damore said.

[QUOTE=phygon;53139699]Yes, it is absolutely quite literally unbelievable that they have the same volume of men and women at the same talent level applying [IMG]https://i.imgur.com/0I56GTv.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] This chart terrifies me in other ways,namely, we have majors near on 90% women. Combined with the increasing drop out rate of teenage boys from highschool; the two conflating scare me.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53140059]I don't think I'm making a wild totally out there leap of logic though. [/quote] First of all, that's a single point he makes amidst a number of suggestions. Second, you're trying to add words where he hasn't put them. Nowhere did he say "hire more conservatives." Not alienating conservatives might result in hiring more conservatives [i]because they're more likely to apply[/i] but ultimately it's a criticism of the internal culture of Google. [quote] Within reason, I don't want to tolerate intolerance. though I'm speaking more generally about conservative thought, not what damore said.[/QUOTE] An important second note to what I said is that it's incredibly dangerous to just start labeling all conservatives as "fascist." Conservative ideology isn't inherently fascist; rather, we're experiencing -- in the US -- a growing number of fascists hiding [i]behind[/i] conservatism and manipulating conservatives to their benefit.