Google Employee's Memo: "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber", Goes Internally Viral - Sensationalist Headlines

And Twitter just Doxxed the author of the memo...

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52545081]Reddit's a full on echo-chamber for the most part and it's rare for there to be any actual valuable political conversation. Now that I know this is about "conservatives don't feel welcome here and that should change! Political diversity is the most important!!" I have to wonder - just what views is he expressing that's getting a cold shoulder from his workmates? :thinking:[/QUOTE] Reddit is more libertarian in it's organization anyway. Set up a website where communities will self regulate and generally not cause harm? Easier to do in theory than in practice.

- This thread be dragons -

[QUOTE=1239the;52545297]or maybe the more likely answer is that conservatives have victim complexes and want to desperately believe everyone is out to get them.[/QUOTE] This wouldn't be in the news if people weren't outraged at the existence of this piece. [media]https://twitter.com/existentialcoms/status/894248553559621636[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/argumatronic/status/894225082301677573[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/kcimc/status/894245533878894593[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/anildash/status/893979360008572929[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/sarahmei/status/894080686532902912[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/jennschiffer/status/894260798733897728[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/seldo/status/894255647578923008[/media] (51% Fired, 28% Diversity training, 10% Nothing, 11% Something else at the time of writing) [media]https://twitter.com/yonatanzunger/status/894027595364220929[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/yonatanzunger/status/815921755520835585[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/zedshaw/status/894194511991144448[/media] And all of these were at most one click away from my timeline. Many of them aren't just random people either, but have some important position in the tech community.

[QUOTE=1239the;52545302]excluding sexism, bigotry and racism is literally part of inclusivity you fucking bellend. would you advocate allowing active child rapists into kindergardens? no? must LGBT rights groups coddle homophobic or transphobic hate preachers? must minority racial groups allow white supremacists into their ranks?[/QUOTE] Then why call it inclusivity if its aimed to accept minorities first, everyone else second? One would have thought that in inclusive environments, everyone is on the same ground, regardless if you are a bigot, black female, Asian, homophobic, white homosexual or a marxist. Instead everyone else who is not "opressed minority" gets the second class citizen treatment, and those who do not accept that idea at all or has his qualms is fuck all regarded in this equation. The fact that you started outright flaming me proves my point. Keep this discussion jn mind and take a step backwards to think about the irony when you call yourself inclusive and open minded. Disclaimer: Im not against inclusivity and being more friendly to opressed, but the way this is handled in most of the West world is, in my opinion, outright wrong and moronic. Political correctness had gone too far in most regards and has become an ideology similar to fascist. (with us or against us, no inbetween)

[QUOTE=DrTaxi;52545360]This wouldn't be in the news if people weren't outraged at the existence of this piece. [wall of tweets] And all of these were at most one click away from my timeline. Many of them aren't just random people either, but have some important position in the tech community.[/QUOTE] donald trump wouldn't be in the news constantly if he wasn't monumentally retarded either, what's your point.

[QUOTE=1239the;52545371]donald trump wouldn't be in the news constantly if he wasn't monumentally retarded either, what's your point.[/QUOTE] You said it's all in this guy's head, that people aren't actually out to get him. I just demonstrated the opposite, no? Donald Trump is the President, he's not gonna be ousted because people are mad at him, and being a politician, he [I]should[/I] be judged for his politics anyway. This guy is an engineer who's just drawn the hatred of a large amount of his peers for expressing his political views, including calls to fire him, and whose job is in real danger as he's now a PR liability for his employer.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;52545139][media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcTdlCtW2dA[/media] Jim's video on this actually goes into depth why this is a bad thing. You gotta realize that Google is pushing their ideologies onto their platforms, and is censoring any wrong-think. We have seen this already with conservative channels, firearms/hunting/fishing channels, and otherwise being hit with tons of red-flags and being demonitized. Not to mention it's also being done with the likes of account throttling, where people's comments will simply not be seen on Youtube if they are deemed to not be within Google's guidelines and beliefs. Yeah, I know you guys disagree with a lot of these people, but it's not a reason to simply deplatform them, because all this will accomplish is radicalizing them.[/QUOTE] Video title: "I hope you can speak Chinese" Video thumbnail: MASSIVE GREY DESTROYED WASTELAND FULL OF SUFFERING AND LOST GLORY. I don't watch videos from either side of the political aisle that have such obviously shitty intentions rofl. Good fucking christ how manipulative. I don't expect anyone who happens to set up a video with a front like that to express any argument that actually comes from reasoning or facts. Also isn't this Internet Aristocrat under a different name because everyone got pissed off at him shouting drunkenly about niggers on stream in early gamergate and he had to get a new handle to trick people into listening to him again?

people say he also forgot one important detail. Females are more Adept ("skilled") than males.

[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;52545448]people say he also forgot one important detail. Females are more Adept ("skilled") than males.[/QUOTE] Not exactly. IIRC that's just a consequence of there being fewer women, in that, the inertia it took to get women to choose that path is much higher, leading to, on average, more exceptional individuals doing it. That would probably go away if there were more women in the field.

[QUOTE=horsedrowner;52544522] [QUOTE]Exclusive: Here's The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google [Updated[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. [...][/QUOTE] :thinking:[/QUOTE] Except that he argues for ending pretty much every practice that Google has for increasing race and gender diversity, and cites nothing to back up their supposed negative effects, while there's solid evidence [URL="https://hbr.org/2016/11/why-diverse-teams-are-smarter"]to the contrary[/URL]. He values diversity only when it's for people who share his political views.

[QUOTE=Wowza!;52545593]cites nothing to back up their supposed negative effects[/QUOTE] [quote]The text of the post is reproduced in full below, with some minor formatting modifications. [I]Two charts and several hyperlinks are also omitted.[/I][/quote]

I find there's too much focus on the problems he's addressed, but next to none on the fact that he presented solutions and that they were to the benefit of the company. He's not looking to tear down diversity at all. He's looking to shift the policy so that it capitalises on the strengths of women by introducing programs or initiatives that are more appealing to women rather than having "women only" programs that would be conducted exactly the same if they were not "women only". He also says that if a woman wishes to get into a male dominated field, she should be allowed and encouraged and nobody should discriminate her. Whether you believe in its premise of biological differences or not is one thing, but I find demonising the document to such a degree where the author is perceived as a complete misogynist is incorrect.

[QUOTE=Wowza!;52545593]Except that he argues for ending pretty much every practice that Google has for increasing race and gender diversity, and cites nothing to back up their supposed negative effects, while there's solid evidence [URL="https://hbr.org/2016/11/why-diverse-teams-are-smarter"]to the contrary[/URL]. He values diversity only when it's for people who share his political views.[/QUOTE] This is misleading for a couple reasons: 1. Despite all the (occasionally tax-funded) diversity initiatives, STEM is no more diverse than it was 14 years ago. [quote]African-American and Latino workers also now represent 29 percent of the general workforce population (up from about 24 percent in 2001), but just 16 percent of the advanced manufacturing workforce, 15 percent of the computing workforce and 12 percent of the engineering workforce – all rates that have remained essentially flat. And women have seen essentially no improvement in the last 13 years. In 2014, women represented 24 percent of the engineering workforce (down from 25 percent in 2001), 36 percent of the computing workforce (flat since 2001) and 18 percent of the advanced manufacturing workforce (down from 19 percent in 2001).[/quote] [url=https://www.usnews.com/news/stem-solutions/articles/2015/02/24/stem-workforce-no-more-diverse-than-14-years-ago]Source.[/url] 2. Diversity of what? It's not blacks and hispanics. The diversity of the teams that the McKinsey & Co study is based is guaranteed to be no more reflective of diversity of Silicon Valley, STEM undegrads, and Google itself: [img]https://trends.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/2-9a_0.png[/img] [url]https://trends.collegeboard.org/education-pays/figures-tables/students-stem-fields-gender-and-race-ethnicity[/url] [img]http://www.mercurynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/20121129_085902_ssjm1130workforce90.jpg?w=473[/img] [url]http://www.mercurynews.com/2012/11/29/asian-workers-now-dominate-silicon-valley-tech-jobs/[/url] [img]http://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/newshour/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/google-numbers2.png[/img] [url]http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/google-discloses-workforce-diversity-data-good/[/url] 3. This brings us back to his claim: He perceives a policy of settling for mediocrity, instead of hiring and promoting based on merit, to appease a progressive, egalitarian ideology that has gained track very recently. He suggests that it seeks totality of its ideas in all social spheres and that those ideas chalk up all possible performance-related disparities to oppression which, because of our caste-based colonial past and original voter franchise (white male property owners), means the differences are because of the systemic and environmental. All suggestions of nature or biology-based differences are akin to Nazi eugenics. All suggestions of individual responsibility are derided as the privilege-defending smokescreen of 'white male classical liberals' such as him. He thinks this has subsequently embroiled Google in an internal ideological battle. One thing is clear: simply forcing proportionate representation of the workforce is not only vulgar egalitarianism, authoritarian, and illiberal, but it turns employment into a competitive zero-sum game of groups (as defined by progressive ideology) because this means the meritorious pick either doesn't get the job or has to work much harder (like an Asian undergrad student does) than the political pick. This is bad for the workplace, as well as a democratic society in general. He further claims instead of turning a blind eye to any differences that can't be ascribed to the legacy of an oppressive social construct, we should recognize and then capitalize on them. This is hardly befitting of the reactionary conservative caricature that he's painted as. But this doesn't matter, it still represents an ideological challenge to the egalitarian ideology of progressives, and it's coming from a white Western male. That's all it takes to have a scandal these days, someone (whether this guy or Dr. Jordan Peterson) who refuses to play a game where the only winning move is not to play at all.

[QUOTE=Conscript;52545755]This is misleading for a couple reasons: 1. Despite all the (occasionally tax-funded) diversity initiatives, STEM is no more diverse than it was 14 years ago. [URL="https://www.usnews.com/news/stem-solutions/articles/2015/02/24/stem-workforce-no-more-diverse-than-14-years-ago"]Source.[/URL] 2. Diversity of what? It's not blacks and hispanics. The diversity of the teams that the McKinsey & Co study is based is guaranteed to be no more reflective of diversity of Silicon Valley, STEM undegrads, and Google itself: ... [/QUOTE] That's not really disproving anything. It's well known that the tech industry has low diversity, which is why most companies are working on improving it, and hoping to gain the benefits mentioned earlier. [QUOTE] 3. This brings us back to his claim: He perceives a policy of settling for mediocrity, instead of hiring and promoting based on merit, to appease a progressive, egalitarian ideology that has gained track very recently. He suggests that it seeks totality of its ideas in all social spheres and that those ideas chalk up all possible performance-related disparities to oppression which, because of our caste-based colonial past and original voter franchise (white male property owners), means the differences are because of the systemic and environmental. All suggestions of nature or biology-based differences are akin to Nazi eugenics. All suggestions of individual responsibility are derided as the privilege-defending smokescreen of 'white male classical liberals' such as him. He thinks this has subsequently embroiled Google in an internal ideological battle. One thing is clear: simply forcing proportionate representation of the workforce is not only vulgar egalitarianism, authoritarian, and illiberal, but it turns employment into a competitive zero-sum game of groups (as defined by progressive ideology) because this means the meritorious pick either doesn't get the job or has to work much harder (like an Asian undergrad student does) than the political pick. This is bad for the workplace, as well as a democratic society in general. [/QUOTE] There's nothing that shows that the women and minorities at Google are the result of hiring unqualified engineers, rather than their efforts to [URL="https://www.google.com/diversity/hiring.html"]improve access to CS education, expand their recruiting programs,[/URL] [URL="https://www.google.com/diversity/for-the-future.html"]promote CS to younger students,[/URL] etc. Also, if they were automatically passing through any minority that applied for a position, the demographics would probably be different from what they currently are. And using biological differences does nothing to explain the higher proportions of women in the earlier years of computer science, [URL="http://www.nber.org/papers/w5903"]the hiring of greater proportions of women when bias is removed[/URL], etc.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52545155]Couple with being banned for even just having slightly different views on issues (hello r/the_donald and r/latestagecapitalism (note: yes, I am well aware r/the_donald is at-least 100 times worse on this, but that's not saying much)), to even just being banned automatically for commenting on a certain sub (some subs ban you automatically for commenting on r/the_donald without taking into account *why* you commented in that sub), it's pointless to try and dispher reddit's politik.[/QUOTE] I got banned from r/socialism because I made one post disagreeing with the OP, and the post wasn't even about socialism, it was about identity politics. Reddit is an echochamber in its purest form, if you do not conform to the standards of the subreddit, you are [I]out[/I]. And sadly there are no alternatives, r/worldnews might censor things that are inconvenient to its liberal-bias point of view, but the alternative subreddit is run by a self-declared neo-Nazi and despite claiming to be neutral is flooded with far-right and conspiracy bullshit. So you either deal with the liberal echochamber and risk falling into it due to the bias content there, or you to to the "free" news subreddits where fascists and white supremacists congregate, and then you leave anyway because you immediately realize you're not going to find anything of value there.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52546130]I got banned from r/socialism because I made one post disagreeing with the OP, and the post wasn't even about socialism, it was about identity politics. Reddit is an echochamber in its purest form, if you do not conform to the standards of the subreddit, you are [I]out[/I]. And sadly there are no alternatives, r/worldnews might censor things that are inconvenient to its liberal-bias point of view, but the alternative subreddit is run by a self-declared neo-Nazi and despite claiming to be neutral is flooded with far-right and conspiracy bullshit. So you either deal with the liberal echochamber and risk falling into it due to the bias content there, or you to to the "free" news subreddits where fascists and white supremacists congregate.[/QUOTE] Reddit isn't [I]an[/I] echo chamber, it's a collection of small echo chambers, all with competing ideologies. You can say something that'll get you 500 upvotes in /r/neoliberal that'll get you banned in /r/socialism and /r/Conservative. You'll get banned in /r/conspiracy if you bring up a Trump conspiracy, but you'll hit the front page on /r/MarchAgainstTrump or any of the other anti-Trump subs. A lot of subreddits have been genuinely taken over by neo-nazis and white supremacists. /r/conspiracy used to be a funny place to look at some wacky ideas about 9/11 or JFK, now it's wildly anti-semitic and racist. There's a network of unbelievably racist subreddit mods that control a ton of relatively major right-wing subs. They've done [I]everything they can[/I] to normalize racism - it's dragged reddit from Ron Paul libertarianism 6 years ago to "why can't we just keep the races separate and stop polluting the gene pool with blacks" today. It's disgusting.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;52546155]Reddit isn't [I]an[/I] echo chamber, it's a collection of small echo chambers, all with competing ideologies. You can say something that'll get you 500 upvotes in /r/neoliberal that'll get you banned in /r/socialism and /r/Conservative. You'll get banned in /r/conspiracy if you bring up a Trump conspiracy, but you'll hit the front page on /r/MarchAgainstTrump or any of the other anti-Trump subs. A lot of subreddits have been genuinely taken over by neo-nazis and white supremacists. /r/conspiracy used to be a funny place to look at some wacky ideas about 9/11 or JFK, now it's wildly anti-semitic and racist. There's a network of unbelievably racist subreddit mods that control a ton of relatively major right-wing subs. They've done [I]everything they can[/I] to normalize racism - it's dragged reddit from Ron Paul libertarianism 6 years ago to "why can't we just keep the races separate and stop polluting the gene pool with blacks" today. It's disgusting.[/QUOTE] Reddit sort of reminds me of tumblr in a way, except based around small communities instead of individuals. As much as people complain about liberal/conservative echo chambers, you can just as easily find the polar opposite on the site as well.

[QUOTE=Hinterlight;52544267]I haven't read the entire paper yet, but I can't help but think that there is going to be a large backlash against the progressive movement some time soon. From what I've read so called Generation Z is setting itself up to be one of the most conservative generations in the last several decades. And conservative movements worldwide have appeared to of been gaining serious traction. I'd like to see some studies and see what could possibly have lead to these things starting to gain more and more ground lately if anyone has them. From the brief things I have read about the Google paper, it sorta of sounds like the writer is advocating for ideological diversity. Considering Silicon Valley and the Bay Area is one of the most left leaning places in the United States right now. It must be frustrating to feel as though you can't share your political beliefs without being disapproved of or attacked. At the same time, some of those beliefs can be pretty shitty. It's tough. Makes me wonder how the country is going to get through the next few years.[/QUOTE] I don't see that though, i mean the forces that brought trump into the WH and nearly broke a wave of neo conservatism on europe weren't young guys, they were old, single demographic people, many of whom were for the first time in their lives engaging with the political system, and that frankly cannot last.

[QUOTE=killerteacup;52544372]He definitely shouldn't be fired, but I don't think anyone should be discussing and debating this with him [B]if he isn't able to provide sources or reasoning[/B] to back up some of the claims he is making...[/QUOTE] Speaking of... [QUOTE=killerteacup;52544310] ...There's a wealth of evidence to show that women are often sidelined for promotions because their superiors fear they'll prioritise having a family over the job, and that's only one argument of the many that satisfactorily explain why men are more likely to be in leadership positions, none of which draw such a tenuous conclusion as the author of the paper did above.[/QUOTE] So where is this supposed "Wealth" of information? That aside, Reading through your comments, you actually seem to be apart of the problem this engineer is describing. For example: [QUOTE=Google Guy]De-emphasise empathy. I've heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy — feeling another's pain — causes us to focus on anecdotes, favour individuals similar to us, and harbour other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.[/QUOTE] You have then said [QUOTE=killerteacup;52544310] I've met programmers who've told me unironically that women being in the workforce was bad because working is a 'mans space' because men are biologically predisposed to work. Stuff like that basically. Sometimes it's just a lack of awareness of basic ethics. Obviously I can't back it up with any data but I have met so many people like this in tech. Either I can conclude it's a problem with my industry or it's an attitude / way of viewing the world that is still more common than people would like to admit. Neither of those conclusions would make me have confidence in this paper. [/QUOTE] Firstly: [QUOTE=killerteacup;52544310][B]Obviously I can't back it up with any data but I have met so many people like this in tech.[/B][/QUOTE] If you have met "So many" why isn't there any data on it? Is it really so many, or is it just based on isolated experiences you've witnessed? Or are you just avoiding exposing your own biases like the engineer alluded to? [QUOTE=Google Guy]it's easier to virtue signal by mentioning on a social network how angry and offended you are. Debate and discussion takes time.[/QUOTE] Secondly: Does this not fit the category of Anecdote? Wouldn't it be fair to say that most Anecdotes are tinted with the biases of the story teller? And if yes to both, wouldn't that also mean that you are part of the problem described because you are relying on anecdotal evidence rather than detaching yourself, doing scholarly research (Looking for credible sources on websites like [URL="https://muse.jhu.edu/"]Muse[/URL]) and critiquing his claims based off of well thought out argumentation? You are automatically dismissing this mans claim because he is calling for open honest discussion. Discussion that would expose your biases as well as mine. So would it be fair to say that we are less likely to want open discussion because we don't want to realize that we've actually been wrong on certain things? [editline]6th August 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;52545139] Yeah, I know you guys disagree with a lot of these people, but it's not a reason to simply deplatform them, because all this will accomplish is radicalizing them.[/QUOTE] More truth to that than you probably realize, Dr. David wood puts it more eloquently in context of discussing Islam. [video=youtube;gN0qxp7E7ZI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN0qxp7E7ZI[/video]

I know the popular reaction is that he should be engaged with and debated rather than fired, and I personally agree with some of the things he said about the toxicity of monoculture. But if I were working in Google's HR, this manifesto has [i]hostile workplace environment[/i] and [i]discriminatory management policies[/i] written all over it and I'd be scheduling his departure ASAP. I mean sure as a general social rule people should have the right to voice their opinions and should be engaged with, not silenced. In the workplace, though, things are a little more strict. If you write a manifesto basically saying some of your coworkers aren't qualified for their jobs with reasons that brush up against federally protected classes, any responsible company is going to fire you. It's just a lawsuit waiting to happen.

[quote]In the memo, which is the personal opinion of a male Google employee and is titled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber,” the author argues that women are underrepresented in tech not because they face bias and discrimination in the workplace, but because of inherent psychological differences between men and women. “We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism,” he writes, going on to argue that Google’s educational programs for young women may be misguided.[/quote] I just have one gripe with this, we know this isn't true with computer programming. The field was dominated by women from the very beginning up through the 1970s when things went backwards. One of the arguments I've heard about the drop in women participation in programming in the 1970s and 80s was that personal computers became the purvuew of men and boys got computers while girls got barbies, so women had very little computer experience before going into college, and college education shifted from math based, mainframe centric views of computers to small PC computer programming which shut women out of the profession in general there's no psychological reason why women can't understand computer langauge, infact women tend to score higher in writing and language based courses in general and we also know women are more than capable of being top rated mathmaticians, so there's no real truth behind his assumption that women are bad at tech based jobs due to them being women.

This man's whole idiotic rant of 'women being less effective STEM workers' is a pile of steaming horseshit. As a current college student in Computer Science in the US, I've got a fairly good mix of classmates and upperclassmen I encounter on a day-to-day basis when classes are in session, with a fairly even mix of men and women. More often than not, they're equal in terms of performance, or the ladies of the class perform [I]better[/I] overall. I've met several fellow students in my department who actually directly work with Google on STEM outreach for girls and lower-income young students, and from what I've seen them do and heard from them about those programs, this engineer at Google must really have his head quite far up his own rectum in order to think this is in any way correct or appropriate.

[QUOTE=Sableye;52546433]there's no psychological reason why women can't understand computer langauge, infact women tend to score higher in writing and language based courses in general and we also know women are more than capable of being top rated mathmaticians, so there's no real truth behind his assumption that women are bad at tech based jobs due to them being women.[/QUOTE] The first computer programmer was in fact [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace]a woman named Ada Lovelace[/url], who realized the missed potential in Charles Babbage's Analytical Engine.

[QUOTE=Paramud;52546628]The first computer programmer was in fact [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace"]a woman named Ada Lovelace[/URL], who realized the missed potential in Charles Babbage's Analytical Engine.[/QUOTE] The lead programmer for the software on the Apollo 11 mission was also [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Hamilton_(scientist)]a woman[/url]

[QUOTE=ScriptKitt3h;52546597]This man's whole idiotic rant of 'women being less effective STEM workers' is a pile of steaming horseshit. As a current college student in Computer Science in the US, I've got a fairly good mix of classmates and upperclassmen I encounter on a day-to-day basis when classes are in session, with a fairly even mix of men and women. More often than not, they're equal in terms of performance, or the ladies of the class perform [I]better[/I] overall. I've met several fellow students in my department who actually directly work with Google on STEM outreach for girls and lower-income young students, and from what I've seen them do and heard from them about those programs, this engineer at Google must really have his head quite far up his own rectum in order to think this is in any way correct or appropriate.[/QUOTE] Yeah not really understanding people praising and defending this rant when it argues that women are just more artsy than men and would be better suited to group tasks due to them being women. That seems like BS to me, and sure, it's not very scientific of me to disregard his argument when his supporting evidence was removed by Gizmodo, but the history of computing seems to suggest that he's talking nonsense. It's an inappropriate manifesto released by someone who puts too much stock in their own flawed summations of opinions touted as fact. "But he's arguing for open discussion and he presents his rant in argument form", only releasing a memo saying 'this is the way women are, their brains are just less well suited' is not a way to go about open discussion. Really all he has going for him is the fact that the decisionmakers present more fair and 'leftist' ideology while he's part of an underrepresented conservative mindset, but that doesn't give his argument any more merit.

Read about the first ENIAC programmers, all of whom were women, too. [url]http://eniacprogrammers.org[/url]

Why are you all claiming that he says that women are worse at tech stuff? All he says is that women are statistically less interested in tech stuff. These are 100% completely different things, and you are outraging about statements that are not even in the memo

I feel like part of what he was trying to say in the essay was that the reason why there is fewer women then men in the tech industry doesn't have to do with sexism, at least not exclusively and that maybe there are just preferential differences between the sexes. He brings up some things I agree with and some things I don't, mostly just a different way of looking at things possibly. I don't think he should be fired at all, that would be disastrous from a multitude of reasons. I think the right thing to do is to just let him speak up. Even if he is wrong it's best if a discussion is made out of this. There are people who share his beliefs to some varying degree in the company, and if told to keep quiet on thoughts like this, people will just keep these thoughts festering to themselves rather than informed why this way of thinking is wrong, if it even is. If he is fired for this, then I'm sure there's going to be outbursts over it, not that there isn't already. Sort of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

[QUOTE=WhyNott;52546954]Why are you all claiming that he says that women are worse at tech stuff? All he says is that women are statistically less interested in tech stuff. These are 100% completely different things, and you are outraging about statements that are not even in the memo[/QUOTE] There's no gene in the human brain that tells us to work a certain job, we're more complicated then that. Not everything in life can be boiled down to hard sciences. And if you start thinking that way you might write something as misinformed as this memo. This memo comes from the perspective of somebody who clearly thinks that social science "isn't real science." Not only because he claims it's controlled by "the left," and I presume therefore is wrong somehow. But because it attempts to substitute social science for biology when it really shouldn't. The entire biology side of this memo is absolute bunk. He uses biology to reinforce gender stereotypes, insists that those stereotypes are the reason women cannot break into software engineering, and then complains about traditional gender roles all in the same breath. It's a fucking mess. And while he never says that women are "worse" at software engineering, the implication in this memo is that he believes that men have the qualities required to do it better, as they "like systemizing" for some reason. Because biology makes men good at software engineering I guess? He complains about the male gender role being too inflexible, while also working to reinforce it through his disastrous misunderstanding of biology and social science. And if this person had done any self reflection, he might have realized that [B]he's the problem[/B] he's complaining about. He's spent an entire memo talking about stereotypes for women, except instead of acknowledging them as stereotypes introduced by society, he says that they're generally true because of biology, and therefore that's why there are less women in tech. It's incredibly backwards.