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

[QUOTE=Wii60;52562545][media]https://twitter.com/AlexRubalcava/status/896029916558270464[/media] these ads are right in front of google's offices. there was apparently more but couldnt snap them in time.[/QUOTE] Tweet's down, what was it?

[QUOTE=cccritical;52563450]Tweet's down, what was it?[/QUOTE] It was a bus ads for google and apple with their mottos. "Apple, think different. Google [not so much]" taped over it.

[QUOTE=Tetsmega;52563458]It was a bus ads for google and apple with their mottos. "Apple, think different. Google [not so much]" taped over it.[/QUOTE] It's in an archive for those who wish to read up [url]https://archive.is/hBPU1[/url]

[QUOTE=Not64;52562538]I already had a feeling that they were discriminatory before I even applied (they recruit from the Recurse Center, which discriminates against [url=https://www.recurse.com/diversity]white males and asian males through its grant program[/url]), but I was blown away the interviewer actually said that... I'm sure that's grounds for a lawsuit. But yeah, that's part of the reason why I went indie. The tech industry is fucked.[/QUOTE] Poor white males, always being discriminated against. Even though the majority of googles employees are male by a long shot, white too [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitpost - Discrimination is discrimination regardless if its the majority or minority" - Reagy))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52564437]Poor white males, always being discriminated against. Even though the majority of googles employees are male by a long shot, white too[/QUOTE] "Discrimination is justified when it's against the majority." How is this in any way logical or fair?

This guy got to [url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-i-was-fired-by-google-1502481290]write an op-ed in WSJ[/url]

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52564437]Poor white males, always being discriminated against. Even though the majority of googles employees are male by a long shot, white too[/QUOTE] Hey newsflash discrimination based on race and sex is bad in all directions

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52564698]Hey newsflash discrimination based on race and sex is bad in all directions[/QUOTE] "but but but PAYBACK!!" is the only logical explanation to his argument. And yet it's inherently & fatally flawed and does more damage than it solves.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52564437]Poor white males, always being discriminated against. Even though the majority of googles employees are male by a long shot, white too[/QUOTE] Imagine literally being told to your face that, due to something you had no control over from the moment you were born, you are ineligible for a job. Furthermore, imagine hearing about/imagining this scenario and feeling anything other than sympathy. Oh wait. I seriously hope you are trolling because the alternative is even worse.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52564437]Poor white males, always being discriminated against. Even though the majority of googles employees are male by a long shot, white too[/QUOTE] I always knew you were racist.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52564437]Poor white males, always being discriminated against. Even though the majority of googles employees are male by a long shot, white too[/QUOTE] You're literally advocating discrimination based on people's race and sex. You're the fucking problem.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52564437]Poor white males, always being discriminated against. Even though the majority of googles employees are male by a long shot, white too[/QUOTE] Imagine being so brainwashed by popular politics that you, a white guy who programs computers for a living (or at least intends to, lol), would actually read a story about a popular employer in [I]your chosen field[/I] rejecting somebody for being [I]the same race as you[/I] and respond with anything other than sympathy and/or anger. Enjoy getting fucked in the ass for the rest of your life because you're too limp-dicked to recognize your stupid virtue signalling is actively hurting you and those around you. [editline]13th August 2017[/editline] Like, what's wrong with you? What is wrong with your brain that makes you so docile you don't have an issue with the idea of somebody making you go through all that time and effort to interview for a job, fly out to another city and perform multiple on-site interviews, only to be told to your face that you aren't getting the job because you're a white guy? Are you really so lame that that wouldn't upset you at all? What would you do, shake their hand and apologize for slavery or something? [highlight](User was banned for this post ("There are proper ways to respond to those kind of comments, and you chose the wrong way." - UncleJimmema))[/highlight]

Business Insider fact-checked all of the points in the memo. [url]http://www.businessinsider.com/google-james-damore-fired-tech-gender-gap-science-2017-8[/url]

[QUOTE=srobins;52567134]Imagine being so brainwashed by popular politics that you, a white guy who programs computers for a living (or at least intends to, lol), would actually read a story about a popular employer in [I]your chosen field[/I] rejecting somebody for being [I]the same race as you[/I] and respond with anything other than sympathy and/or anger. Enjoy getting fucked in the ass for the rest of your life because you're too limp-dicked to recognize your stupid virtue signalling is actively hurting you and those around you. [editline]13th August 2017[/editline] Like, what's wrong with you? What is wrong with your brain that makes you so docile you don't have an issue with the idea of somebody making you go through all that time and effort to interview for a job, [b][u]fly out to another city and perform multiple on-site interviews[/u][/b], only to be told to your face that you aren't getting the job because you're a white guy? Are you really so lame that that wouldn't upset you at all? What would you do, shake their hand and apologize for slavery or something?[/QUOTE] To be fair, I enjoyed the experience a lot. Free flight / hotel in NYC for the weekend? I sure as shit would do that again.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52564437]Poor white males, always being discriminated against. Even though the majority of googles employees are male by a long shot, white too[/QUOTE] Here's an easy way of seeing if something is racist or sexist. Replace white or male with another race or female, and if it sounds racist or sexist, it [I]is[/I] racist or sexist. For example: [QUOTE=proboardslol;52564437]Poor black women, always being discriminated against. Even though the majority of googles employees are women by a long shot, black too[/QUOTE] Oh hey, look at that.

[QUOTE=Kierany9;52564548]"Discrimination is justified when it's against the majority." How is this in any way logical or fair?[/QUOTE] It's never discrimination when it's against the-people-we-don't-like. Then it's justice. There's nothing fair or logical about it. It's pure conviction. No room for dialogue, unless you think the exact same way. Otherwise you get fired for 'wrongthink'. Just absolutely bonkers that this is happening at Google of all places.

[QUOTE=srobins;52567134]Imagine being so brainwashed by popular politics that you, a white guy who programs computers for a living (or at least intends to, lol)[/QUOTE] Why is it that everyone I've seen on this forum who unabashedly hates white people is a self-loathing white person?

[QUOTE=Tetsmega;52567915]Why is it that everyone I've seen on this forum who unabashedly hates white people is a self-loathing white male?[/QUOTE] It's like they try to compensate for their low self-esteem by ruining everything for other people like them while trying to harvest brownie points from the latest social fad. Just like how most far-right wing nutters often are either gullible idiots, or suffer from a severe case of unwarranted self-importance which is sometimes bundled with cognitive dissonance.

[QUOTE=srobins;52567134][...] [I]the same race as you[/I] [...][/QUOTE] I don't think this part here should even matter, as far as it in isolation goes.

[QUOTE=Wowza!;52567162]Business Insider fact-checked all of the points in the memo. [url]http://www.businessinsider.com/google-james-damore-fired-tech-gender-gap-science-2017-8[/url][/QUOTE] If I'm reading this correctly, they still reference the doctored memo with no sources, so I'm not so sound on this article.

[QUOTE=DuCT;52568394]If I'm reading this correctly, they still reference the doctored memo with no sources, so I'm not so sound on this article.[/QUOTE] It's referencing the memo with the sources included. [QUOTE=The article]To back up the “people over things” hypothesis, Damore cited a [URL="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x/epdf"]study published in the journal Social and Personality Psychology Compass[/URL] in 2010; however, that work never says the gender differences it lists have a proven biological mechanism — only that there's a possibility one might exist. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=OmniConsUme;52549781]Here is the Memo with the sources not stripped out. [URL]https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf[/URL] Tell me if it get's taken down i got a copy.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=memo with sources] Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in [URL="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x/abstract"]people rather than things[/URL], relative to men (also interpreted as [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathizing–systemizing_theory"]empathizing vs. systemizing[/URL]).[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Wowza!;52567162]Business Insider fact-checked all of the points in the memo. [URL]http://www.businessinsider.com/google-james-damore-fired-tech-gender-gap-science-2017-8[/URL][/QUOTE] This breakdown has quite a few issues of its own. For one, they do not discuss the lack of consensus on a lot of these topics. I studied Psychology for some time before switching to another program, and 10 years ago "nurture vs. nature" was still very much up for debate. I have not seen any reason to believe this argument has been settled yet. But I have more issues with this article... [QUOTE]Damore suggested the gender differences he lists do have biological components. One justification he gives for this belief is that the differences he mentions are “what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective” and are “universal across human cultures.” Damore didn’t cite any sources to back up his reasoning. However, a 2001 analysis of responses to a prominent personality inventory test found that “contrary to predictions from evolutionary theory, the magnitude of gender differences varied across cultures” — a direct contradiction to his argument. [/QUOTE] No, that doesn't contradict his whole argument, only one of the 2 they mentioned in this section. I can't read the analysis from 2001 to find out, but I can copy abstract here: [QUOTE]Secondary analyses of Revised NEO Personality inventory data from 26 cultures (N =23,031) suggest that gender differences are small relative to individual variation within genders; differences are replicated across cultures for both college-age and adult samples, and differences are broadly consistent with gender stereotypes: Women reported themselves to be higher in Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Warmth, and Openness to Feelings, whereas men were higher in Assertiveness and Openness to Ideas. Contrary to predictions from evolutionary theory, the magnitude of gender differences varied across cultures. [B]Contrary to predictions from the social role model, gender differences were most pronounced in European and American cultures in which traditional sex roles are minimized.[/B] Possible explanations for this surprising finding are discussed, including the attribution of masculine and feminine behaviors to roles rather than traits in traditional cultures.[/QUOTE] I have emphasized the important bit. Yes, the magnitude of gender differences seems to vary across countries. But those differences are actually [I]amplified[/I] in Western nations, contradicting the "social role" model that claims that gender differences are entirely the result of social constructs. So Business Insider's claim that "they’re primarily attributed to culture and socialization" is not nearly as supported as they think it is! Oops. [QUOTE]Throughout his memo, Damore linked to many Wikipedia pages as justification for his claims — but neither news media organizations nor scientists accept Wikipedia as a credible source of information, especially when used in policy recommendations.[/QUOTE] Good thing it's not a policy recommendation. Also Business Insider sometimes writes articles sourcing a single Twitter post and nothing else. I don't think they get to play the high and mighty card here. [QUOTE]To back up the “people over things” hypothesis, Damore cited a study published in the journal Social and Personality Psychology Compass in 2010; however, that work never says the gender differences it lists have a proven biological mechanism — only that there's a possibility one might exist. In fact, the study acknowledges: “Although most biologic scientists accept that sexual selection has led to sex differences in physical traits such as height, musculature, and fat distributions, many social scientists are skeptical about the role of sexual selection in generating psychological gender differences.” [/QUOTE] Social scientists disagree with biology scientists? That's not even an argument, that's just them saying there is no consensus. So their strongest argument against Damore so far is a lack of consensus. I wonder if this gets any better? When talking about people vs things: [QUOTE]A 2000 review of 10 studies related to gender differences in empathy also suggests men and women don’t have innate differences in this area. The researchers found that such distinctions were only present in situations where the subjects were “aware that they are being evaluated on an empathy-relevant dimension” or in which “empathy-relevant gender-role expectations or obligations are made salient.” In other words, differences had to do with how people responded to expectations of them, not any inherent abilities.[/QUOTE] Cute, they're using a study from 2000 to disprove the one Wikipedia uses from 2014 (which Damore is referencing). Take a look at who is writing these studies and you'll see it's a Social Psychologist vs a Neuroscientist and an Evolutionary Psychologist. There's that nature vs nuture thing again. [QUOTE]Neuroticism and anxiety Damore also suggested that women are biologically prone to feel higher levels of stress and anxiety, and posited that difference might contribute “to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.” The only source he gave for this information is Wikipedia. However, the misconception might have stemmed from analyses of the Revised NEO Personality inventory (the prominent personality test mentioned above). On the test, according to a 2001 secondary analysis, women reported themselves to be higher in neuroticism. But those responses are based purely on self-perception (which is heavily influenced by social and cultural factors) so it’d be problematic to consider that a biological difference.[/QUOTE] Unless the Wikipedia article changed between the time they wrote that and right now, I can't find what they're talking about. All I see is a metastudy backing up Damore being referenced here as far as neuroticism relates to gender. I doubt BI would go so far as to lie but this is suspect. [QUOTE]“Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average,” Damore wrote. As evidence for this, he cited a 2006 paper published in the British Journal of Guidance and Counseling. That article highlights the fact that more women value a balance between their professional and home lives than men. It also suggests that men are more likely to make their careers their first priority. However, nowhere does that paper suggest that these preferences come from biological or evolutionary differences between the sexes.[/QUOTE] Interesting that they left out the two other studies Damore mentions on the topic of what men want. They frame this as an attack on woman rather than a discussion of motivation. This really feels like a lie of omission and I think I've pretty much given up on them having any credibility here. [QUOTE]Gender expectations of men Damore does make a couple of valid points about the gender expectations of men, and the way these might contribute to the tech industry’s gender gap. He suggested that because men are often judged based on their status in the professional world, that pushes “many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail.” Furthermore, Damore noted that “men are still very much tied to the male gender role,” and wrote that allowing men to express traits or pursue goals that are traditionally thought of as “feminine” would help alleviate some of the gender-gap problems. Although he doesn’t cite any sources for these claims either, it seems logical that gender expectations and stereotypes are partially responsible for the types of roles men seek out in the workplace.[/QUOTE] Oh so now it's "logical" when he doesn't cite sources but it supports your beliefs? Yeah that's some quality fact-checking there my dude. [QUOTE]Damore’s views, however, were not the reason he was fired — rather, it was because portions of his manifesto violated Google’s code of conduct.[/QUOTE] lol

fact-checking the fact checkers reveals that most of these "fact-checking" stuff is ideologically driven in itself can't they just call it something normal like "critique" instead of implying they have some kind of infallible position?

I read his memo. Very interesting, a hell of a lot of citations too.

[QUOTE=FlakAttack;52571309][...] Unless the Wikipedia article changed between the time they wrote that and right now, I can't find what they're talking about. All I see is a metastudy backing up Damore being referenced here as far as neuroticism relates to gender. I doubt BI would go so far as to lie but this is suspect. [...][/QUOTE] There's been an edit war on at least one article cited by the memo. I vaguely remember it being this one but I'm not entirely sure.

I got caught up on this controversy watching this video, what do you guys think of this guy? He sounds pretty reasonable to me. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpFlc9qbyGM[/media] He has another video on online echo chambers, too: [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67WWrtWvxFw[/media]

[QUOTE] Good thing it's not a policy recommendation. Also Business Insider sometimes writes articles sourcing a single Twitter post and nothing else. I don't think they get to play the high and mighty card here. [/QUOTE] He makes several recommendations for the company's policies at the end of the memo based on the claims he made earlier. [QUOTE] Interesting that they left out the two other studies Damore mentions on the topic of what men want. They frame this as an attack on woman rather than a discussion of motivation. This really feels like a lie of omission and I think I've pretty much given up on them having any credibility here. [/QUOTE] The topic that everyone has been discussing related to the memo is whether or not biological differences explain the lack of women in tech. The two studies aren't really relevant to the topic. [QUOTE] Social scientists disagree with biology scientists? That's not even an argument, that's just them saying there is no consensus. So their strongest argument against Damore so far is a lack of consensus. I wonder if this gets any better? [/QUOTE] If his main argument is that biological differences completely explain the lack of women in tech, a lack of scientific consensus on all of his points is all that's needed to disprove it.

Jordan B. Peterson also apparently tackled this subject: [video=youtube;agU-mHFcXdw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agU-mHFcXdw[/video]

[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] I've yet to meet programmers with that attitude. Been in the industry for about the same amount of time (bit less then five years) but I've never met anyone who shares these opinions. The developers I've talked to about the subject always seem to fall in the 'I don't really care who or what as long as you deliver' category. The industry trend that everybody has super delicate feelings etc and that everybody needs to be careful of those super delicate feelings is something that has been really annoying though. It introduces all kinds of politics that most developers really don't care about and don't want to deal with. An example of this is the code of conducts that every repo on GitHub seems to have these days etc. example [url]http://todogroup.org/opencodeofconduct/[/url]

[QUOTE=Mega1mpact;52583528][...] example [url]http://todogroup.org/opencodeofconduct/[/url][/QUOTE] [quote][...] Our open source community prioritizes marginalized people’s safety over privileged people’s comfort. We will not act on complaints regarding: ‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’ [...][/quote] I thought that was taken out after complaints. Did they put it back in, or was it just GitHub that removed the racist/sexist/whatever-the-third-is terms?