From what I've seen I agree it is a sexist argument. I'm not arguing that and time permittin will be happy to engage in a debate on how much biological differences play a role in hi tech and leadership positions. What I'm unessay about is the idea that an employee encouraged to express opinions on subjects tangentially related to his job and is then punished for expressing an honest opinion. That opnion may very well be different and even offensive to the prevailing opinion of the company but that is the risk of asking any group of people what their honest opinions on any variety of topics. What is Google's company culture? Google has stated they welcome and encourage a variety of views and publicly are not saying the employee was fired for his views. You are saying that he was because those views are out of line with the company's. In that case then Google actually doesn't welcome a variety of views and employee's express their honest opinions at their own risk. That may well very be how things really work but then that really isn't encouraging employees to honestly express thier views.
According to googles official response on this issue. "Google CEO Sundar Pichai wrote in a memo to employees. “It is contrary to our basic values and our code of conduct.” "Code of conduct" is the big ? here. Unless we know what that means in google's culture, hard to say if they were justified. In my company, you are also free to express your opinion as long as nobody takes offense to it. Which makes it difficult as it can be very subjective. Just like complimenting somebody for looking very good today. Someone might take that as positive or negative so a rule of thumb is.. if your'e not sure, keep your opinion to yourself.
Their claim was that the the scientific facts he compiled was him "'perpetuating gender stereotypes" and that was their excuse to fire him. The reality of the situation was that he was correct in his assertion that Google operated inside of an ideological echo chamber (the same type of echo chamber that thread Nazis like Deckard would prefer this forum become) and that they were intolerant to diversity of opinion. He honestly should have known that if he was right, they'd go after him, but he was a naive kid that spent most of his life sheltered by academia.
Thanks for providing an actual quote. I asked because the disagreement here is not over our core values, I don't think, but rather that we are reading what he said in a very different way. If you read from his actual document you would find that he cites this scholarly paper to support the claim he is making in that quote (written by a female professor of sociology at the London School of Economics). It is also worth pointing out that he did not claim that all sex differences are biology-based, which you seem to be assuming. He claimed there are some biological differences which may be a partial explanation for difference representation -- "I'm simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership." In scientific circles, this is a position of debate. I referenced to a debate earlier in the thread, and I would encourage you to watch it as it provides perspectives from both sides. Steven Pinker essentially argued his position that many (not all) of these sex differences in cognitive abilities and preferences are innate as opposed to socially constructed. I read that article from Business Insider. The problem is that the article commits a (rather obvious) error in assuming he's making the correlation = causation argument. The fact that the Googler said it "may explain" why there isn't equal representation rather than it "does explain" shows that he wasn't making that argument at all. The correct way to describe his argument is that he's looking at a correlation and positing it might imply causation. That is not a fallacy at all, but a logically sound statement.
Yikes. A sex neuroscientist agrees with most of the engineer's cited gender differences. Any rebuttals?
She is much more on the nature side. As I mentioned earlier, there are also those on the nurture side and that debate between nature vs nurture has been going on forever and won't be settle anytime soon. I also posted articles right after that that show some of society impacts (more on the nurture side). Here is a general article that look at both. This is a fair statement to me: Debates about nature, nurture and gender can be enormously frustrating because they too often lapse into dogmatic denial of biology at one end and biological determinism at the other. On the pro-difference side, the overlap between the sexes is often ignored in favor of a pink/blue divide. This article point to a study that show competitiveness is more based on culture (nurture) and not biological (nature), at least in one society. In a fascinating and ambitious 2009 study (pdf), a team of economists from the universities of Chicago and Maryland set out to determine if competition was a function of nature or nurture, using a simple field experiment in two dramatically different cultures. One experiment took place among the Khasi people of Meghalaya, a region of northeastern India, where property and status is inherited through women, and men are expected to work on behalf of their wives and her family. The other was conducted in the Arusha region of Tanzania among the Maasai people, a strict patriarchal society, where women have few rights. Authors Uri Gneezy, Kenneth Leonard, and John List are quick to point out the limitations of study that looks at just two societies, and they note there are lots of factors that could lead to the Khasi’s matrilineal culture, including genetics that favor competition in women. But they do conclude “it is not universally true that the average female in every society avoids competition more often than the average male in that society because we have discovered at least one setting in which this is not true.” Nature or Nurture, at the end of the day, I generally agree with this. Let's not generalize. Each and everyone is their own individual. “Human beings everywhere, male and female, not only differ from one another but continually differentiate themselves during their lifetimes,” Timothy Ingold, professor of anthropology at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, explains in an email. Biology helps shape the growth and development of any living organism, but so do social and environmental factors. People, Ingold says, “are not ‘products’ of nature and/or nurture, let alone of ‘evolution,’ but the producers of their own lives, in the company of others.”
Thanks. It's hard to argue with science, and I agree that nature will skew towards those instincts but nurture has the ability to swing it the other way. I believe that nature will generally win out, though, but there's nothing wrong with that. My initial thoughts when I first read the memo was that he did a generally good job of presenting his argument with sources and being fairly empirical. He never used inflammatory language or argue that one sex was superior to the other, rather he merely outlined the differences and strengths of each sex. Personally, I'm not on board with putting quotas on diversity for diversity's sake. There are clear gender differences in fields, and that shows towards each gender's preferences, not their capabilities. I don't think any institution is preventing any type of diversity from entering the field. Each gender will naturally play to its strengths and comforts. But again, why is that wrong and why should we force diversity?
He did not pull that quote from the article. The article is talking about something different,. He is saying that Men want status more than women. That is not what that paper is saying at all. Just because he references a scholarly paper does not excuse sexist statements. In fact - the reason the paper gives for fewer women in higher status positions is: It's that woman have to sacrifice children but men do not. That doesn't mean women don't value status as much as men because of biological reasons! It is worth nothing that I did not say that all his arguments are sexist. But if you make a speech, and only say a few racist things, does it excuse you that the rest of the speech was ok? C'mon man. And then you have this: No Durvasa, it is not a position of debate. There is no scientific study that has been done attributing the lack of women in tech as a result of biological causes. That's not how science works. You are extrapolating from studies and making a new hypothesis that even the authors of the study have come out to say are not correct. No - it's not my friend. Using the word "may" doesn't allow you to get away with a sexist statement. There is no science that attaches the level of professional success to a genetic basis. None. You are now arguing something you can't back up.
So you are saying that if a company says we welcome all perspectives and encourage people to express their opinions - it's ok for someone to express hate and intolerance? That it's ok to be sexist? It's ok to say, "I think black people are scientifically inferior?" Seriously - clearly that's not what Google meant. Google didn't tell the guy - please express your attitudes on the lack of women in the work place. If a guy said, "Hey I think it's unfair that there are diversity programs for minorities and women as it gives an advantage over us who don't belong to those groups" - as a valid opinion. But to go further and say - "well the reason that there are less women might partly because they are genetically less equipped to succeed in this environment" as an honest opinion that should be tolerated is crazy. An employer can't tolerate an employee who is preaching sexism under the guise of science. There are those who say the guy is right and he may have a valid lawsuit. But I can't see how sexist attitudes can be tolerated under federal laws against discrimination and harassment against women. By Goggle no taking action, it can be argued they are knowingly violating the law but creating a hostile work environment for women. That's why I think this is a legal issue more than a political one.
Men typically have one X and one Y chromosome, women typically have two X chromosomes and no Y chromosome. Clearly a sexist statement that is "perpetuating gender stereotypes". Regressive leftist identity politics assholes are sure to be triggered by that statement.....It's a good thing I don't work for Google.
White guys with hate filled garbage and the targets of the hate filled garbage angry about it? Is that "the cycle? Please.
This is pure gold. It's a shame bobby has me on ignore but I think he is demonstrating how poorly the right is misunderstanding the issue and excusing sexism in the work place. Bobby like many of his comrades are arguing that why is it sexist to point out biological differences? IT'S NOT! For the millionth time of course there are biological differences. That's not the issues at all. It's the argument that these genetic differences may be the reason women aren't excelling in the work place. That having Two XX Chromosomes somehow means you are less suited for tech and management. How can people not see the obvious sexism in this notion????
It generally starts with a misunderstanding or a refusal to seek out a common understanding. And then it mushrooms from there into increasingly shrill hostility where neither side is willing to engage the other because they consider it a lost cause.
I think often rather than it being a legitimate misunderstanding it starts with demonization which then leads to misunderstanding. I think this is a good example of it. If people actually took the time to read what he wrote, and didn't start out from the beginning assuming that he was a bigot and was saying everything out of hatred or sexism then I doubt many would disagree with him. Honestly it shows how backwards things are right now that what this guy wrote up was significantly controversial with anyone.
Can you quote where he stated that women are inferior to men in tech? My take from his memo compared to yours is totally different, too. From what I gathered, he's trying to cite evidence for the gender gap in tech. He also believes that Google actively trying to equalize the gap is harmful to the company because the hiring process will focus on gender rather than one's resume. I agree with that last point. If Google is trying to meet a quota of diversity, then they will actively dismiss any group that Google feels is over-represented. The problem lies in what should be the true model for representation. The model for diversity should be representative of the applicant pool. If 90% of Google's applicants are male and 10% are female, then the staff should be roughly 90/10. If Google believes it should be 50/50, then that's wrong as one side gets overrepresented. Google may also hire underqualified applicants to meet that quota (disclaimer: I have no evidence that they do, but it is real possibility).
Another thing is I have no problem with Google having workshops or programs for underrepresented groups if they want to. But that should be at a lower level like middle school, high school, or college to promote women in STEM. I'm not sure which programs he lists are exclusive to certain groups. I don't think that should exist internally within Google. If it does, that should be abolished. Google should give equal resources to all of its employees.
It truly is, for all of us. Google would be more like Alta Vista or AskJeeves if it employed people with your reasoning abilities.
LOL, that's adorable, you brought nothing of substance to this thread...not even bothering to mention anything related to the subject at hand and instead opted for a feeble attempt at an insult that runs counter to the available evidence. I'm honestly not sure why you bothered unless your goal was to have people laugh at you.
