Google male engineeer saying female engineers shouldn't be engineers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

He was not fired for stating a viewpoint, he was fired because his statements (not based in science) is hostile.

Are there no studies which support his claims with respect to traits? If studies exist, then the science exists. There may be a consensus or there might not be a consensus, but that does not mean that there is no science there which supports his position.

Look for a meta analysis (a study of studies) with regards to trait distribution, they exist. Take a look and let me know what you will find (you might not like it).

Do you deny that women are more likely to be diagnosed with neurosis of some kind and receive treatment? Is that statement factually incorrect?

Do you deny that women are not socialized to promote certain traits and reduce certain traits?

The question of course is wether or not women who work at google possess these traits, to which Damore is unlikely to be able to prove either way, but certainly can provide evidence for the general population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

He was not fired for stating a viewpoint, he was fired because his statements (not based in science) is hostile.

Are there no studies which support his claims with respect to traits? If studies exist, then the science exists. There may be a consensus or there might not be a consensus, but that does not mean that there is no science there which supports his position.

Look for a meta analysis (a study of studies) with regards to trait distribution, they exist. Take a look and let me know what you will find (you might not like it).

Do you deny that women are more likely to be diagnosed with neurosis of some kind and receive treatment? Is that statement factually incorrect?

Do you deny that women are not socialized to promote certain traits and reduce certain traits?

The question of course is wether or not women who work at google possess these traits, to which Damore is unlikely to be able to prove either way, but certainly can provide evidence for the general population.

Everything you say there is a negative stereotype based on gender. That's not appropriate to express in the workplace (unless you happen to be a gender stereotype researcher). The standard for racial/gender harassment under the law is not "can I pull some crappy ass, non-replicable social science study out to support my viewpoint?" It's "is this a gender-based statement that creates a hostile work environment for women." Damore (and yourself) are free to debate the "science" ALL you want on your own time (you're wrong, BTW) but it's not ok to go around making statements about how women are biologically unsuited to the job and leadership at work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Everything you say there is a negative stereotype based on gender. That's not appropriate to express in the workplace (unless you happen to be a gender stereotype researcher). The standard for racial/gender harassment under the law is not "can I pull some crappy ass, non-replicable social science study out to support my viewpoint?" It's "is this a gender-based statement that creates a hostile work environment for women." Damore (and yourself) are free to debate the "science" ALL you want on your own time (you're wrong, BTW) but it's not ok to go around making statements about how women are biologically unsuited to the job and leadership at work.

You keep repeating I am wrong. Please provide some meta studies that show it. You won't because you are blind to it because of your political viewpoint.

The overwhelming number of studies do not show an even distribution. You can argue whether or not you feel they're non-signifigant statistically (it depends on the threshold they use). Some studies argue exactly that, some feel it is signifigant enough, but to deny there is no science is utterly wrong, and laughable if you can spend 5 minutes on lexis-nexis.

Damore himself says the following:

We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ[8] and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap[9]. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.

You do realise why he wrote this rant? It was because of increased politicization of the TGIF meetings which he and others claim went from being based upon technology developments to spending half the time advocating a particular political point. of view. That could be considered illegal under CA law and he filed an NRLB lawsuit related to his experiences prior to being fired.

Its my understanding that California employees are entitled to special protections of their political rights under Labor Code Sections 1101 and 1102, which were passed in 1937. These provisions protect employees from being retaliated against, excluded from, or controlled by their employers with regard to the employees' political affiliations and actions. Section 1101 bars rules, regulations or policies that would forbid or prevent employees from engaging or participating in politics or from running for office. Section 1101 also prohibits companies from directing or controlling an employee's political activities and even from "tending" to do so. Section 1102 bars employers from coercing, influencing, or attempting to coerce or influence an employee's politics by threatening to fire the employee.


Given that google managers have compiled blacklists regarding employees with a conservative perspective, threatened to fire them and blacklist them in the industry, it doesn't bode well. Likewise I don't know enough about labour law, but that doesn't look good when he was fired AFTER filing the compliant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Everything you say there is a negative stereotype based on gender. That's not appropriate to express in the workplace (unless you happen to be a gender stereotype researcher). The standard for racial/gender harassment under the law is not "can I pull some crappy ass, non-replicable social science study out to support my viewpoint?" It's "is this a gender-based statement that creates a hostile work environment for women." Damore (and yourself) are free to debate the "science" ALL you want on your own time (you're wrong, BTW) but it's not ok to go around making statements about how women are biologically unsuited to the job and leadership at work.

You keep repeating I am wrong. Please provide some meta studies that show it. You won't because you are blind to it because of your political viewpoint.

The overwhelming number of studies do not show an even distribution. You can argue whether or not you feel they're non-signifigant statistically (it depends on the threshold they use). Some studies argue exactly that, some feel it is signifigant enough, but to deny there is no science is utterly wrong, and laughable if you can spend 5 minutes on lexis-nexis.

Damore himself says the following:

We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ[8] and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap[9]. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.

You do realise why he wrote this rant? It was because of increased politicization of the TGIF meetings which he and others claim went from being based upon technology developments to spending half the time advocating a particular political point. of view. That could be considered illegal under CA law and he filed an NRLB lawsuit related to his experiences prior to being fired.

Its my understanding that California employees are entitled to special protections of their political rights under Labor Code Sections 1101 and 1102, which were passed in 1937. These provisions protect employees from being retaliated against, excluded from, or controlled by their employers with regard to the employees' political affiliations and actions. Section 1101 bars rules, regulations or policies that would forbid or prevent employees from engaging or participating in politics or from running for office. Section 1101 also prohibits companies from directing or controlling an employee's political activities and even from "tending" to do so. Section 1102 bars employers from coercing, influencing, or attempting to coerce or influence an employee's politics by threatening to fire the employee.


Given that google managers have compiled blacklists regarding employees with a conservative perspective, threatened to fire them and blacklist them in the industry, it doesn't bode well. Likewise I don't know enough about labour law, but that doesn't look good when he was fired AFTER filing the compliant.

Done with you. Bye.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Everything you say there is a negative stereotype based on gender. That's not appropriate to express in the workplace (unless you happen to be a gender stereotype researcher). The standard for racial/gender harassment under the law is not "can I pull some crappy ass, non-replicable social science study out to support my viewpoint?" It's "is this a gender-based statement that creates a hostile work environment for women." Damore (and yourself) are free to debate the "science" ALL you want on your own time (you're wrong, BTW) but it's not ok to go around making statements about how women are biologically unsuited to the job and leadership at work.

Women being diagnosed for neurosis at a higher rate is not a stereotype. That is a fact. Facts don't care about your feelings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Everything you say there is a negative stereotype based on gender. That's not appropriate to express in the workplace (unless you happen to be a gender stereotype researcher). The standard for racial/gender harassment under the law is not "can I pull some crappy ass, non-replicable social science study out to support my viewpoint?" It's "is this a gender-based statement that creates a hostile work environment for women." Damore (and yourself) are free to debate the "science" ALL you want on your own time (you're wrong, BTW) but it's not ok to go around making statements about how women are biologically unsuited to the job and leadership at work.

Women being diagnosed for neurosis at a higher rate is not a stereotype. That is a fact. Facts don't care about your feelings.

"Neurosis" is not in the DSM or ICD codes, genius.

The negative gender stereotype is this: women are diagnosed at higher rates with neurosis than men; therefore, women cannot be workplace leaders.

So many layered "logical fallacies" in that statement as well (since I know you care so much about logic):

Fallacy 1: Women are diagnosed at higher rates "neuroses." Therefore, men don't have the same rate of neuroses. (incorrectly presumes that only people diagnosed with "neuroses" are neurotic.)
Fallacy 2: Women have a neuroses. Therefore, they will be a worse leader than men. (incorrectly presumes that other mental health conditions don't make men worse leaders.)
Fallacy 3: Women are not leaders at the same rate as men. Women have more neuroses. Therefore, women's neuroses are the reason they are not leaders at the same rate as men. (incorrectly presumes that there are no other causes).

[Anonymous]

Women are more emotional and people oriented
Men are more factual and data oriented

Any Biology 101 student can tell you that

Certain personality types are more common among male than females

ISTJ for example the "engineer" personality is almost 300% more likely in males than females

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Everything you say there is a negative stereotype based on gender. That's not appropriate to express in the workplace (unless you happen to be a gender stereotype researcher). The standard for racial/gender harassment under the law is not "can I pull some crappy ass, non-replicable social science study out to support my viewpoint?" It's "is this a gender-based statement that creates a hostile work environment for women." Damore (and yourself) are free to debate the "science" ALL you want on your own time (you're wrong, BTW) but it's not ok to go around making statements about how women are biologically unsuited to the job and leadership at work.

Women being diagnosed for neurosis at a higher rate is not a stereotype. That is a fact. Facts don't care about your feelings.

"Neurosis" is not in the DSM or ICD codes, genius.

The negative gender stereotype is this: women are diagnosed at higher rates with neurosis than men; therefore, women cannot be workplace leaders.

So many layered "logical fallacies" in that statement as well (since I know you care so much about logic):

Fallacy 1: Women are diagnosed at higher rates "neuroses." Therefore, men don't have the same rate of neuroses. (incorrectly presumes that only people diagnosed with "neuroses" are neurotic.)
Fallacy 2: Women have a neuroses. Therefore, they will be a worse leader than men. (incorrectly presumes that other mental health conditions don't make men worse leaders.)
Fallacy 3: Women are not leaders at the same rate as men. Women have more neuroses. Therefore, women's neuroses are the reason they are not leaders at the same rate as men. (incorrectly presumes that there are no other causes).

Shall I amend, women are diagnosed with anxiety and depression(types of neurosis at rates double that of men. That is a fact. Show me where I said they are more neurotic. (Hint I didn't say that).

Are anxiety and depression considered desirable traits for leaders?

Damore and myself never said these are the only causes. You fail at reading comprehension.

I used the word neurosis since that is what Damore said. Its in older DSMs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yup what sunk him was actually saying what we all think and know out loud. People should know its never a good idea to say anything at work these days.

Still waiting for the liberal outcry about the lack of diversity efforts to push for more whites in the NBA

You're missing the point. Are there a bunch of white men saying that they are unfairly discriminated against in terms of NBA hiring? Does the NBA (or any particular team) have reason to believe that they would better achieve their objectives through racial diversity?

You keep making strawman arguments that diversity is about equal outcomes, when it's not. Women are actively discriminated against in tech, and one way to counter that is to increase their representation which has been demonstrated to change cultural norms. Maybe women will always be a minority in tech, but that doesn't mean they have to be harassed at work by the likes of manifesto-guy.

You hire the best talent for the job that's the point. Black males are better basketball players. Males are better coders. Evidence almost all top CS/Engineering/Programs are vastly majority male.

Almost all top CS/Engineering programs are vastly majority Asian (East Asian and South Asian). Asians are better coders. Google should also stop hiring white men, must be something about them that makes them less good at that job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

He was not fired for stating a viewpoint, he was fired because his statements (not based in science) is hostile.

Are there no studies which support his claims with respect to traits? If studies exist, then the science exists. There may be a consensus or there might not be a consensus, but that does not mean that there is no science there which supports his position.

Look for a meta analysis (a study of studies) with regards to trait distribution, they exist. Take a look and let me know what you will find (you might not like it).

Do you deny that women are more likely to be diagnosed with neurosis of some kind and receive treatment? Is that statement factually incorrect?

Do you deny that women are not socialized to promote certain traits and reduce certain traits?

The question of course is wether or not women who work at google possess these traits, to which Damore is unlikely to be able to prove either way, but certainly can provide evidence for the general population.

Neither of those is evidence that women as a group have greater incidence of neuroticism--that evidence could also show that they are more likely to seek treatment for a mental health problem, or more likely to be diagnosed with a mental health problem instead of a physical problem ("it's all in your head.")

Plus, if they are receiving treatment, what's the problem?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

He was not fired for stating a viewpoint, he was fired because his statements (not based in science) is hostile.

Are there no studies which support his claims with respect to traits? If studies exist, then the science exists. There may be a consensus or there might not be a consensus, but that does not mean that there is no science there which supports his position.

Look for a meta analysis (a study of studies) with regards to trait distribution, they exist. Take a look and let me know what you will find (you might not like it).

Do you deny that women are more likely to be diagnosed with neurosis of some kind and receive treatment? Is that statement factually incorrect?

Do you deny that women are not socialized to promote certain traits and reduce certain traits?

The question of course is wether or not women who work at google possess these traits, to which Damore is unlikely to be able to prove either way, but certainly can provide evidence for the general population.

Neither of those is evidence that women as a group have greater incidence of neuroticism--that evidence could also show that they are more likely to seek treatment for a mental health problem, or more likely to be diagnosed with a mental health problem instead of a physical problem ("it's all in your head.")

Plus, if they are receiving treatment, what's the problem?

Don't even bother. This PP is so convinced everything he says is "logical" that he can't see past his nose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Shall I amend, women are diagnosed with anxiety and depression(types of neurosis at rates double that of men. That is a fact. Show me where I said they are more neurotic. (Hint I didn't say that).

Are anxiety and depression considered desirable traits for leaders?

Damore and myself never said these are the only causes. You fail at reading comprehension.

I used the word neurosis since that is what Damore said. Its in older DSMs.

Diagnosis rate =/= underlying rate of disorder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

He was not fired for stating a viewpoint, he was fired because his statements (not based in science) is hostile.

Are there no studies which support his claims with respect to traits? If studies exist, then the science exists. There may be a consensus or there might not be a consensus, but that does not mean that there is no science there which supports his position.

Look for a meta analysis (a study of studies) with regards to trait distribution, they exist. Take a look and let me know what you will find (you might not like it).

Do you deny that women are more likely to be diagnosed with neurosis of some kind and receive treatment? Is that statement factually incorrect?

Do you deny that women are not socialized to promote certain traits and reduce certain traits?

The question of course is wether or not women who work at google possess these traits, to which Damore is unlikely to be able to prove either way, but certainly can provide evidence for the general population.[i][u]

Your last line is exactly the point. Who the hell cares what the general population description is? Arguments over the validity of those studies (and I have plenty of concerns with some of them) are irrelevant to the stupid ass memo.
The women AT GOOGLE and being recruited FOR GOOGLE are what his memo was about.
By saying that his coworkers are inherently less capable, he is, in fact, making it a hostile work environment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

He was not fired for stating a viewpoint, he was fired because his statements (not based in science) is hostile.

Are there no studies which support his claims with respect to traits? If studies exist, then the science exists. There may be a consensus or there might not be a consensus, but that does not mean that there is no science there which supports his position.

Look for a meta analysis (a study of studies) with regards to trait distribution, they exist. Take a look and let me know what you will find (you might not like it).

Do you deny that women are more likely to be diagnosed with neurosis of some kind and receive treatment? Is that statement factually incorrect?

Do you deny that women are not socialized to promote certain traits and reduce certain traits?

The question of course is wether or not women who work at google possess these traits, to which Damore is unlikely to be able to prove either way, but certainly can provide evidence for the general population.

There is no science that supports the notion that we should not do outreach to women to encourage them to study engineering because no women are good at engineering.

Women are more likely to be told they have anxiety when they are actually having a heart attack. That statement is factually correct.

The whole point of the STEM outreach that offends the Google whiner is to not socialize women away from STEM. The effort is to stop the socialization of women to low paying jobs.

Read Mindset, and stop putting people in a box and thinking they can't overcome their socialization/traits/characteristics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What the Google guy was trying to say is that it is not realistic to have outreach to women for STEM because they have traits that make them not good at engineering.

When a woman has to work with a man who says women are biologically not as good at engineering it creates a hostile workplace.

He was not fired for stating a viewpoint, he was fired because his statements (not based in science) is hostile.

That is not what he said.

James Damore wrote:The Harm of Google’s biases

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:

Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5]
A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination [6]

These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology[7] that can irreparably harm Google.

Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs.

Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.
There’s currently very little transparency into the extend of our diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo chamber.
These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives.
I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize illegal discrimination.

It's clear that promoting a marginalized group over others is discrimination, its just not illegal discrimination when it is done for protected classes.

None of what he wrote said it is unrealistic to have outreach to women, please provide a quote.

Instead he "suggest[ed] ways to address them to increase women’s representation in tech and without resorting to discrimination". He readily admits sexism (discrimination) occurs (its in the opening line of his essay).

Nor do I recall him saying that all female engineers at google have traits that make them bad engineers (which appears to be what you feel he is implying), but we already disagree on that interpretation and won't have a productive discussion on that point.

Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender

He sees an outreach to women for mentoring and sees discrimination, what he does not see is that the men have mentors already. Outreach was not needed, because men's unconscious bias geared them to mentor a man.

Yes, he says outright that women were hired with with a lower bar. Bolded.