Anonymous wrote:You guys, software development is not IT. Just sayin'.

Huh, its the most important part of IT and except sales, one of the higher paying positions. You just made the comment as its nothing you could ever do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People with disabilities can still be jerks, still be sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.

It isn’t a pass. It shouldn’t be.

+1, They pulled a guy from college and quickly had him rise through the ranks. He wasn't prepared for the social/manager part of it and needed someone to mentor him and more time working. That is not a typical attitude in IT.

He could have stayed in college. He wasn't drafted into the army.

He's capable of learning from his mistakes and will recover from this.

So learning from mistakes can be a challenge with Autism and often happens much more slowly that for NT peers because the person with Autism doesn't full perceive the environment around them to understand the feedback it's providing. (Not particularly in his firing because the was unambiguous feedback, but the point would be that he may not have learned previous lessons from social feedback to develop to the point of not writing the manifesto.)

So? He's still responsible for the choices he made. Autism isn't responsible, he is. Most everyone has something--ADHD, anxiety, what have you.

Anonymous wrote:Look, nobody said to give him a pass because he has autism. The question is whether his autism makes you more empathetic or see the situation differently. To me, the answer is YES. Since he is autistic, he may need more express instruction about why expressing his thoughts in this way is unacceptable or hurtful in the workplace. He also seems possibly more vulnerable to exploitation by people who take advantage of his social naivete (eg the alt-right people). With some empathetic outreach, he could absolutely learn about what he has done.

That's very different from saying he deserves a pass; or that being sexist/racist/offensive is a characteristic of autism.

No, because the natural outgrowth from your post is that someone like Damore should not be in a management position. If we posit that autists cannot understand why voicing harmful thoughts about women and people of color is wrong, then we cannot trust autists to manage women and people of color.

Damore was a manager. He had women and PoC on his team. How would it feel to know your manager thinks you are inherently less intelligent and don't deserve your position in the company?

Pretty shitty. Now, if we accept that Damore cannot be expected to be a good manager because he cannot control his impulsive racism and sexism, then the logical conclusion is that people with autism cannot be trusted in positions of authority.

Is that where you want to end up? Or shall we just hold this one KKK-defending douchebro responsible for his actions and not bring autism into it?

Damore was not diagnosed with autism until he was in his mid-20s.

He didn't disclose his disability to his employer, and he wasn't required to. But he is clearly smart enough that he should have known the kinds of things that he didn't do well, and at least have shown his paper to others before posting it to all of Google.

In fact, he put in on the company-wide blog because he was anxious that the people in charge of diversity didn't respond more quickly to him.

Anonymous wrote:He is right in speaking out.

Quit lynching people who are brave to speak the truth.

He is a rare human who has any brain cells left.

Not only was he not right, he was incorrect. Sure, he can speak out - but he put his current and future employment at risk by doing so. He's still unemployed. You're entitled to your opinion but you're also entitled to the blowback that comes with your unpopular views.

He is right in speaking out.

Quit lynching people who are brave to speak the truth.

He is a rare human who has any brain cells left.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People with disabilities can still be jerks, still be sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.

It isn’t a pass. It shouldn’t be.

+1, They pulled a guy from college and quickly had him rise through the ranks. He wasn't prepared for the social/manager part of it and needed someone to mentor him and more time working. That is not a typical attitude in IT.

He could have stayed in college. He wasn't drafted into the army.

He's capable of learning from his mistakes and will recover from this.

So learning from mistakes can be a challenge with Autism and often happens much more slowly that for NT peers because the person with Autism doesn't full perceive the environment around them to understand the feedback it's providing. (Not particularly in his firing because the was unambiguous feedback, but the point would be that he may not have learned previous lessons from social feedback to develop to the point of not writing the manifesto.)

Anonymous wrote:If autism is used as a pass for inappropriate behavior, the natural consequence will be that people with autism will not be allowed to participate in spheres where that inappropriate behavior cannot be tolerated. That's really not where we want to go.

I agree that nobody wants that. It's a bind, though: there are things a child with autism will struggle to learn no matter how many times it's presented, and for some kids, saying inappropriate things, or failing to consider how a recipient will receive it, is one of those things. There will always be limits to how far a workplace will stretch to accommodate someone. No easy answers. Soemetimes getting out into situations where they're likely to fail is the only way it seems like it will sink in -- if the inevitable correction from society will be not too harsh, and they'll have support to deal with the results. Better early on than in front of an audience of billions, like with this guy.

Look, nobody said to give him a pass because he has autism. The question is whether his autism makes you more empathetic or see the situation differently. To me, the answer is YES. Since he is autistic, he may need more express instruction about why expressing his thoughts in this way is unacceptable or hurtful in the workplace. He also seems possibly more vulnerable to exploitation by people who take advantage of his social naivete (eg the alt-right people). With some empathetic outreach, he could absolutely learn about what he has done.

That's very different from saying he deserves a pass; or that being sexist/racist/offensive is a characteristic of autism.

Anonymous wrote:Have any of your read the actual document that he wrote. It was a fairly well reasoned, nuanced discussion of Google, their diversity policies, the latest in behavioral science research, psychology and such. It wasn't a woman hating, racist, alt-right type screed.

Now, was it wise to bring up these topics while working for google in ultra-liberal, uber-PC California? Of course not.

But after he wrote it, he allowed himself and his ideas to be promoted and promulgated by well-known alt-right, racist, woman-hating people. Which didn't help.

And if you read the article linked above you would see that some of the researchers he quoted in those fields said he misstated their research.

Anonymous wrote:Have any of your read the actual document that he wrote. It was a fairly well reasoned, nuanced discussion of Google, their diversity policies, the latest in behavioral science research, psychology and such. It wasn't a woman hating, racist, alt-right type screed.

Now, was it wise to bring up these topics while working for google in ultra-liberal, uber-PC California? Of course not.

No, it sounded like it was based on behavioral science research and psychology, but cherrypicked and viewed through the lens he'd already adopted.

Here's where I think his autism could have entered in to his actual arguments and not just his inability to foresee the reaction: he did not understand that labeling women as being unsuited in general for technology work, would have real life consequences for the women who work or want to work in these industries. He didn't see how his POV would be adopted by misogynists to justify their views. He didn't understand that it is already a hostile environment to women, and his plan to stop outreach to women could only make it worse.

I don't excuse or endorse his ideas. I think his disability did come into play with not being able to take the point of view of a woman in tech and understand that the status quo feels fine (if too liberal) to him, but isn't quite so fine for everybody.

Apple's diversity officer got fired for suggesting white people can have diverse viewpoints also:
https://nypost.com/2017/11/17/apples-diversity-chief-lasts-just-six-months/

If autism is used as a pass for inappropriate behavior, the natural consequence will be that people with autism will not be allowed to participate in spheres where that inappropriate behavior cannot be tolerated. That's really not where we want to go.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People with disabilities can still be jerks, still be sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.

It isn’t a pass. It shouldn’t be.

+1, They pulled a guy from college and quickly had him rise through the ranks. He wasn't prepared for the social/manager part of it and needed someone to mentor him and more time working. That is not a typical attitude in IT.

He could have stayed in college. He wasn't drafted into the army.

He's capable of learning from his mistakes and will recover from this.

He did, he was working on his PhD, which you don't need in that field. It made sense for him to take the job as much of it at that point is skill. Its not an issue of going to college. Most of those IT jobs are everyone for themselves and very competitive, which means he was amazing at what he does, but he didn't have the social skills or anyone to take the time to teach him about his roles as he progressed in his career. He will recover and someone will hire him. Most people bounce between tech companies every few years. He can easily make that money at another company.

I doubt he can be hired at most places -- he is radioactive. Any company that hires him will be immediately attacked as supporting his agenda. There might be a few companies that are ok with being pariahs, but not many.

You guys, software development is not IT. Just sayin'.