ADVERTISEMENT

google internal memo leaked...

davidallen said:
You've read the doc no doubt. Tell me more about the biological evidence for higher propensity for neuroticism in females. Take my answer off the air...
Click to expand...

big 5 personality traits. statistically as an aggregate, some average trait variations can be observed along gender lines - not as individuals - and in this heirarchy of traits, neuroticism is not the charged word you may think it is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits

explained...

"The tendency to experience unpleasant emotions easily, such as anger, anxiety, depression, and vulnerability. "

that obviously describes enough women to move the needle, though also obviously does not apply to all women. it also applies to a lot of men (on this board).

it's interesting that this guy was crucified for pointing out gender differences, not saying one was superior. protecting the equality of outcome narrative is a prime directive for the religion of diversity. this heretic has been excommunicated.
 
davidallen said:
You've read the doc no doubt. Tell me more about the biological evidence for higher propensity for neuroticism in females. Take my answer off the air...
Click to expand...
I actually haven't read it. Don't care. Google is a cesspool of "progressivism" except when it affects the bottom line, like potentially paying women less than men for the same job. The feds sure have them spooked.

But actually yes, there is plenty of evidence that females have a higher "propensity" for neuroticism than males. Why give you my answer off air when I can embarrass you on air?

Stick to coding davidallen. You suck at science. And that progressive input you are obviously getting from your employer doesn't help.

Plenty more where this came from. Google search!

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2031866/#!po=52.0408
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThorOdinson13
DGr7zUBWsAAAaUq.jpg:large
 
  • Like
Reactions: HanAholeSolo2.0
davidallen said:
You too huh? Correlation, causation, biological factors, social factors and what not...
Click to expand...
It works for manmade climate change, amiright davidallen? Do you really pick and choose your belief in science based on political ideology?

Read it. I dare you. Double dog dare you. It's actual science though. It might challenge what the Party has told you.

No wonder you wanted my answer off air. Snicker.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HanAholeSolo2.0 and poke2001
Medic007 said:
It works for manmade climate change, amiright davidallen? Do you really pick and choose your belief in science based on political ideology?

Read it. I dare you. Double dog dare you. It's actual science though. It might challenge what the Party has told you.

No wonder you wanted my answer off air. Snicker.
Click to expand...
SMH. Read the article - tell me again where it points to a biological basis to the difference in incidence of mental health.

Not so long ago you were saying that suicide rates amongst marginalized communities was not evidence of mental illness, rather it was more likely a result of marginalization of members of that community. Yet.... now you have flipped it. Measured differences in the sexes as it relates to personality characteristics are biologically based not responses to socialization. Hmmm.

In any case, Google doesn't want to employ someone who grossly offends the vast majority of other employees. So it goes.
 
Medic007 said:
Make sure you look at my first response to you as well. Don't be scared. The truth isn't harmful bro.
Click to expand...
Truth is lots of observational studies referred to ITT - not a single study showing any kind of causation. No predictive models, no physiological analysis. Every researcher you have linked to thus far has avoiding the jump to causation that you so casually make.
 
davidallen said:
SMH. Read the article - tell me again where it points to a biological basis to the difference in incidence of mental health.

Not so long ago you were saying that suicide rates amongst marginalized communities was not evidence of mental illness, rather it was more likely a result of marginalization of members of that community. Yet.... now you have flipped it. Measured differences in the sexes as it relates to personality characteristics are biologically based not responses to socialization. Hmmm.

In any case, Google doesn't want to employ someone who grossly offends the vast majority of other employees. So it goes.
Click to expand...
SMH. The answer isn't in the publication press release. The answer(s) are in the actual article that is the PDF link.

Can you point me to where I stated that biological differences are the sole source of the disparity? We're discussing the higher incidence of neuroticism and mental illness in the female, which I believe you posted doesn't exist. Once you can admit that it does in fact exist, maybe we can have an actual discussion on what the science says regarding the higher incidence and why.

Maybe you can dig up some stuff from a reputable scientific source to refute the existence of the disparity?
 
Medic007 said:
We're discussing the higher incidence of neuroticism and mental illness in the female...
Click to expand...
Incorrect. The author describes certain mental characteristics as biologically based. My position is this is not scientifically justified in any way. The totality of his comments were offensive to coworkers and not consistent with the Google code of conduct and firing him is justifiable.

Any community that encounters bias is likely to have higher observable incidence of certain personality traits and perhaps even mental illness. This correlation is likely more attributable to sociological factors. It is almost never a matter of underlying biology.

Interesting that even California's pro-worker rules don't appear to protect this guy.
 
davidallen said:
So correlation is now causation...interesting, if not incorrect, theory you have there.
Click to expand...

it's not my theory. i'm simply explaining context that you appear to be missing. if I'm incorrect in that regard, then you are purposely disregarding the context so you can still sit with the cool kids at google lunch. i understand that and it's a perfectly valid professional motivation to cast critical thought aside and take the safer path.
 
davidallen said:
Truth is lots of observational studies referred to ITT - not a single study showing any kind of causation. No predictive models, no physiological analysis. Every researcher you have linked to thus far has avoiding the jump to causation that you so casually make.
Click to expand...
Yep, no biological or physiological analysis or anything showing causation. I was just getting started, tiger. Actual science isn't a one liner.

Thank god medicine doesn't operate with the progressive ideology that women aren't biologically different from men. That would be a HUGE disservice to women's health issues, including mental illness.

These are links from a basic search of estrogen and serotonin. Science. Dig in. I'll gladly post more on different hormonal relationships in females and their effect on mental health when I have more time to waste on you.

http://www.ebiomedicine.com/article/S2352-3964(15)30042-6/abstract

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1327664/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3753111/#!po=11.4173

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/210086

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/481788

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031938409000808

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0026049505000363

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1196/annals.1286.006/full

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006322306015587

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/appi.ajp.157.6.924

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006322304009461

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00048670701732715

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165032702004287
 
  • Like
Reactions: CBradSmith and ThorOdinson13
davidallen said:
The author describes certain mental characteristics as biologically based. My position is this is not scientifically justified in any way.
Click to expand...
And you're wrong based on the simple summary you provided. See above. It isn't bad to acknowledge the prevalence of mental illness in females is in a large part based in biology. The biology also intersects with sociology to produce certain phenomena. Nature and nuture. Biology and the female sex hormones are what make females female. You can even see the simplistic effects when men take estrogen to transition to females.

Admittedly, I didn't read what the Google guy actually wrote. But there is certainly biological basis for much of the incidence of mental illness in females.

davidallen said:
The totality of his comments were offensive to coworkers and not consistent with the Google code of conduct and firing him is justifiable.
Click to expand...
I have no argument about his firing. At will employee. We have a code of conduct at my place of employment as well.

davidallen said:
Any community that encounters bias is likely to have higher observable incidence of certain personality traits and perhaps even mental illness. This correlation is likely more attributable to sociological factors. It is almost never a matter of underlying biology.
Click to expand...
The first sentence is somewhat true depending on what personality traits you're referencing. The second sentence somewhat true in some instances. And the third sentence is not true at all. See above.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CBradSmith and ThorOdinson13
davidallen said:
oogle doesn't want to employ someone who grossly offends the vast majority of other employees.
Click to expand...

just think about this statement. he didn't do anything but state his well thought out disagreement over internal policy. people finding that offensive rather than examining his statement and inspecting the validity of it by checking his source material rather ironically seems to prove his point. does it not?
 
  • Like
Reactions: trapped_in_tx, CBradSmith, Alpha Poke and 2 others
davidallen said:
In any case, Google doesn't want to employ someone who grossly offends the vast majority of other employees. So it goes.
Click to expand...


Most import question. Will Spike Lee create and promote a rally for this former Google employee in front of the Google campus?
 
Alpha Poke said:
Kinda seems a cult.
Click to expand...

cult is right. but google is just the biggest part of the evangelical arm of an ideologically homogenous faith which through google/YouTube, facebook and twitter has a worldwide search engine, social media and video blog monopolies and absolute control over filtering algorithms on their platforms.

pretty sure google filters out non google ads on its browser too, as any monopoly would.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CBradSmith
HanAholeSolo2.0 said:
cult is right. but google is just the biggest part of the evangelical arm of an ideologically homogenous faith which through google/YouTube, facebook and twitter has a worldwide search engine, social media and video blog monopolies and absolute control over filtering algorithms on their platforms.

pretty sure google filters out non google ads on its browser too, as any monopoly would.
Click to expand...

From a legal perspective, google is in no shape, way, or form a monopoly.
 
HanAholeSolo2.0 said:
just think about this statement. he didn't do anything but state his well thought out disagreement over internal policy. people finding that offensive rather than examining his statement and inspecting the validity of it by checking his source material rather ironically seems to prove his point. does it not?
Click to expand...

Stop making so much gawddam sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HanAholeSolo2.0
Medic007 said:
Yep, no biological or physiological analysis or anything showing causation. I was just getting started, tiger. Actual science isn't a one liner.

Thank god medicine doesn't operate with the progressive ideology that women aren't biologically different from men. That would be a HUGE disservice to women's health issues, including mental illness.

These are links from a basic search of estrogen and serotonin. Science. Dig in. I'll gladly post more on different hormonal relationships in females and their effect on mental health when I have more time to waste on you.

http://www.ebiomedicine.com/article/S2352-3964(15)30042-6/abstract

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1327664/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3753111/#!po=11.4173

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/210086

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/481788

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031938409000808

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0026049505000363

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1196/annals.1286.006/full

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006322306015587

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/appi.ajp.157.6.924

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006322304009461

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00048670701732715

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165032702004287
Click to expand...

Science deniers ITT.

Also black belt "Framing" ninjas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Medic007
HanAholeSolo2.0 said:
from a practical perspective it's a verb.
Click to expand...

From a practical perspective, they don't have a monopoly.

And not to be a grammar Nazi, but in "....a worldwide search engine, social media and video blog monopolies" "monopolies" is a noun, not a verb.

It makes good business sense for the provider of a browser to filter out ads that result in money going to competitors.
 
CowboyJD said:
From a practical perspective, they don't have a monopoly.

And not to be a grammar Nazi, but in "....a worldwide search engine, social media and video blog monopolies" "monopolies" is a noun, not a verb.

It makes good business sense for the provider of a browser to filter out ads that result in money going to competitors.
Click to expand...

They make their money on ads and they do have a monopoly there.
 
CowboyJD said:
It makes good business sense for the provider of a browser to filter out ads that result in money going to competitors.
Click to expand...

I agree it does and have no problem with Google doing that. But doesn't that make them hypocritical?
They actively lobby (spending tens of millions) for regulations against ISPs that prevent ISPs from creating preferred tiers for online companies.
 
cableok said:
I agree it does and have no problem with Google doing that. But doesn't that make them hypocritical?
They actively lobby (spending tens of millions) for regulations against ISPs that prevent ISPs from creating preferred tiers for online companies.
Click to expand...

I guess one could argue that they aren't hypocritical in the sense that they are consistent in always taking positions that are in their self interest.

Not that I'm saying that.
 
Alpha Poke said:
Depends on the platform.
Click to expand...

Monopolies are based upon market control....the complete market. So the "platform" to make a determination of whether Google has a monopoly on online ads is the entire market of online ads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back