google internal memo leaked...
- Thread starter HanAholeSolo2.0
- Start date
Nope, the memo your company fired a man for is scientifically accurate. The memo of diversity, not so much. I guess data isn't worth a shit if it goes against ideology. Damned hate facts. At this point I can say you haven't even read or researched the citations in the memo or anything @Medic007 pointed out.
does their treatment of the memo writer not give you pause at least?
No, you are wrong on that. The assertion that neuroticism is biologically based is not supported by any of the "evidence" presented ITT or elsewhere that I have seen. Swing and a miss.
The critique you link to posits that there are biological differences between males and females - my response to that "duh". Getting from there to assertions in that doc are a huge leap.
Am I entirely comfortable that this dude got fired? I am at this point - note plenty of facts have come out, not sure which are public and which are not, but completely confident that his firing was justified independent of the document.
Initially a bit. Then I actually read the doc. Talked to a few people, learned a couple of things and got comfortable very quickly.
As much as people want to inflate this issue - Sundar pretty much nails it in his statement (read it at http://www.businessinsider.com/google-sundar-pichai-anti-diversity-manifesto-fired-2017-8). The dude went too far, Google exercised its right to separate as his continued employment was untenable.
"To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK," Pichai wrote.
Your are flat out wrong. Neuroticism is a personality trait in the big five personality traits. It's the only factor that there is a moderate difference between men and women. In fact, in almost 90% of the countries surveyed women scored higher. Are you now going to tell me women, on average, aren't more emotional than men on average?
Last edited:
Pichai's reading comprehension is shit then. He didn't say that. He said biological factors may play a role in why women don't pursue tech jobs at the same rate and cited in utero testosterone bathing which is scientifically backed for that position. He didn't judge any coworkers. In fact, he advocated that judgement of people be based on their individual merits instead of being lumped into some monolithic group as a tribalistic society.
Isn't it entertaining that women aren't complaining about being underrepresented in masonry, metal work, carpentry, HVAC, or electricians? It's almost as if the only positions they care about are higher in status. Oh, which is also something that is scientifically backed as being more important to men.
It's amazing how willing you are to dismiss science in favor of ideology. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't make it go away.
You got me there. LOL. You're such a savage. From your link:
"The combined number of 25,031, while the highest under Mr. Trump, is still lower than any other month under President Obama dating back until December 2011."
"On a year-to-year basis, the gains are indeed stunning. In July 2016 the Border Patrol nabbed 33,737 illegal immigrants — 85 percent more than this year’s total."
what about the doc specifically did you find incorrect or objectionable?
This is his wheelhouse. What an epic, one-sided affair that would be.
For obvious reasons, not going to go into depth on the content of the doc. Read it, read the official responses, summarizes my thinking well enough for a public discussion. Happy to discuss privately - especially if your buying...
thanks. i just keep seeing scientists saying the memo was accurate. I understand your reasons for not commenting further, but...
Thought I'd share this thanks to Dr Peterson
Here are a series of references buttressing each and every claim James made in his memo, which has been erroneously deemed pseudo-scientific (full papers linked where possible):
Sex differences in personality:
The Lynn (1996): http://bit.ly/2vThoy8
Lippa (2008): http://bit.ly/2vmtSMs
Weisberg (2011): http://bit.ly/2gJVmEp
Del Giudice (2012): http://bit.ly/2vEKTUx
Larger/large and stable sex differences in more gender-neutral countries: (Note: these findings runs precisely and exactly contrary to social constructionist theory: thus, it's been tested, and it's wrong).
Katz-Gerrog (2000): http://bit.ly/2uoY9c4 Costa (2001): http://bit.ly/2utaTT3
Schmitt (2008): http://bit.ly/2p6nHYY
Schmitt (2016): http://bit.ly/2wMN45j
(Women's) interest in people vs (men's) interest in things:
Lippa (1998): http://bit.ly/2vr0PHF
Rong Su (2009): http://bit.ly/2wtlbzU
Lippa (2010): http://bit.ly/2wyfW23
The general importance of exposure to sex-linked steroids on fetal and then lifetime development:
Hines (2015) http://bit.ly/2uufOiv
Exposure to prenatal testosterone and interest in things or people (even when the exposure is among females):
Berenbaum (1992): http://bit.ly/2uKxpSQ Beltz (2011): http://bit.ly/2hPXC1c
Baron-Cohen (2014): http://bit.ly/2vn4KXq Hines (2016): http://bit.ly/2hPYKSu
Primarily biological basis of personality sex differences:
Lippa (2008): http://bit.ly/2vmtSMs
Ngun (2010): http://bit.ly/2vJ6QSh
Status and sex: males and females
Perusse (1993): http://bit.ly/2uoIOw8
Perusse (1994): http://bit.ly/2vNzcL6
Buss (2008): http://bit.ly/2uumv4g
de Bruyn (2012): http://bit.ly/2uoWkMh
To quote de Bruyn et al: high status predicts more mating opportunities and, thus, increased reproductive success. “This is true for human adults in many cultures, both ‘modern’ as well as ‘primitive’ (Betzig, 1986). In fact, this theory seems to be confirmed for non-human primates (Cheney, 1983; Cowlishaw and Dunbar, 1991; Dewsbury, 1982; Gray, 1985; Maslow, 1936) and other animals from widely differing ecologies (Ellis, 1995) such as squirrels (Farentinos, 1972), cockerels (Kratzer and Craig, 1980), and cockroaches (Breed, Smith, and Gall, 1980).” Status also increases female reproductive success, via a different pathway: “For females, it is generally argued that dominance is not necessarily a path to more copulations, as it is for males. It appears that important benefits bestowed upon dominant women are access to resources and less harassment from rivals (Campbell, 2002). Thus, dominant females tend to have higher offspring survival rates, at least among simians (Pusey, Williams, and Goodall, 1997); thus, dominance among females also appears to be linked to reproductive success.”
Personality and political belief:
Gerber (2010): http://bit.ly/2hOpnHa
Hirsh (2010): http://bit.ly/2fsxIzB
Gerber (2011): http://bit.ly/2hJ1Kjb
Xu (2013): http://bit.ly/2ftDhOq
Burton (2015): http://bit.ly/2uoPS87
Occupations by gender: http://bit.ly/2vTdgPp
Problems with the measurement and concept of unconscious bias:
Fielder (2006): http://bit.ly/2vGzhQP
Blanton (2009): http://bit.ly/2vQuwEP (this one is particularly damning)
And, just for kicks, two links discussing the massive over-representation of the left in, most particularly, the humanities:
Klein (2008): http://bit.ly/2fwdLrS
Langbert (2016): http://bit.ly/2cV53Q8
Here are a series of references buttressing each and every claim James made in his memo, which has been erroneously deemed pseudo-scientific (full papers linked where possible):
Sex differences in personality:
The Lynn (1996): http://bit.ly/2vThoy8
Lippa (2008): http://bit.ly/2vmtSMs
Weisberg (2011): http://bit.ly/2gJVmEp
Del Giudice (2012): http://bit.ly/2vEKTUx
Larger/large and stable sex differences in more gender-neutral countries: (Note: these findings runs precisely and exactly contrary to social constructionist theory: thus, it's been tested, and it's wrong).
Katz-Gerrog (2000): http://bit.ly/2uoY9c4 Costa (2001): http://bit.ly/2utaTT3
Schmitt (2008): http://bit.ly/2p6nHYY
Schmitt (2016): http://bit.ly/2wMN45j
(Women's) interest in people vs (men's) interest in things:
Lippa (1998): http://bit.ly/2vr0PHF
Rong Su (2009): http://bit.ly/2wtlbzU
Lippa (2010): http://bit.ly/2wyfW23
The general importance of exposure to sex-linked steroids on fetal and then lifetime development:
Hines (2015) http://bit.ly/2uufOiv
Exposure to prenatal testosterone and interest in things or people (even when the exposure is among females):
Berenbaum (1992): http://bit.ly/2uKxpSQ Beltz (2011): http://bit.ly/2hPXC1c
Baron-Cohen (2014): http://bit.ly/2vn4KXq Hines (2016): http://bit.ly/2hPYKSu
Primarily biological basis of personality sex differences:
Lippa (2008): http://bit.ly/2vmtSMs
Ngun (2010): http://bit.ly/2vJ6QSh
Status and sex: males and females
Perusse (1993): http://bit.ly/2uoIOw8
Perusse (1994): http://bit.ly/2vNzcL6
Buss (2008): http://bit.ly/2uumv4g
de Bruyn (2012): http://bit.ly/2uoWkMh
To quote de Bruyn et al: high status predicts more mating opportunities and, thus, increased reproductive success. “This is true for human adults in many cultures, both ‘modern’ as well as ‘primitive’ (Betzig, 1986). In fact, this theory seems to be confirmed for non-human primates (Cheney, 1983; Cowlishaw and Dunbar, 1991; Dewsbury, 1982; Gray, 1985; Maslow, 1936) and other animals from widely differing ecologies (Ellis, 1995) such as squirrels (Farentinos, 1972), cockerels (Kratzer and Craig, 1980), and cockroaches (Breed, Smith, and Gall, 1980).” Status also increases female reproductive success, via a different pathway: “For females, it is generally argued that dominance is not necessarily a path to more copulations, as it is for males. It appears that important benefits bestowed upon dominant women are access to resources and less harassment from rivals (Campbell, 2002). Thus, dominant females tend to have higher offspring survival rates, at least among simians (Pusey, Williams, and Goodall, 1997); thus, dominance among females also appears to be linked to reproductive success.”
Personality and political belief:
Gerber (2010): http://bit.ly/2hOpnHa
Hirsh (2010): http://bit.ly/2fsxIzB
Gerber (2011): http://bit.ly/2hJ1Kjb
Xu (2013): http://bit.ly/2ftDhOq
Burton (2015): http://bit.ly/2uoPS87
Occupations by gender: http://bit.ly/2vTdgPp
Problems with the measurement and concept of unconscious bias:
Fielder (2006): http://bit.ly/2vGzhQP
Blanton (2009): http://bit.ly/2vQuwEP (this one is particularly damning)
And, just for kicks, two links discussing the massive over-representation of the left in, most particularly, the humanities:
Klein (2008): http://bit.ly/2fwdLrS
Langbert (2016): http://bit.ly/2cV53Q8
So your saying being conservative is a genetic abnormality... That it isn't your fault?
Actually, there are studies showing there is a genetic predisposition to certain political beliefs while others are attributed to socialization.
Which one made you a science denier?
Curious how you, @ThorOdinson13 , and @Medic007 explain things like gender representation in the legal and health fields? Did women suddenly decide contrary to their innate preferences that they wanted to be doctors and lawyers, did some kind of genetic mutation take hold of the population in the 1970's or something? Cause you know pseudo-science and stuff....Actually, there are studies showing there is a genetic predisposition to certain political beliefs while others are attributed to socialization.
Which one made you a science denier?
Last edited:
There's a lot of overlap between the sexes. You said you read the memo. He even had a pretty little graph. Remember? I'm sure the forty year decline in men going to college is a factor as well.
Quite being an absolutist David, there are always outliers as well. East Asians average an IQ around 106. Doesn't mean there aren't any dumb East Asians.
Something like four out of every five nurses is female. Is there some institutional oppression against men keeping them from the profession? Or could it be something innate that keeps them from considering the profession?
Quite being an absolutist David, there are always outliers as well. East Asians average an IQ around 106. Doesn't mean there aren't any dumb East Asians.
Something like four out of every five nurses is female. Is there some institutional oppression against men keeping them from the profession? Or could it be something innate that keeps them from considering the profession?
Absolutist? Really? Having no preconception on gender and job suitability is an absolutist stance? Believing that merit should dictate who gets the job and who advances in the job despite gender makes me an absolutist? OK, good with that...
Curious how you, @ThorOdinson13 , and @Medic007 explain things like gender representation in the legal and health fields? Did women suddenly decide contrary to their innate preferences that they wanted to be doctors and lawyers, did some kind of genetic mutation take hold of the population in the 1970's or something? Cause you know pseudo-science and stuff....
1. there used to be actual institutional sexism, away from which we've become enlightened.
2. averages are not absolutes.
And your declaring sexism is dead? Interesting. Racism too?
No idea what point #2 refers to... It is factually correct, if not irrelevant to this conversation - but of course I likely am just missing the point.
No David, thinking that because the science says something it must apply to all women is absolutist. It's the same problem identity politics has. Thinking that women being in certain fields disproves the science is absolutist.
Hey look at this. Why aren't many women going into these fields. Is it systemic oppression against women keeping them out? Or is something innate, a lack of interest perhaps? Interesting we don't hear SJW's screaming about less than 50% of the job force being women in theses fields.
The truth of the matter is that people need to quit engaging in tribalistic thought and applying viewpoints or assuming ability based on an identity. We should all be taken as individuals with different strengths and talents.
The assumption that women are underrepresented in certain fields because of "men" or some other group is oppressed because "white privilege" is just one falling for the rebranding of Marxism. Such beliefs where an entire group is being condemned and judged based on nothing but skin color and/or status is evil.
It makes one no better than Stalin or Hitler ideologically. The same was done to the Kulaks and Jews. For crying out loud, your children are guilty just for having been born white and regardless of their actual beliefs or actions. SJW's are either unwhitting fools or horrible people who understand what they actually advocate for.
So we agree then. Huh, how did that happen - wait guess not. Somehow you go from all people are individuals to defending stereotypes for why women are under represented in STEM. Impressive... As I asked what changed in 1972?No David, thinking that because the science says something it must apply to all women is absolutist. It's the same problem identity politics has. Thinking that women being in certain fields disproves the science is absolutist.
Hey look at this. Why aren't many women going into these fields. Is it systemic oppression against women keeping them out? Or is something innate, a lack of interest perhaps? Interesting we don't hear SJW's screaming about less than 50% of the job force being women in theses fields.
The truth of the matter is that people need to quit engaging in tribalistic thought and applying viewpoints or assuming ability based on an identity. We should all be taken as individuals with different strengths and talents.
The assumption that women are underrepresented in certain fields because of "men" or some other group is oppressed because "white privilege" is just one falling for the rebranding of Marxism. Such beliefs where an entire group is being condemned and judged based on nothing but skin color and/or status is evil.
It makes one no better than Stalin or Hitler ideologically. The same was done to the Kulaks and Jews. For crying out loud, your children are guilty just for having been born white and regardless of their actual beliefs or actions. SJW's are either unwhitting fools or horrible people who understand what they actually advocate for.
We agree on all people being individuals. Never said otherwise. No one in this thread did, you projected your preconceived belief in our position on to us.
Where we disagree is:
1) that these are stereotypes. They are not, they are scientically valid biological differences. Which further;
2) causes disagreement about underrepresentation and it's causes
So as we've been saying. That memo was factually correct and not biased. It's not anti-diversity or biased against anyone.
That's a subtle and not above-board layered statement.
I'm sofa king sick of the victim card being played every time some snowflake/flakette thinks there's a perceived knot in their whatever, I could puke. This is more faux manufactured outrage. Hell, my titodectomy surgeon was female (good margins
) as are my dentist and dermatologist. That said, the last person I want working on my '86 Porsche is some dolly who doesn't know a sparkplug from a vaginal insert of whatever. These dumbasses need serious proctology to get their heads some air.
And you are ducking the question if those same "valid biological differences" kept women out of law and healthcare as they keep people of STEM in general? If your "valid biological differences" were genuinely "valid biological differences" then the chart previously shared would show something different than it does.
The fact that your "valid biological differences" have been used for eons to justify discrimination against various groups of people (ethnic minorities, homosexuals, women, et al), denying that stereotypes were significant contributors to said discrimination, seems lost on you. I feel sad that you are so threatened by people not like you that you need this type of crutch to feel valued...
Want to hone in on this one... If you feel "judged" by the assertion that women are under represented in some careers because of stereotypes, if I have made you feel that way, my apologies (last post notwithstanding, giving you some crap not really judging you as a person).
Whatever the cause, how is it such an issue that a particular company has decided to invest some of its treasure in testing the validity of the assertion that the underlying cause is sociological? Ramped up recruiting of under represented individuals does absolutely nothing to harm anyone. Given that the same hiring standards, the very same promotion standards apply to everyone in said company - how the hell is this an issue for you?
And finally, something ITT we can agree upon. That so many posters ITT are threatened by efforts to recruit and train under represented classes of workers is classic neurotic behavior.
Did you apply? Were you not hired? Do you feel that is the fault of someone else?
I suppose if you were a shareholder you might object based on some theory of misuse of capital if you disagree with the thesis - but damn even then you can choose not to own the stock of said hypothetical company....
Completely agree. Some dude got fired for being an ass to his coworkers.... OMG lets march in the streets in protest. Grow up people.I'm sofa king sick of the victim card being played every time some snowflake/flakette thinks there's a perceived knot in their whatever, I could puke. This is more faux manufactured outrage. Hell, my titodectomy surgeon was female (good margins
No I am not. You are being an absolutist again.
1) Those traits do not keep women out of those fields. Those traits are why there is "underrepresentation" in the fields.
2) they are not "my" biological differences. They are scientifically validated biological differences.
3) Is nursing not part of STEM? Around 90% of nurses are female. The difference lies in the personality of care.
4) Perhaps the chart would look different. If not for affirmative action, major recruiting efforts of women into STEM and a forty year decline in the attendance of men in colleges. Forty year decline! No one cares becUse it's men.
5) no one has suggested it be used for discrimination. This is another example of you projecting. The only thing that's been suggested is that maybe we are taking the wrong approach in addressing "underrepresentation."
6) no one has ignored past transgressions. The point is that we no longer live in that environment today. And instead of celebrating the self reflection that occurs in western culture we continue to demonize based on two oversimplistic factors, race and "privilege."
7) I feel sad that you appear to have been so completely duped as to have fallen for a Marxist ideology while thinking you're taking a moral stance. You are not. You appear to have taken the side of condemnation of an entire group regardless of individual thought or action. You appear to think you are advocating for that as an SJW but you are not. You appear to believe that they are monolithic groups who all agree. You've defended "white privilege." You appear to think the opinion of one transgender is representation of all transgenders. You've run with a false narrative of a document that shows none of what it's being accused of i.e., stereotypes, opinion, misogyny. You continually deny scientific studies that back up the idea of a wrong approach and defended an ideology with Marxist roots.
8) I have sufficiently rebutted every accusation you've made as have others. Yet you haven't addressed a single flaw levied against you my friend. That alone is a display of complete unawareness.
Some dude refused to bake a cake for something that he sees as immoral. OMG let's march in the streets in protest. Grow up people.
