Woke is white arrogance

[DrZoidberg]

Do you work for a living? 28 year olds are 5 to 7 years post college. This is when they transition from n00bs to intermediates, but usually not management.

Also... at Google. The creme-de-la-creme of intelligent people on Earth. They get to pick and chose whoever they want to work there.

Oh, they do now?

Lol, you are so arrogant

Wokes are also arrogant.

A pattern!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Do you work for a living? 28 year olds are 5 to 7 years post college. This is when they transition from n00bs to intermediates, but usually not management.

Also... at Google. The creme-de-la-creme of intelligent people on Earth. They get to pick and chose whoever they want to work there.

Oh, they do now?

Lol, you are so arrogant

Wokes are also arrogant.

A pattern!

Seeing my statement didn't imply a single reference to myself, not certain how it could be found as a sign of my arrogance. Just seems like you didn't have a good response and needed to derail this to being about me (I'm flattered, but this isn't about me).

 

[KeepTalking]

Do you work for a living? 28 year olds are 5 to 7 years post college. This is when they transition from n00bs to intermediates, but usually not management.

Also... at Google. The creme-de-la-creme of intelligent people on Earth. They get to pick and chose whoever they want to work there.

Oh, they do now?

Lol, you are so arrogant

Wokes are also arrogant.

A pattern!

Yes. The pattern is one of arbitrarily assigning the label woke to someone, and then declaring they are arrogant as a result.

 

[ideologyhunter]

It is also intended to pour ridicule on whatever the "wokes" are assumed to defend: the need for attention to racial justice, the concern for the earth, women's rights, the insanity of selling mega-round guns to whoever wants them, the need for fair voting laws. Just call it all woke and your stance is pretty clear that it must be hyped nonsense cooked up at liberal cocktail parties.

 

[lpetrich]

James Damore proposed that women aren't worth wasting time on to try to recruit because of what he read in a Wikipedia article.

The article was on the Big Five personality model. It's like the MBTI, but it's much better-supported. It states that human personality has five main axes of variation:

• Extraversion - like in MBTI
• Openness to Experience - interest in ideas, artistry, and the like
• Conscientiousness - diligence and orderliness
• Agreeableness - consideration for others
• Neuroticism - negative emotionality, opposite of emotional stability

JD noted a bit of that article that referred to a journal paper that described research into how much the Big Five vary among the people that the researchers studied.

They found that women tend to be more Big-Five neurotic than men. I say *tend* because both sexes have a lot of variation and the two sexes overlap quite a lot.

JD seized upon that as "proof" that recruiting women was a waste of time and resources.

He ignored another result of this study: women tend to be more Big-Five conscientious than men, meaning that they tend to be more diligent.

Yes, he ignored it, likely because it was something that did not fit into the position that he wanted to advocate. That is because greater conscientiousness is positively correlated with greater academic and career success.

But if he didn't ignore it, he could have claimed that that is "proof" that women are plodding and unimaginative. According to  Bamboo ceiling, that is a widespread stereotype of Asian people, "proof" that such people should not be in leadership positions.

As described by a senior writer at Fortune magazine, "bamboo ceiling" refers to the processes and barriers that serve to exclude Asians and Asian-Americans from executive positions on the basis of subjective factors such as "lack of leadership potential" and "lack of communication skills" that cannot actually be explained by job performance or qualifications.

...
The bamboo ceiling in the United States is a subtle and complex form of discrimination, and the umbrella term "Asian American" extends to include a number of diverse groups, including South Asians, East Asians, and Southeast Asians. These groups are often subject to "model minority" stereotypes, and viewed as quiet, hardworking, family-oriented, high achieving in math and science, passive, non-confrontational, submissive, and antisocial.

It's something like the common anti-Semitic stereotype that Jews are very intelligent yet lacking in moral scruples.

 

[Gospel]

Now I know who to invite for a night of drinks around my fire pit. lpetrich, You'll make a great flame fanner.

 

[DrZoidberg]

James Damore proposed that women aren't worth wasting time on to try to recruit because of what he read in a Wikipedia article.

The article was on the Big Five personality model. It's like the MBTI, but it's much better-supported. It states that human personality has five main axes of variation:

• Extraversion - like in MBTI
• Openness to Experience - interest in ideas, artistry, and the like
• Conscientiousness - diligence and orderliness
• Agreeableness - consideration for others
• Neuroticism - negative emotionality, opposite of emotional stability

JD noted a bit of that article that referred to a journal paper that described research into how much the Big Five vary among the people that the researchers studied.

They found that women tend to be more Big-Five neurotic than men. I say *tend* because both sexes have a lot of variation and the two sexes overlap quite a lot.

JD seized upon that as "proof" that recruiting women was a waste of time and resources.

He ignored another result of this study: women tend to be more Big-Five conscientious than men, meaning that they tend to be more diligent.

Yes, he ignored it, likely because it was something that did not fit into the position that he wanted to advocate. That is because greater conscientiousness is positively correlated with greater academic and career success.

But if he didn't ignore it, he could have claimed that that is "proof" that women are plodding and unimaginative. According to  Bamboo ceiling, that is a widespread stereotype of Asian people, "proof" that such people should not be in leadership positions.

As described by a senior writer at Fortune magazine, "bamboo ceiling" refers to the processes and barriers that serve to exclude Asians and Asian-Americans from executive positions on the basis of subjective factors such as "lack of leadership potential" and "lack of communication skills" that cannot actually be explained by job performance or qualifications.

...
The bamboo ceiling in the United States is a subtle and complex form of discrimination, and the umbrella term "Asian American" extends to include a number of diverse groups, including South Asians, East Asians, and Southeast Asians. These groups are often subject to "model minority" stereotypes, and viewed as quiet, hardworking, family-oriented, high achieving in math and science, passive, non-confrontational, submissive, and antisocial.

It's something like the common anti-Semitic stereotype that Jews are very intelligent yet lacking in moral scruples.

We don't need to speculate on what he was saying. The full text is available online. It's also a response to very specific company policies, that didn't seem to make sense.

https://felleisen.org/matthias/Articles/the-google-memo.pdf

My summary of what he wants (from below):

1) Allow for ideological diversity, ie stop the forced liberal one mindedness. Should be pretty self evidently obvious in a liberal democracy. But needs to be fought for today. As someone promoting liberal values, in those liberal values is promoting freedom of expression.

A pretty uncontroversial stand IMHO. Also is most of his suggestions.

2) Stop intersectionalist policies because these policies are divisive and counter productive. If we want a more equal world, then don't have policies promoting inequality.

I personally agree with this, and is a part of what this thread is about.

3) Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with
violence and isn’t backed by evidence.

Also, obviously true.

A pretty uncontroversial list of suggestions IMHO. Or should be uncontroversial.

I've worked in IT all my adult life. Women aren't less talented than men or any less intelligent than men. That's why there's fewer women than men in the industry. It's because women are less interested in this kind of work. And what types of jobs do women in IT go for? It's project management or various coordination jobs. It's jobs where they get to meet a lot of people. Men gravitate towards IT jobs where they get to sit alone and work. In the IT industry, these are most jobs, also the highest paying jobs. It's simply a question of what jobs women want to have.

I prefer gender mixed teams. But I will never get a 50/50 split because women don't want that.

In IT men are willing to sacrifice their free time for the mission, to a greater extent than women. I know a lot of people working in media. In media, seem to not have this limitation. They're willing to work themselves to death more than men. I suspect it has to do with what kinds of women are attracted to IT and media.

My point is that women seem fully capable of sorting themselves into whatever careers they want on their own. We don't need any heavy handed policies and diversity training. IT is a magnet for socially awkward (and socially incompetent) nerds (men and women). It's a place where the crushing demands of a socially competent world is absent. What matters is ones ability to deliver quality code on time. It's simply a result for what kind of a job it is, rather than any toxic patriarchal boys club culture.

Of course that's a kind of job that will attract men rather than women. There's nothing Google can do about that, and trying to is simply damaging for the company. That's his entire point. We can disagree about the particulars or the theoretical support for his arguments. But ramming ideologically flavoured dubious pet theories down the throat of employees (which Google is doing) I think it's more problematic. Damore isn't saying what Google should be doing. He's only pointing out particular dumb stuff Google should stop doing. It's a pretty limited critique.

My concrete suggestions are to:

● De-moralize diversity.

○ As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of
costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly
punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”

● Stop alienating conservatives.

○ Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political
orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people
view things differently.

○ In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like
they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those
with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.

○ Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business
because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is required
for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature
company.

● Confront Google’s biases.

○ I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and
inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.

○ I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and
personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.

● Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.

○ These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on
some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.

Political correctness is defined as “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or
insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against,” which makes it clear why it’s a phenomenon of the
Left and a tool of authoritarians.

● 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 extent 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.

● Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.

○ We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and
should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination.

○ We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity.

○ Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our
products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX.

● De-emphasize empathy.

○ I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I
strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do,
relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on
anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and
dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about
the facts.

● Prioritize intention.

○ Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases
our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our
tendency to take offence and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian
policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to
psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging
unintentional transgressions.

○ Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with
violence and isn’t backed by evidence.

● Be open about the science of human nature.

○ Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to
discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition
which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems.

● Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.

○ We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training
and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made
mandatory.

○ Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful,
but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and
the examples shown.

○ Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes.
Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the
training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I just pointing out the
factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I gotta use this one at the annual review and let my boss know that we need to de-emphasize empathy.

● De-emphasize empathy.

○ I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I
strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do,
relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on
anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and
dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about
the facts.

This is the best part.

○ Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes.
Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the
training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I just pointing out the
factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).

That Dr. Z would cite this as reasoned isn't shocking.

 

[lpetrich]

James Damore: "Stop alienating conservatives."

That is exactly like right-wingers' stereotypes of whiny liberals who complain that their feelings are being hurt. Consider Ben Shapiro, who likes to say "Facts don't care about your feelings".

As to "human nature", the sexes are not two separate species, even if they like to act like two separate social castes. Also, facts don't care about James Damore's feelings.

 

[Toni]

We don't need to speculate on what he was saying. The full text is available online. It's also a response to very specific company policies, that didn't seem to make sense.

https://felleisen.org/matthias/Articles/the-google-memo.pdf

My summary of what he wants (from below):

1) Allow for ideological diversity, ie stop the forced liberal one mindedness. Should be pretty self evidently obvious in a liberal democracy. But needs to be fought for today. As someone promoting liberal values, in those liberal values is promoting freedom of expression.

A pretty uncontroversial stand IMHO. Also is most of his suggestions.

2) Stop intersectionalist policies because these policies are divisive and counter productive. If we want a more equal world, then don't have policies promoting inequality.

I personally agree with this, and is a part of what this thread is about.

3) Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with
violence and isn’t backed by evidence.

Also, obviously true.

A pretty uncontroversial list of suggestions IMHO. Or should be uncontroversial.

I've worked in IT all my adult life. Women aren't less talented than men or any less intelligent than men. That's why there's fewer women than men in the industry. It's because women are less interested in this kind of work. And what types of jobs do women in IT go for? It's project management or various coordination jobs. It's jobs where they get to meet a lot of people. Men gravitate towards IT jobs where they get to sit alone and work. In the IT industry, these are most jobs, also the highest paying jobs. It's simply a question of what jobs women want to have.

I prefer gender mixed teams. But I will never get a 50/50 split because women don't want that.

In IT men are willing to sacrifice their free time for the mission, to a greater extent than women. I know a lot of people working in media. In media, seem to not have this limitation. They're willing to work themselves to death more than men. I suspect it has to do with what kinds of women are attracted to IT and media.

My point is that women seem fully capable of sorting themselves into whatever careers they want on their own. We don't need any heavy handed policies and diversity training. IT is a magnet for socially awkward (and socially incompetent) nerds (men and women). It's a place where the crushing demands of a socially competent world is absent. What matters is ones ability to deliver quality code on time. It's simply a result for what kind of a job it is, rather than any toxic patriarchal boys club culture.

Of course that's a kind of job that will attract men rather than women. There's nothing Google can do about that, and trying to is simply damaging for the company. That's his entire point. We can disagree about the particulars or the theoretical support for his arguments. But ramming ideologically flavoured dubious pet theories down the throat of employees (which Google is doing) I think it's more problematic. Damore isn't saying what Google should be doing. He's only pointing out particular dumb stuff Google should stop doing. It's a pretty limited critique.

My concrete suggestions are to:

● De-moralize diversity.

○ As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of
costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly
punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”

● Stop alienating conservatives.

○ Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political
orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people
view things differently.

○ In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like
they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those
with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.

○ Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business
because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is required
for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature
company.

● Confront Google’s biases.

○ I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and
inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.

○ I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and
personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.

● Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.

○ These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on
some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.

Political correctness is defined as “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or
insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against,” which makes it clear why it’s a phenomenon of the
Left and a tool of authoritarians.

● 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 extent 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.

● Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.

○ We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and
should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination.

○ We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity.

○ Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our
products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX.

● De-emphasize empathy.

○ I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I
strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do,
relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on
anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and
dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about
the facts.

● Prioritize intention.

○ Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases
our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our
tendency to take offence and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian
policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to
psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging
unintentional transgressions.

○ Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with
violence and isn’t backed by evidence.

● Be open about the science of human nature.

○ Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to
discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition
which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems.

● Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.

○ We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training
and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made
mandatory.

○ Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful,
but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and
the examples shown.

○ Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes.
Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the
training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I just pointing out the
factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).

I will concur that at least some women do tend to avoid careers and workplaces where they are surrounded by misogynistic assholes who expect them to make the coffee and do the scutwork and are criticized for taking time to care for non-work related tasks while men are praised for showing team work by joining the work unit's gym/sports team/bar drinking regime/golf game. Because the men have women at home to do the home stuff.

 

[Trausti]

We don't need to speculate on what he was saying. The full text is available online. It's also a response to very specific company policies, that didn't seem to make sense.

https://felleisen.org/matthias/Articles/the-google-memo.pdf

My summary of what he wants (from below):

1) Allow for ideological diversity, ie stop the forced liberal one mindedness. Should be pretty self evidently obvious in a liberal democracy. But needs to be fought for today. As someone promoting liberal values, in those liberal values is promoting freedom of expression.

A pretty uncontroversial stand IMHO. Also is most of his suggestions.

2) Stop intersectionalist policies because these policies are divisive and counter productive. If we want a more equal world, then don't have policies promoting inequality.

I personally agree with this, and is a part of what this thread is about.

3) Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with
violence and isn’t backed by evidence.

Also, obviously true.

A pretty uncontroversial list of suggestions IMHO. Or should be uncontroversial.

I've worked in IT all my adult life. Women aren't less talented than men or any less intelligent than men. That's why there's fewer women than men in the industry. It's because women are less interested in this kind of work. And what types of jobs do women in IT go for? It's project management or various coordination jobs. It's jobs where they get to meet a lot of people. Men gravitate towards IT jobs where they get to sit alone and work. In the IT industry, these are most jobs, also the highest paying jobs. It's simply a question of what jobs women want to have.

I prefer gender mixed teams. But I will never get a 50/50 split because women don't want that.

In IT men are willing to sacrifice their free time for the mission, to a greater extent than women. I know a lot of people working in media. In media, seem to not have this limitation. They're willing to work themselves to death more than men. I suspect it has to do with what kinds of women are attracted to IT and media.

My point is that women seem fully capable of sorting themselves into whatever careers they want on their own. We don't need any heavy handed policies and diversity training. IT is a magnet for socially awkward (and socially incompetent) nerds (men and women). It's a place where the crushing demands of a socially competent world is absent. What matters is ones ability to deliver quality code on time. It's simply a result for what kind of a job it is, rather than any toxic patriarchal boys club culture.

Of course that's a kind of job that will attract men rather than women. There's nothing Google can do about that, and trying to is simply damaging for the company. That's his entire point. We can disagree about the particulars or the theoretical support for his arguments. But ramming ideologically flavoured dubious pet theories down the throat of employees (which Google is doing) I think it's more problematic. Damore isn't saying what Google should be doing. He's only pointing out particular dumb stuff Google should stop doing. It's a pretty limited critique.

My concrete suggestions are to:

● De-moralize diversity.

○ As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of
costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly
punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”

● Stop alienating conservatives.

○ Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political
orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people
view things differently.

○ In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like
they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those
with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.

○ Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business
because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is required
for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature
company.

● Confront Google’s biases.

○ I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and
inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.

○ I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and
personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.

● Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.

○ These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on
some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.

Political correctness is defined as “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or
insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against,” which makes it clear why it’s a phenomenon of the
Left and a tool of authoritarians.

● 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 extent 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.

● Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.

○ We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and
should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination.

○ We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity.

○ Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our
products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX.

● De-emphasize empathy.

○ I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I
strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do,
relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on
anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and
dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about
the facts.

● Prioritize intention.

○ Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases
our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our
tendency to take offence and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian
policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to
psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging
unintentional transgressions.

○ Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with
violence and isn’t backed by evidence.

● Be open about the science of human nature.

○ Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to
discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition
which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems.

● Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.

○ We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training
and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made
mandatory.

○ Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful,
but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and
the examples shown.

○ Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes.
Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the
training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I just pointing out the
factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).

I will concur that at least some women do tend to avoid careers and workplaces where they are surrounded by misogynistic assholes who expect them to make the coffee and do the scutwork and are criticized for taking time to care for non-work related tasks while men are praised for showing team work by joining the work unit's gym/sports team/bar drinking regime/golf game. Because the men have women at home to do the home stuff.

It is preposterously silly to maintain that over millions of years of sexually dimorphic evolution and selection human males and females developed different behaviors and interests. Unless the lie that humans are animals is believed. But you'll never make a monkey out of me!

 

[lpetrich]

I will concur that at least some women do tend to avoid careers and workplaces where they are surrounded by misogynistic assholes who expect them to make the coffee and do the scutwork and are criticized for taking time to care for non-work related tasks while men are praised for showing team work by joining the work unit's gym/sports team/bar drinking regime/golf game. Because the men have women at home to do the home stuff.

It is preposterously silly to maintain that over millions of years of sexually dimorphic evolution and selection human males and females developed different behaviors and interests. Unless the lie that humans are animals is believed. But you'll never make a monkey out of me!

Trausti, why don't you look through the animal kingdom some time? You'll be VERY surprised.

Like among birds, whenever one sex is the more flashy-looking, it's almost always the male sex and not the female sex. A big violation of human stereotypes.

 

[Trausti]

I will concur that at least some women do tend to avoid careers and workplaces where they are surrounded by misogynistic assholes who expect them to make the coffee and do the scutwork and are criticized for taking time to care for non-work related tasks while men are praised for showing team work by joining the work unit's gym/sports team/bar drinking regime/golf game. Because the men have women at home to do the home stuff.

It is preposterously silly to maintain that over millions of years of sexually dimorphic evolution and selection human males and females developed different behaviors and interests. Unless the lie that humans are animals is believed. But you'll never make a monkey out of me!

Trausti, why don't you look through the animal kingdom some time? You'll be VERY surprised.

Like among birds, whenever one sex is the more flashy-looking, it's almost always the male sex and not the female sex. A big violation of human stereotypes.

OMFG! Are you suggesting that evolution can make behavior and interest sexuality dimorphic?

 

[lpetrich]

Trausti, why don't you look through the animal kingdom some time? You'll be VERY surprised.

Like among birds, whenever one sex is the more flashy-looking, it's almost always the male sex and not the female sex. A big violation of human stereotypes.

OMFG! Are you suggesting that evolution can make behavior and interest sexuality dimorphic?

So what? Trausti, you have to concede that this is contrary to common stereotypes in our species.

 

[Trausti]

Trausti, why don't you look through the animal kingdom some time? You'll be VERY surprised.

Like among birds, whenever one sex is the more flashy-looking, it's almost always the male sex and not the female sex. A big violation of human stereotypes.

OMFG! Are you suggesting that evolution can make behavior and interest sexuality dimorphic?

So what? Trausti, you have to concede that this is contrary to common stereotypes in our species.

No shit. And if we recognize this, why the push back when sexual dimorphism of interests and behaviors is pointed out in humans?

 

[untermensche]

So what? Trausti, you have to concede that this is contrary to common stereotypes in our species.

No shit. And if we recognize this, why the push back when sexual dimorphism of interests and behaviors is pointed out in humans?

Gender identification is in the mind.

Not based on phenotype.

 

[rousseau]

Trausti, why don't you look through the animal kingdom some time? You'll be VERY surprised.

Like among birds, whenever one sex is the more flashy-looking, it's almost always the male sex and not the female sex. A big violation of human stereotypes.

OMFG! Are you suggesting that evolution can make behavior and interest sexuality dimorphic?

So what? Trausti, you have to concede that this is contrary to common stereotypes in our species.

Men are actually the flashier gender, this is a misread of human behaviour. Women try to look good, men try to look big.

 

[untermensche]

So what? Trausti, you have to concede that this is contrary to common stereotypes in our species.

Men are actually the flashier gender, this is a misread of human behaviour. Women try to look good, men try to look big.

There is no one thing that all men or all women do.

There is some bird out there that is not very colorful that loves to dance.

 

[Bomb#20]

It is preposterously silly to maintain that over millions of years of sexually dimorphic evolution and selection human males and females developed different behaviors and interests. Unless the lie that humans are animals is believed. But you'll never make a monkey out of me!

Trausti, why don't you look through the animal kingdom some time? You'll be VERY surprised.

Like among birds, whenever one sex is the more flashy-looking, it's almost always the male sex and not the female sex. A big violation of human stereotypes.

Hang on a sec. Are you telling us that among birds, whenever one sex is the more flashy-looking, it's almost always the one with a double dose of the same sex chromosome, rather than the one who has one of each type and whose gamete therefore determines the sex of the offspring?

ZW sex-determination system

Golly, that is totally different from human stereotypes.

 

[KeepTalking]

We don't need to speculate on what he was saying. The full text is available online. It's also a response to very specific company policies, that didn't seem to make sense.

https://felleisen.org/matthias/Articles/the-google-memo.pdf

My summary of what he wants (from below):

1) Allow for ideological diversity, ie stop the forced liberal one mindedness. Should be pretty self evidently obvious in a liberal democracy. But needs to be fought for today. As someone promoting liberal values, in those liberal values is promoting freedom of expression.

A pretty uncontroversial stand IMHO. Also is most of his suggestions.

2) Stop intersectionalist policies because these policies are divisive and counter productive. If we want a more equal world, then don't have policies promoting inequality.

I personally agree with this, and is a part of what this thread is about.

3) Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with
violence and isn’t backed by evidence.

Also, obviously true.

A pretty uncontroversial list of suggestions IMHO. Or should be uncontroversial.

I've worked in IT all my adult life. Women aren't less talented than men or any less intelligent than men. That's why there's fewer women than men in the industry. It's because women are less interested in this kind of work. And what types of jobs do women in IT go for? It's project management or various coordination jobs. It's jobs where they get to meet a lot of people. Men gravitate towards IT jobs where they get to sit alone and work. In the IT industry, these are most jobs, also the highest paying jobs. It's simply a question of what jobs women want to have.

I prefer gender mixed teams. But I will never get a 50/50 split because women don't want that.

In IT men are willing to sacrifice their free time for the mission, to a greater extent than women. I know a lot of people working in media. In media, seem to not have this limitation. They're willing to work themselves to death more than men. I suspect it has to do with what kinds of women are attracted to IT and media.

My point is that women seem fully capable of sorting themselves into whatever careers they want on their own. We don't need any heavy handed policies and diversity training. IT is a magnet for socially awkward (and socially incompetent) nerds (men and women). It's a place where the crushing demands of a socially competent world is absent. What matters is ones ability to deliver quality code on time. It's simply a result for what kind of a job it is, rather than any toxic patriarchal boys club culture.

Of course that's a kind of job that will attract men rather than women. There's nothing Google can do about that, and trying to is simply damaging for the company. That's his entire point. We can disagree about the particulars or the theoretical support for his arguments. But ramming ideologically flavoured dubious pet theories down the throat of employees (which Google is doing) I think it's more problematic. Damore isn't saying what Google should be doing. He's only pointing out particular dumb stuff Google should stop doing. It's a pretty limited critique.

My concrete suggestions are to:

● De-moralize diversity.

○ As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of
costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly
punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”

● Stop alienating conservatives.

○ Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political
orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people
view things differently.

○ In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like
they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those
with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.

○ Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business
because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is required
for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature
company.

● Confront Google’s biases.

○ I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and
inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.

○ I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and
personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.

● Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.

○ These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on
some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.

Political correctness is defined as “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or
insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against,” which makes it clear why it’s a phenomenon of the
Left and a tool of authoritarians.

● 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 extent 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.

● Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.

○ We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and
should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination.

○ We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity.

○ Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our
products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX.

● De-emphasize empathy.

○ I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I
strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do,
relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on
anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and
dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about
the facts.

● Prioritize intention.

○ Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases
our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our
tendency to take offence and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian
policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to
psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging
unintentional transgressions.

○ Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with
violence and isn’t backed by evidence.

● Be open about the science of human nature.

○ Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to
discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition
which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems.

● Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.

○ We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training
and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made
mandatory.

○ Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful,
but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and
the examples shown.

○ Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes.
Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the
training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I just pointing out the
factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).

100% of female IT employees at Google self selected to work in IT. If Mr. Damore cannot cope with them in the workplace that is his problem. My Tech Lead is female, and I have learned quite a bit form her, and she is not the only exceptional female developer with whom I have worked. I will grant that the majority of developers in my organization are male, and they tend to skew young as well. The interesting thing for me is that, of the few remaining COBOL developers we have on staff, the majority are actually female. For those not in IT, COBOL is a very old programming language used on mainframes, so the developers working in that space have been doing so for decades. It is a very small sample size, literally a 3/5 ratio, but it just goes to show that the kind of generalities thrown out by yourself and Mr. Damore regarding women in IT do not always hold up in the real world.