Did you only read the Gizmodo version that removed all the references?
Here's a copy with the references:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...
> Women, on average, have more:
> ● Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing)
> ● Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
> ● Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).
A bit further down:
> Men’s higher drive for status
> We always ask why we don't see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.
Holy crap!
- Edit below this line -
This is not expressing a different opinion based on facts, but pure stereotyping.
As a person who appreciates logic in arguments, I wouldn't like to work or have an argument with someone who presents his views of the world as axioms without data to support them.
- Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things [1], relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing [2])
- Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
- Neuroticism [3] (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).
Now what do you think about it, now you know the real references of the article?
[1] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9004....
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathizing%E2%80%93systemizin...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism
EDIT: noncoml I wanted to reply you (but I cann't I don't know why) and apologize because my comment sound like an attack when It wasn't my intention. I just wanted to provide the references and know your opinion. Take your time to check them.
I think that a quick dismissal is not appropriate, that it is the right basis for a discussion and would definitely like to take some time and look at the citations and how they tie up and support the arguments.
Thanks for correcting me.
If you are a bit interested in more references (those claims sound horrible, but they are not as far-fetched as they sound), have a look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n691pLhQBkw. It's a presentation by Steven Pinker that explains a lot about what science actually has to say about biological differences, and in an aside at the end even mentions stereotypes.
I already mentioned it in a subthread to this post, no harm intended.
That was such irresponsible journalism that it honestly looks actively malicious, and it wasn't matter what side you're on. You can't remove all the support someone provides for their position and hide it behind a short and vague disclaimer while presenting it as though it's materially equivalent to the original. If their evidence is bad then you include it and let people be the judges. Or just don't report on the story. What you don't do is edit it in accordance with your own opinion and misrepresent it as the original.
People need to call this crap out and shame Gizmodo, and Gizmodo needs to come clean about the honest reasons for the redaction and respond harshly enough that it doesn't happen again. The last thing we need is biased journalism, or an impression of such.
I wish he had posted the anti-echo-chamber parts on their own, instead of using them to decorate an argument on gender differences.
I doubt he expected this to blow up like it did; I imagine a Harvard PhD candidate would have provided better references if he'd known it would be public.
I assume you're talking about when the Department of Labor asked for more information on employees? If so, I don't believe they actually found any gender pay gap; they were merely asking for more data which Google refused to give up due to privacy concerns.
The judge ruled in Google's favor so it's hardly "hot water" (https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/16/judge-sides-with-google-in...)
> During the audit, however, the agency found “systemic compensation disparities against women pretty much across the entire workforce,” according to testimony from a DoL official.
> The lawsuit was about accessing data, not the merits of the DoL’s arguments, she says, pointing out that the government has yet to present its case.
https://www.wired.com/story/google-department-of-labor-gende...
Is calling my co-workers who are people of colour racial slurs a thought crime? Should I be fired for that, or should my employer tolerate it? Should I be allowed to make remarks about how evolutionary psychology tells me that women should be in the kitchen? Or that African Americans are predisposed to crime?
At what point does saying things stops becoming thought crime, and starts becoming 'creating a hostile work environment'? There has to be a point of crossover, somewhere, right?
If you said yes, you're an authoritarian stifling discourse. If you said no, then... Well, that's certainly a principled stance you can take.
1. I agree we should not allow racial slurs, or Nazi symbols, etc. We can do that because the vast majority of society disapproves of them. But the opinions in the document are not in that status: they are mostly rejected by progressives, debated by centrists, and mostly accepted by conservatives. In other words, Google has sent a signal of "you can't work here if you're not a progressive", and that's harmful on a societal level, because while we can have a functioning society after kicking out Nazis and people saying slurs, can we thrive if we have separate corporations for progressives and conservatives? No, we have to find a way to work together. Google's actions were a blow against such cooperation.
2. Saying that average group differences exist is a scientific fact (there are debates about where the differences lie, what they mean, what caused them, etc. but that some exist is long settled). And just acknowledging their existence seems to be what got this person fired, after others - including Google leadership - misunderstood average group differences to mean "one group is inferior to another".
Probably. Did the Google guy do even remotely that (or the sexist analogous)? No.
>At what point does saying things stops becoming thought crime, and starts becoming 'creating a hostile work environment'? There has to be a point of crossover, somewhere, right?
That would be relevant if I had said that there's no point of crossover.
But my "thought crime" argument wasn't that saying some things can't be "beyond the pale" (which I can agree with).
Rather it was that today some things can't even be discussed openly with rational arguments because people are not allowed to even touch them without automatically being labelled -- however good their intentions are and however sensical their arguments -- or how in accordance to science.
Certainly well known, supported, and referenced scientific facts, are not creating a hostile work environment. The fact that he was treated that way suggests that it is in fact a "thought crime".
1) https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0O3ZRp... (cache version)
People are portraying it like he posted it on the cafeteria bulletin board. That was someone else's doing, trying (and succeeding) in punishing him.
Well, It surely did not work out that way, and I stand by my caution to folks that however its defined (limited audience, private list, etc.) there will be someone to spread it beyond the original intended audience.
https://medium.com/@Cernovich/full-james-damore-memo-uncenso...
This is the part of this whole thing that bothers me the most. You can't just close this debate down with proof by repeated assertion. Whatever you think about the memo, its author, or the views he's presented, it's simply not settled science and certainly not settled on the side you seem to think it is.†
The following should get you started:
* Steven Pinker & Elizabeth Spelke | The Science of Gender & Science | Mind Brain Behavior Discussion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Hb3oe7-PJ8
* http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagger...
Answering questions as complicated as "Why aren't there more women in tech?" is extremely difficult. There are likely lots of factors, all intertwined, difficult to untangle.
The idea that you could just say, "Nope. It's settled. It's 100% sexism and no other cause" is just patently absurd. Anybody telling you otherwise is full of shit.
† Note that the science on this question is independent of questions like "Should he have posted this at work?" or "Did Google handle this the right way?"
Likelihood usually change on the environment, just look at Uber.
But, it's all speculation, they denied that data to DoL.