> how a particular group of employees are less likely to be as proficient at their work as I am due to some immutable biological trait(s) they possess

Is that what Damore actually said? That's not my recollection. I think his main point was that due to differences in biology, that women had more extraversion, openness, and neuroticism (big 5 traits) and that women were less likely to want to get into computer stuff. That's a very far cry from him saying something like "women suck at computers" and seems very dishonest to suggest.

- I think his main point was that due to differences in biology, that women had more extraversion, openness, and neuroticism (big 5 traits) and that women were less likely to want to get into computer stuff.

I'm generally anti-woke and it was more than that. It's not just 'less likely' it was also 'less suited'

It would be helpful if you can post such a citation. I did a quick search and I'm not seeing "less suited" in his memo.

"women have more interest people to things so to improve their situation we should increase pair-programming, however there are limits to how people oriented some SE roles are".

This is literally saying we should change SWE roles to make it more suited to women... i.e. women are not suited for that currently.

But that's not talking about suitability to architect solutions or write code, it's talking about the surrounding process infrastructure and making it more approachable to people so that people who are suited to software engineering have a space where they can deliver on it.

When businessses moved towards open offices, this infrastructure change made SWE roles more approachable for extroverts and opened the doors of the trade to people not suited to the solitude of private offices. Extroverts and verbally collaborative people love open offices and often thrive in them.

That doesn't imply that extroverts weren't suited to writing software. It just affirms the obvious fact that some enviornments are more inviting to certain people, and that being considerate of those things can make more work available to more people.

Open offices are the GNOME of layouts: they cater to the wrong crowd.

Programming rewards introverts content to self-study in solitude and hack away at code the way Linux caters to power user neck beards. For extroverts and normies, those things are both torture. Those stereotypes exist for a reason, and it's fundamentally flawed not to tune towards them.

So he's actually thinking of ways to improve the work environment for woman, and people are blaming him for saying that woman are not suitable for the work?

It's not about what you say, it's about how the article reporting on you describes you.

"We could do these changes at Google to make it a better place for women." "So, what you are saying is that women are biologically incapable of working at current Google? Our female colleagues at HR department are so triggered they literally can't stop crying!"

What's the implication of "There's some roles we can't accomodate to make them more suitable for women" for you (which is literally said in the paper) ?

I don't see that line anywhere in the original paper

Do you want me to do a drawing ?

Yes please, it seems like you're making stuff up

It's fair to say that general female population is less suited, i.e. a random woman is less likely to be suited than a random man.

We're talking about small fractions of both men and women, mind you.

Which is still pretty ridiculous on the face of it. Software beyond school assignments and toys are always a collaborative effort where extroversion, openness, and neuroticism are benefits to getting stuff done

Based on his software opinions, I'd guess he was let go for performance issues more than anything. It's unlikely that he could write code that another person could agree with, work with, or read, and that if somebody asked about his code, he'd be unable to talk about it.

> sending a message to all my coworkers

Damore didn't send anything to all coworkers. He sent a detailed message as part of a very specific conversation with a very specific group on demographic statistics at Google and their causes.

In fact, it was Damore's detractors that published it widely. If it the crime was distribution, and not thoughtcrime, wouldn't they be fired?

---

Now, maybe that's not a conversation that should have existed in a workplace in the first place. I'd buy that. But's it's profoundly disingenuous for a company to deliberately invite/host a discussion, then fire anyone with a contrary opinion.

If a company invites you to a discussion, it means you are invited to listen (and politely applaud when appropriate).

> Now, maybe that's not a conversation that should have existed in a workplace in the first place. I'd buy that. But's it's profoundly disingenuous for a company to deliberately invite/host a discussion, then fire anyone with a contrary opinion.

Damore was asked for his feedback by his employer, he didn't offer it unsolicited.

This is dishonest. what is the point of this comment? Do you feel righteously woke when you write it?

He was pushing back against a communist narrative that: every single demographic gruop should be equally represented in every part of tech; and that if this isn't the case, then it's evidence of racism/sexism/some other modern sin.

Again what was the point of portraying the Damore story like that.

No, it's literally just the truth. It's socially (and professionally) inept to send such a weird evopsych manifesto to your colleagues, where you list all sorts of statistics about differences on average between genders, yet couch all your statements in "but obviously this can't be extrapolated to individuals of course." A manifesto where you also suggest doing away with racial diversity programs, but shy away from explaining why. A manifesto where you say you're totally open to the idea of increased diversity, but that absolutely no real program would meet the acceptable requirements in your eyes for it to be ideologically correct.

It's weird, I'm sorry you don't get it but most people wouldn't want to work with such a socially maladapted person who could compile all this research pointed at <20% of the company's employees, not put their name to anything of substance, shy away from expanding on other things they clearly believe wrt racial diversity, suggest ending all diversity programs at one of the most prestigious and competitive tech companies because of a collection of averages despite saying nothing of substance should be extrapolated from them on an individual level, then spam everyone in the company's inbox with their manifesto.

No, it's literally just a bunch of lies, which you probably picked up from some fourth-party retelling of the story. Damore sent it as a part of a specific conversation on specific topic, in place specially designated to hold such conversations. And his opponents distributed it with the purpose of silencing him because they disliked what he had to say. It wasn't a "manifesto", it was a document meant for internal discussion, on internal discussion forum, which has been seized and distributed in public by the opponents instead of trying to argue any opposing points.

> I'm sorry you don't get it but most people wouldn't want to work with such a socially maladapted person who could compile all this research

By "most people" you mean "myself and a couple of my friends who I didn't even ask but I am sure I know what they think because we all think the same". Actually, working with a person who bothers to support his opinions with well argued, well searched and well presented research, instead of running to the press crying "witches! there are witches here! burn them all!" is a very pleasant and productive thing. Even if you disagree with such person, at least you can have a civilized discussion, understand and appreciate their arguments and eventually hopefully find common solutions, and you have a reason to expect they'd behave in the same reasonable, professional and civilized manner. On the contrary, working with somebody who would each time you do something they don't like leak it to the hostile press who would sensationalize it and coordinate personal attacks on you would be a complete nightmare.

You value social conformity too highly. No reform can happen if nobody dissents. I guess you're implying that he should have done so by gaining political power first, then exercising that power to share or implement his ideas in a way which would no longer be socially maladaptive because his respected status would give it more perceived value. Probably that would be more successful, but it's not bad for an individual suggest novel ways of working towards the company's stated goals.

I'm sure if you lived in a very religious society, you'd have the same condemnation of anyone who openly questions the Bible. Your concern isn't that he was wrong but that he shouldn't have said things people clearly didn't want to hear. Social conformity is pretty useful at keeping people working cohesively and effectively, but it can go astray and we need people brave enough to fight against it when that happens.

> things they clearly believe

I think this what angered people the most. What he actually wrote was reasonable and factually accurate, however, others who were also socially inept but in a more typical way read between the lines and imagined some other unstated bad ideas must be in his mind. Back when this happened a lot of people were making angry posts about these imagined ideas rather than what he actually wrote. He must believe women are incapable of working in tech, inferior, etc.