Google and its terrible, horrible, no good, very bad week in full Right off the bat, let's get this straight: on average, ignorant bigots and well-rounded human beings biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren't just socially constructed; they're universal across human cultures. Bigots that should have been castrated at birth but raised by well-rounded human beings often still …
>To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK.
That wasn't what the document said. He was addressing (recruitment) programs and policies, not individuals. If we know women in general dislike solitary roles, could we not make the roles more social rather than running women-only recruitment programs?
What he said was: https://diversitymemo-static.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf
I watched the Stefan M Interview too. It was painful. Damore appeared to want to be nice to his host, but S.M. kept trying to push Damore into saying things he really didn't want to say.
I know El Reg is a red-top but I do expect more journalistic integrity than what was presented in this article. He didn't pile into "what the left does wrong" or say or imply that "protecting women" was "something the left does wrong." He noted the biases on both right and left, not just listing "lefty" biases as the el reg list implies. Despite El Reg's assertion, there was no reason for Google to feel they had no choice but to fire Damore. It was neither hurtful nor offensive unless you are ideologically wedded to the idea that there are no differences between men and women. Damore said nothing about individual performance and explicitly denied that his memo was relevant to that, in the interview.
Some factual observations we can make from all of this are:
1. Damore lost his job and has poor judgement regarding interviewers.
2. Damore's assertion that Google tries to purge dissent rather than accepting or refuting it is confirmed by its action in purging him.
3. Google (and FB, Twitter and online publications) will make money from Damore being fired and the general outrage.
Jeez. I thought the point here was pretty obvious: this (the 'clarification' of the code of conduct) can only possibly affect Google employees. So why would it be an issue of public interest?
I mean, feel free to take a side on whether the guy is some kind of heroic truth teller (sigh) and whether or not he should have got fired. But it seems a bit odd to me that you'd demand Google 'clarify' its code of conduct to people who *aren't bound by it*. Hence my point: if you're a Google employee, then your request is perfectly reasonable, but surely you have better places to ask for a clarification of the code of conduct than a random internet forum. If you're not, it has precisely zero impact on you, so why do you think Google should be obliged to interpret its code of conduct for you, when you have no standing relative to each other at all?
"it seems a bit odd to me that you'd demand Google 'clarify' its code of conduct to people who *aren't bound by it*"Not really. Codes of Conduct are generally available to the public and for good reason. Let's say the CoC allows employees to swear at customers. Customers then have no grounds for complaint when called a stupid cunt. OTOH is the CoC specifically forbids abusing customers in any way, then customers have grounds to complain to the employer.
NB I deliberately chose an extreme example, not a real-world one.
"If that manifesto is not bringing the company into disrepute I honestly don't know what would?"
That would depend on who is making the judgement of "disrepute". I'd say that sacking someone for expressing views you don't like is pretty disreputable but I suppose I'm fairly liberal, and in the UK, where liberal is an adjective rather than an obscene interjection.
It is also pretty stupid, since it has drawn huge amounts of attention to Google's actual performance in this area (which isn't stellar) and at the same time made it impossible to have a reasoned discussion of the policy. (Perhaps they should google for "Streisand effect".)
If that manifesto is not bringing the company into disrepute I honestly don't know what would?
How's about the continued, intrusive, unwanted and secretive use and selling of personal data without ever coming quite clean about what is sold, who to and why. Will that do you?
This is why Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Reddit, and other social sites like them are important.
The rabid mouth foamers from both sides of any debate happily lock themselves up together in them to engage in mortal and pointless combat.
Keeps them off the streets and out of my face. ☺
You have made Mr Jim Bloke's point for him. He did not say, or even suggest, that anyone should be censored or silenced. He merely said that it was convenient for him that all the stupid people (as he puts it) should be busy on social media, where he can ignore them.
Or have you decided that ignoring people is also to be a social crime?
>> How can they be conveniently ignored when most of the population has one of a Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, or Reddit account?
I've got two of those and I was completely unaware that this had happened until I read this article. It's not the sites, it's the bits of them you choose to read.
You do need to develop a rapid mental shit filter to prevent you clicking on obvious crap, but I've not found that difficult to do.
Well, I for one don't have a Facebook, Twitter or Reddit account. I admit to a LinkedIn account, but that is a quiescent relic. I certainly don't visit or read LinkedIn.
In fact, I don't have a mobile phone either. In general, I try to do only things that are fun or good for me. The world is complicated enough that it's quite possible to avoid all the bad stuff.
> The greatest crime the "world wide web" has committed, is giving stupid people a voice.
Yeah, but it has also given us metaphorical ear-plugs.
Really though, all this noise is a barrier to discourse scratching past the surface of an issue. And of course, breaking the world down into discrete issues is also a barrier to understanding.
Hard to get someone as stupid as the author of this article.
Starts off with the old "bigot" line for anyone who disagrees with him - as usual with people who like to throw around this word, the very definition of bigotry itself.
Then in complete denial that if you want to talk about overall trends in employment then general biological preferences will be relevant.
He also failed to read the IMTERNAL memo as well; as if he had done he would have noticed the table about right wing behaviour as well. Unbalanced reporting by the reg does not help anyone. The man went out of his way to balance the memo sp as to be politically neutral and referenced Avery single paper he used to determine his stance. Not liking the conclusion of a peer reviewed paper does not make it extreme or stupid - ask any climate scientist
This is why Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Reddit, and other social sites like them are important.
Only to those foolish enough to bare their lives on them. Otherwise, they are irrelevant.
If like me, you avoid them like the plague then you life can be a whole lot easier.
Come on, just say NO to them and basically 'get a life'. There is one outside of Social Media after all we existed for millions of years before Farcebook etc came along.
Probably due to eugenics as a side effect of the slave trade. The slave traders picked the strongest "specimens" from Africa and shipped them to the Americas as slaves. The weaker of those died off through over-work, so only the strongest survived. This meant that blacks in America were from a hardy, strong stock which is well suited to various sports (basketball, sprinting, etc).
It's benefited them, but it doesn't justify slavery or what was done to them.
Or it could be that it was more useful to be a fast runner for humans in Africa than it was for the humans who migrated north. While we all came from Africa if you go back a hundred thousand years or so, to the extent that fast running was more important for survival and having more children (i.e. higher social status) in Africa versus Europe/Asia/Americas the ones who left Africa would stop selecting for it as much. We selected for other traits, like lighter skin to allow getting sufficient vitamin D from the sun, digesting milk when we started keeping cattle, and so forth.
At any rate, the difference in speed is pretty small on average as well in the elite category. But when the difference between winning and losing is measured in hundredths of a second, it doesn't take much difference for blacks to be overrepresented in the ranks of elite sprinters.
Which is similar to the difference between men and women that Damore was pointing out. Yes, there's a difference, but it isn't large enough to account for the wide disparity in men and women working in tech. Especially since there is nearly a 50/50 mix in other countries like India and China. The difference in the US is obviously not genetic, unless someone wants to make a case that the difference between men and women in suitability for tech jobs exists only in Caucasians.
"Especially since there is nearly a 50/50 mix in other countries like India and China. The difference in the US is obviously not genetic, unless someone wants to make a case that the difference between men and women in suitability for tech jobs exists only in Caucasians."
James' argument is that distribution of personality traits differs by sex (this is well supported by science) which leads to different preferences in career. However, women are not equally free in all countries to follow their preferences in career. Women in affluent, egalitarian societies are more free to choose the careers which match their personality traits, which leads to the large gender differences we see in some professions in the West. There is a lot of literature on this subject (also known as the Nordic Gender Equality Paradox).
There is a good discussion about some of James' points at http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exaggerated-differences/
"a 50/50 mix in other countries like India and China" will be news to women in those countries.
The statistics vary depending on exactly what you count as "working in tech" but excluding virtual slave labour assembling iPhones the figure for women is anywhere between 3% to 20%. A long way short of they mythical 50/50.
Genetics are likely to be a small factor in differences in career choices but it cannot be argued that gender isn't a factor whether the decision is to have a career as a Child Minder, Kernel Coder any of a thousand other career.
It is actually hard to find many careers where there isn't a difference to be found when it comes to gender balance.
Curiously, Kenyans - like the Japanese and some Mexican tribes with a traditional of long distance running - enjoy fermented food food stuffs. It isn't just their bodies, it is their fuel too that might impact upon their performance. Life is complex and fascinating.
In any any case, none of this means anything: anyone from any background is free to qualify for a marathon, and they'll only be judged by their performance. It's a meritocracy, with a clear and simple goal, judged objectively. In this respect a marathon differs to the reality of many jobs.
Yes -- seems to me I read that Neanderthals, stocky and with short legs (and, proportionally, shorter shins in particular), have advantages in hill-climbing and conserving heat in cold climates, compared with long-limbed people.
I have short, muscular legs. I run poorly, though whether that is entirely due to physiology or whether poor form can be blamed is up for grabs. I jogged for many years, but my thudding gait is now impossible; my lower back is done with it. I can climb a steep hillside just fine, though, even with a pack. Neanderthals is my peeps. (Not really, perhaps, but in spirit!)
Parenthetically, it's very imprecise to say "blacks" or "Africans" are better runners. Ever see a Mbenga or Mbuti person who is an internationally competitive runner? You won't. These black Africans tend to be less than 5 feet tall. Better be more specific, and say the Oromo and Kalenjin peoples of Africa are sometimes excellent runners. As mentioned, natives of Africa are more genetically diverse than the rest of Homo sapiens combined. (Reffie: BioNews)
Huh? You literally just made the argument that, in very highly competitive field (such as sprinting) that a small average difference between groups could lead to a very large bias. And then go on to ignore it when you say "Yes, there's a difference, but it isn't large enough to account for the wide disparity in men and women working in tech." The -whole point- of what you noticed with sprinting, is that a tiny average variation between sexes, when selecting the very best (many standard deviations above the mean) in a mixed pool, will lead to a large bias.
Let's work through a simplified example. Imagine such thing as a 'computer skills ability index' and when we measure a cohort of programmers, averages out for men at 1005, and for women at 995. That's a 1% difference. A tiny variation.
But Google only hire the cream of the crop. They will sift through thousands of applicants, and based purely on skill alone, hire the top ten. They'll hire the person with a skill index of 1500, then those with a skill index of 1499, then those with a skill index of 1498. It's only when we get down to the 1490's that women are going to approach the frequency of men in their hires.
It doesn't mean Google are sexist in their hiring. It's literally just a case of them hiring the very very best, combined with a small (but measurable) variation between the sexes which means those very very best are likely to be male.
And I'm sorry if you find that offensive, or if it goes against the mantra you've been brought up to believe that everyone is equal, but that's how things work out. And it's really quite disconcerting when otherwise intelligent people are unable to grasp this, as if something triggers in their brain that destroys rationality and the ability to reason, and makes them scream things that conform to groupthink and virtue signal for fear of being singled out or stigmatised. Exactly like what's happened with that guy who was fired.
Seriously... people at Google are saying things like "If I had to work with him, I'd be unable to stop myself from punching him in the face" and it's -him- that's the problem and not them?
Very reasonable argument but I would suggest there are two significant complications.
1st, I don't think even a quite narrow set of skills can be measured on a one dimensional index.
2nd, I don't think even Google has got hiring practices that ensure they never hire people below the 99 percentile.
But the principle problem with his manifesto is context rather than intrinsic quality. The guy is not an anthropologist publishing a paper for a research department.
I could produce some pretty good science to support the Peter Principle and the Denning Kruger Effect but I don't think I'd submit a paper on these if my company asked for my thoughts on how people were selected for promotion!
If Google had no competition in hiring, that might be the case (or rather, they might wish it was the case but no one can be even remotely that precise in measuring the 'best' people for hiring) But it is not the case, there are many companies in Silicon Valley alone that also try to hire the best.
Besides, the cream of the crop for sprinters are better than one in a million, not 10 in 1500. The guy that finishes last in the Olympics 100m finals is still the 10th fastest on Earth, assuming 10 people compete. Google almost certainly does not employ any of the top 10 programmers on Earth (assuming it was possible to measure that) because he (or she!) probably employs himself.
Yet according to some reports, those of East and South Asian ancestry are quite heavily overrepresented in US technical employment. Should we consider this to be evidence that the companies hiring them are biased against hiring white men as well, perhaps, as women?
"Probably due to eugenics as a side effect of the slave trade. The slave traders picked the strongest "specimens" from Africa and shipped them to the Americas as slaves."
Oh, really? So, why, exactly, would it be that be why so many of the top distance runners in the world are East Africans? (Kenya, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Uganda, Eritrea...) Hint: the majority of black African slaves in the Americas came from _West_ Africa; slaves in the Caribbean and North America mostly from the Gold, Ivory, and Slave (duh!) Coasts in the Bight of Benin and surrounding areas, while those in South America largely came from what's now Angola as well as the Portuguese areas in and around the Bight of Benin. Still West Africa, though, and while many West Africans and a lot of East Africans are Bantu-speakers, Ethiopians and a good chunk of Kenyas aren't. The Bantu-speaking group is rather like the Indo-European-speaking group: there's a whole lot of 'em, and the ones at the far ends (West Africa, northern East Africa, South Africa) ain't particularly closely related to each other. There isn't, and wasn't ever, a monolithic 'black race', any more than there ever was a monolithic 'white race'; see further 'Indo-European Language Group' and why it's called that. You might want to reconsider your position.
"There isn't, and wasn't ever, a monolithic 'black race', any more than there ever was a monolithic 'white race'"Last time I looked there were 3 major mtDNA haplogroups in Africa and everyone outside Africa belongs to a single haplogroup. Splitters being splitters I imagine there are now many sub-groups to help cloud the issue.
This posting will probably not attract many comments, though. :)
BTW, you might expand on your note in the profane article as to why Google software people would be male. (Morons and geniuses are male. You noted Google tries to hire geniuses.)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
