Liberals also say and do stupid shit

Before reading the memo, had you already heard it was ‘sexist memo’ and reading it confirmed something you already knew to be true?

Effectively it was saying that their programs should cater to individuals, not groups, and saying that any discussion about their programs was hampered by the reaction that it got. Then hate groups on the internet got a hold of it.

I think I actually posted the exact part where he says that. There are a few places, really… but as an example, there is the part where he specifically says that women are more neurotic, and inherently less capable of dealing with stressful situations, which is not in fact a scientifically valid statement.

But according to his references it was unclear or in disagreement with that notion, wasn’t it - most of the references in the text I read were lacking to be honest.

Regardless, the point of his memo was surely not that “women are neurotic” but, “how can we make this program even more effective, to everyone that wants to”?

It feels a bit like someone hooking onto a grammatical error in a text and discussing that instead of the intent/message of the entire text.

You’d think that most programs would be more efficient if they were not comprised entirely of “yes” people; I.e. they’d need a “devils advocate” to further improve, instead of burning the advocate.

Then he should have left that out. You don’t get to post science and then random conclusions and sexist stances and then complain no one is focusing on the first part. Maybe he should have stopped at five pages instead of ten, and that’s no one else fault but his.

Well, no… not really, although he kind of tries to disguise it that way.

He says, “Well, we know that women are inherently neurotic, and less capable of handling stress, so we should try to make things less stressful! We shouldn’t worry about hiring women… they just aren’t applying for jobs, because they don’t like the stress!”

It’s a bullshit argument on multiple levels, but one of them is most definitely sexism, in that he presents an assumption that women are inherently neurotic and less capable of handling stress, which is not an accurate statement.

Says who? Not these large scale studies.

Of course we are talking about averages with large overlaps as the memo went to long lengths to note. Women scored higher for many positive traits too, which the memo also noted.

So, because he, in many peoples opinion (both those who read it and those who read the opinion they should have about it) , lacked an editor to vet his “SEXIST HATE FILLED RACIST RIGHT WING WHITE MALE MANIFESTO” we should destroy his life.

Gotcha.

But yea, I’m can certainly see the lure in physically destroying those you have a big disagreement with, it is certainly more efficient than trying to turn someone to your side. The problem is to get everyone at the same time, since once you’ve hit a few the rest will go into hiding and from the shadows undermine your society. But we’ll get there.

Analogy of his argument:

Black people are less likely to get a 4 year degree, because we all know black people are just dumber than white people.

WHY IS EVERYONE IGNORING THE FIRST PART?!?!!?

And once someone writes that memo and get fired from running the united states, we can discuss it.

Is this happening here?

I think you’re arguing with yourself there buddy. I didn’t say anything you just did. He posted something that was sexist and racist and tried to hide that behind science at his workplace. They let him go for it. it’s not some big conspiracy. He didn’t need an editor. He needed basic judgment skills and the ability to just work well with his peers, ALL his peers.

Ya, we covered that too… Isolated studies do not in fact constitute a broad scientific consensus.
Further, even if you were to accept the findings of peer reviewed studies suggesting higher levels of neuroticism as defined in that psychoanalytic domain, it does not remotely support the broader conclusions that he then carries it to, where women are less capable of handling stressful situations. That part was basically just made up whole-cloth by the author.

Again, this is very much in line with the type of pseudoscience that was used to justify racism… some scientific factoids, used to surround a largely unscientific core of beliefs, to lend them the air of credibility.

I just wanted to say that I believe in you, Mike.

He’s not questioning Google’s tactics. He is questioning Google’s goals.

Google’s goals do not include promoting diversity of political opinions, so suggesting ways of doing this is irrelevant. Google’s goals do include promoting gender diversity, so working against this goal justifies sanctions.

You are arguing that it would be hard, perhaps impossible, for Boston to achieve its goals. That’s not a valid reason to stop trying.

Let me change the example ever so slightly. An American company notices that nearly all of its customers are American. It decides on a new goal: it wants at least 50% of its customers to be Chinese. This will require new outreach, and perhaps making special accommodations and incentives for Chinese customers that it would not offer to American customers. An American customer notices this and thinks it’s unfair, pointing that there are very good, scientific reasons why the company does not have Chinese customers. Chinese people prefer Chinese companies. The company culture is based on American customs, with English websites and English-speaking customer support. Therefore, the company would be wise to “accept reality” and forget about China.

Anyone at the company should consider that line of reasoning to be ridiculous. If trying to get Chinese customers is worthwhile, then it’s worthwhile even if the goals are lofty. Of course there are intrinsic challenges when dealing with Chinese customers. Some of them can be addressed (design a Chinese website), and some cannot (the company will always be American). It’s possible that the 50% goal will never be achieved. But that doesn’t mean it’s not worth the effort. Would you question a company that strived for 100% satisfaction, which is an impossible goal?

Of of the definitions of the psych term Neuroticism, is exactly that, having a worse response to stressors. He didn’t make up anything.

As for whether something is a scientific consensus or not, that is something that we can debate. The people at Google can’t, however, because bringing up piles of peer-reviewed science that doesn’t fit the corporate narrative is a fireable offense there.

It is the next logical step is it not?

nonconformist
Try to silence through words
Dissident
Try to silence through financial pressure
Terrorist
Silence through threats and/or violence

Either way; The memo I read was a question on ‘how can we do this better’ and what someone else saw was the early manuscript of Mein Kampf (only discovered in the early 1920s so they could burn it and kill the author (or make their leader). (That said, had Chamberlain read it, they’d probably have never given away Czechoslovakia)) ← not those Twitter things. So I guess everyone had a different takeaway from it. (Does this count as a weak Godwin?)

But you’re making the same mistake that he’s making, although perhaps not intentionally.

That definition there is an extremely broad stroke at a category of personality traits. But with actual people, your personality is not defined by a number like a D&D character. You can’t take a super abstract metric like “Neuroticism” and then make anything approaching a meaningful prediction regarding how someone is actually going to respond in a real situation. Hell, this inability is further exacerbated by the fact that you can’t reliably predict what will stress individuals within this context.

The problem here is that you’re taking scientific factoids, and extending them beyond the science.

So surely Malathor should be fired from his job as well?

If he started talking to his co-workers, telling them that they were inherently less capable of performing their jobs due to their sex? Yeah, probably.