[ubernostrum]

The basic issue here is we're presented with this memo and told that he wrote all this stuff in order to... do what, exactly? If not this, then what point was he trying to make, or what position was he trying to argue for? Was he just citing a bunch of things for no particular reason whatsoever? And felt that this "memo about nothing" was of such Seinfeldian importance that the entire company needed to read it?

Or we can ask ourselves: what conditions would have to hold for someone to think all this was relevant and important to write about? And the answer is that if we want to be charitable and assume there's logical coherence to what he was thinking, the conditions that need to hold are something along the lines of "he thinks women are, for hard-coded unalterable biological reasons, less fit than men to work in tech jobs at Google".

[collyw]

I would suggest reading the "suggestions" section at the end:

"My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. ​ I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism)"

[ubernostrum]

My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology.

Except apparently there are a grand total of zero ideas that can be attributed to him, or attributed to being held by him. Which ideas does he think need to be given more tolerance?

Here's a hint: from the "evidence" he cites, it's pretty clear what ideas he thinks are in need of toleration.

[metaphorm]

I think his motivation was much closer to "I feel irritated because I was just forced to attend a feminist indoctrination program and I want to let management know I disagree with this kind of thing". And then he proceeded to make his request obliquely, by attempting to couch it as a scientific debate, when really it was a cultural one.

[ubernostrum]

Ah, yes, the "feminist indoctrination program". No doubt he was sent to a re-education camp where Überstürmfeminists of Femgruppe A forcibly shoved their hateful and virulent ideas down his throat.

I'm sure that's very close to what actually happened, and that this phrase is not hyperbolic or trying to portray "maybe we should treat people equally and not pre-assume things about what roles they should have based on their race/gender" as an extreme radical idea when it should be the default stance.

[Chris2048]

Here are slides from Google: https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/9/16122072/google-diversity-...

Viewed charitably "[it is off-topic to be] doubting the validity of scenarios" is fine (so long as it goes either way), but the question I'd ask is:

Is "debating whether bias exists at your organisation" on-topic for a future session, or does that conversation just never happen?

I'd also like to know if "Unconscious Bias training" ever references the "Implicit association test".

[metaphorm]

remember I was speaking in Damore's hypothetical voice. The program is typically called "unconscious bias awareness training" as well as "diversity training". But yes, he was sent to a training program that irritated him.

Please don't criticize my portrayal of someone else's impressions of those programs as if that was my own opinion. You are free to watch Damore himself speak about that in the several taped interviews he has given since being fired.