[sanity31415]

> They fired Damore for writing an email that was tone-deaf, insensitive, but largely supported by research

Damore was asked for his feedback on Google's diversity policies, and that's exactly what he provided.

Most of Damore's critics haven't actually read his memo[1], but rather formed an opinion based on the character assassination campaign against him, a campaign his employer publicly sided with.

Over the 4 years since the controversy I've asked countless Damore critics to point to the specific part of his memo that was tone-deaf, insensitive, or bigoted. I'm still waiting for an answer.

[1] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...

[tolbish]

People take issue with the following, but I don't recall Google confirming/denying if it is true:

I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:

● Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race

● A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates

● Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate

● Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)

● Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination

[kbelder]

I don't get it. He's pointing out five problems with Google's efforts. I don't know whether they're correct or not, but I don't see anything here to criticize. If these are true, and they seem plausible, they do need to be fixed.

[sanity31415]

To my knowledge Google has never challenge the accuracy of those claims, and such practices are commonplace in many tech companies in the name of "diversity".

[jms55]

Do you think purposely hiring X group is a bad practice? From what I understand, it's not enough to say "we'll hire X if they're better than Y". When you don't actually have any X at the moment, your company might not be very welcoming to X, and so they won't join. So you purposely go out of your way to hire extra X, to account for the lower acceptance rate.

The common response is "that's not fair to Y, you should be hiring only based on quality, not on X or Y". But the issue is if you only hire on quality, but the quality X candidates don't join, then you're actually losing out on quality. So instead, you lower quality requirements, with the goal that overall you're actually promoting quality in the end, by working towards an environment where quality _is_ the only determining factor, and removing the current factors that work against X candidates.

What about this do you disagree with?

Note: This kind of handwaves over what "X won't join is". There's a lot of nuance to this. It may be that X grows up thinking the job isn't for them, because they always see Y in those types of jobs, and never bothers to try that job. It may be that X tries to join, but the people hiring them all Y, and favor Y instead because it's familiar to them, and the rest of the company is Y. It may be that X joins, but they feel uncomfortable that everyone is Y, and quits. There's a lot of different factors that goes into what discrimination looks like, which is why affirmative action is a lot more than just company policies.

[sanity31415]

I believe that people should be treated as individuals, not collectivized into groups based on immutable characteristics like ethnicity.

I believe that while "reverse-discrimination" has become commonplace in the name of diversity, it is unfair, divisive, counterproductive, and illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I'm not accusing you of making this argument, but the assumption that a particular ethnic group can't compete on a level playing field is deeply condescending towards those groups. It's "the soft bigotry of low expectations".

[jms55]

I don't entirely disagree with you. But by the same token, trying to treat everyone as an individual without acknowledging disadvantages due to race, gender, etc isn't a good idea either.

For instance, I'm trans. I'm not openly out when searching for jobs / at work, because I fear I will be discriminated for it. If I saw a company already had several trans people, and they were seeking trans people out and asking them to apply, I would maybe change my mind.

Should companies treat everyone as individuals, and say "if trans people wanted to work here, they need to apply"? Because that's how you get no trans people applying, and that perpetuates the cycle of "I can't come out, no one else in the world is trans". Sure, it would be better if companies didn't have to advocate for diversity, but until society doesn't have stigmitism, real or imagined, against minorities, then I don't think it's wrong to help them on the basis of their identity.

[sanity31415]

I'm sorry to hear that you are fearful of discrimination and it has discouraged you from seeking employment. That's wrong and unfair.

I have no problem with companies going out of their way to advertise that they are welcoming to all, whether black, trans, white, gay, young, old, etc, and that candidates will be judged on merit.

But I do have a problem with holding people to a different standard because of their ethnicity, gender, gender identity, or any other inborn characteristic that's irrelevant to their ability to do the job.

[shadowgovt]

The issue is the statistics show fairly consistently that the playing field starts non-level, at multiple points.

https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2020-06-24...

[sanity31415]

As Damore explains at length in his memo, statistical disparities in representation don't prove discrimination.

For example, 74% of NBA players are black - compared to just 13% of the US population.

Is this disparity evidence that the NBA is discriminating against non-black players?

[jaywalk]

Beyond your handwaving absurdity, is there any empirical evidence at all that lowering the quality bar for X ends up actually raising quality in the end? Because it sounds like a bunch of unicorn fairytale nonsense to me.

[shadowgovt]

This may be of value.

https://blog.capterra.com/7-studies-that-prove-the-value-of-...

[nazca]

> Damore was asked for his feedback on Google's diversity policies, and that's exactly what he provided.

> Most of Damore's critics haven't actually read his memo[1], but rather formed an opinion based on the character assassination campaign against him, a campaign his employer publicly sided with.

I completely agree, but in a corporate setting one can be truthful, accurate, have good intent, and yet still be tone deaf and insensitive. The bar for insensitive is very low in this context.

I think with a fair and honest reading of his letter & the context that it came up in, its clear that he was trying to contribute in a positive way to the discussion & effort.

This is why the inconsistency between these two cases is so remarkable. Antisemitism, even if from years ago, and not related to company business, is pretty damning (esp for someone leading D&I efforts). Meanwhile, an attempt, albeit executed in a politically naive way, to positively contribute to a discussion led to a firing & character assassination.

[sanity31415]

> I completely agree, but in a corporate setting one can be truthful, accurate, have good intent, and yet still be tone deaf and insensitive. The bar for insensitive is very low in this context.

If a fair and honest reading of his memo reveals that he had good intent, and the memo was scientifically accurate - and yet he was fired and publicly vilified for it, then isn't describing it as "tone deaf and insensitive" a form of victim-blaming?

It seems similar to pointing out that the victim of a sexual assault was dressed provocatively.

[brianberns]

He suggested that biological differences between the sexes (rather than bias/discrimination) are the reason why women are underrepresented in the tech industry.

It’s not hard to understand why many people find this offensive.

Here’s the direct quote if you need it: “I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.”

[haberman]

Damore's quote says "in part" and "may explain," suggesting the possibility of multiple causes, and making clear that there is uncertainty.

Your paraphrase says "the reason" and "rather than bias/descrimination", suggesting both certainty and only a single cause.

How do you reconcile this difference between your paraphrase and Damore's quote?

[brianberns]

That’s why I used the word “suggested”, which is exactly what he did, in a section prominently titled “Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech”.

[haberman]

He suggested that non-bias causes are possible contributing factors to the disparity, yes.

Nowhere does he suggest they are the only causes, or that bias/discrimination do not exist.

[brianberns]

Parsing his sentence for tiny nuances like that isn't very helpful IMHO, but I'll indulge you.

His exact words are "these differences may explain". He doesn't say "these differences may PARTLY explain". If I say that A may explain B, the reasonable implication is that A may fully explain B. So, yes, he does suggest that non-bias causes are the only causes.

Just to be clear: I don't think this makes any real difference. The reaction to his email would've been the same either way. But the fact remains that your interpretation of the quote isn't supported by the actual words he used.

[haberman]

If a holistic reading of Damore's memo reinforced the idea that he was trying to deny the possibility of bias/discrimination, then perhaps you could call your inference a "reasonable implication." But the opposite is true, Damore repeatedly tries to represent the uncertainty and possibility of multiple causes. This is true even in the single sentence you quoted.

Given this, I do not think it is a reasonable implication to turn "may explain" to "may fully explain."

It's hard for me to believe this distinction doesn't matter given that his critics always seem to specifically call out his "denial" of bias/discrimination when they want to paint him in the most unflattering light (even the NYT: https://twitter.com/jessesingal/status/1360626887035338752).

[austhrow743]

"Women, on average, have more: Neuroticism" was a big one I remember people having issue with back when this story was news.

[kbelder]

Is it false? Doesn't seem like something he would assert without a cite.

[ackfoobar]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/

Male: 2.68 SD: 0.65

Female: 2.94 SD:0.67

d: 0.39

Non-native English user here, it seems the word "neurotic" has some connotation that the trait "neuroticism" doesn't? And that's why it's received so poorly?

[sanity31415]

"Neurotic" does have a negative connotation in common usage, but it's also the term used by personality psychologists, it's the 'N' in the OCEAN personality model. It means "risk averse".

[ackfoobar]

"Educate yourself" is often thrown by the left in heated conversations.

But when a academic term (that is closely related to a negative word) is used, some on the same side refuse to understand and get butthurt instead.

E.g.: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23122068

[throwawaygh]

> Is it false?

Within the context in which the claim was made, it's "not even wrong". Lots of the claims in the Damore memo are similarly better to characterize as "not even wrong" rather than "false".

> Doesn't seem like something he would assert without a cite.

I can find a cite for literally anything.

[austhrow743]

Entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand, but afaik no.

[shadowgovt]

I'd assume they'd just direct you to the NLRB findings that Damore's firing was lawful.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1K1JRtRYBLyhhgkJLXnW2Nxjo5Bn...

"... statements about immutable traits linked to sex - such as women's heightened neuroticism and men's prevalence at the top of the IQ distribution - were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment..."

[treeman79]

Insensitive part was being truthful. Tone deaf was not changing personal beliefs