This is James Damore. He was fired from Google for not fitting into their predetermined social behaviour compact. Was he wrong in his dissent? You be the judge.
I don't want to sway you with opinion, but let me just reiterate, he worked for Google. In his profession as software engineer, and at his age, there's really nowhere to go but down. He's a chess master, an artist, and he went to Princeton, M.I.T. and Harvard. Google doesn't hire dummies. They just don't hire many people who are women, evidently. Is that because they're evil, or could there be other reasons? That's what James wanted to discuss academically and reasonably. For that he was fired.
"...a manifesto on why women are biologically inferior." Forbes Magazine article written by a woman in praise of women in tech who are climbing into positions of power and hiring women because they are under-represented in the tech industry. A perfect illustration of the catch 22 feminist footshot that James Damore described in a memo as the situation at Google. "All disparities in representation are due to oppression." I would add, "particularly discrimination." He continues, "We should discriminate to correct for this oppression." If you mathematically break that down it becomes, "We should discriminate to correct for discrimination." Besides being contradictory and illogical, it just doesn't work. I have spent a few decades trying to judge whether people who call themselves feminists, just don't understand this or whether they totally understand it and just want their chance at running the world. Even on an individual basis it's a tough call.
"...the science in Damore's memo is still very much in play, and his analysis of its implications is at best politically naïve, and at worst dangerous." Wired Magazine article written by, (I think), a woman and a man, cites the "incoherency problem" one innate in scientific efforts to quantify things so eminently unquantifiable as personality or, indeed, differences between the sexes. They comment that, "Very smart people studying the same things collect related, overlapping data and then say that data proves wildly different hypotheses, or fits into divergent theoretical frameworks. The incoherency problem makes it hard to know what social science is valid in a given situation." They say that it is a common impulse to apply theories, such as the idea that women are more prone to neuroticism, as proposed by David Schmitt's 2008 meta-study and article that was referenced by James Damore in his memo, to real life situations such as Google's disparate hiring practices. But the article ironically goes on to quote David Schmitt and Richard Lippa saying that they are "unclear" and "don't know the answer" to whether their respective research relates with Google's hiring practices. The article's authors take both as disagreement with Damore's memo. This, I am left to suspect, is a good illustration of the TL;DR, (too long, didn't read), phenomenon Damore includes in his memo. Just below the reference he writes that, "Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain..." I doubt either Schmitt or Lippa would deny that their studies theorizing that women are more prone to neuroticism, and men prefer thing-oriented professions, while women prefer people-oriented professions, respectively, MAY IN PART, explain ANYTHING. That's why they published the research presumably. What I'm saying is if Damore had said that these things are definite causes of the low representation of women at Google, the article's characterizations of the scientists' comments as "disagreement," would be valid. As it is, THEIR implications could accurately be described as "at best politically naïve, and at worst dangerous." Furthermore, the initial reaction to Damore's memo and the readiness with which writers shame and slag him with little to no accuracy, are perfect examples of the situation he lamented in the memo.
The overwhelming question to me is, did they get the memo? I mean really GET it? I don't think so. Here's another misleading quote from the second article: "So when Damore does juke from preferences to abilities, it looks a little sneaky. Here’s what he writes: “I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women may differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t have equal representation of women in tech and leadership,” he writes. Making the leap from personality differences to achievement differences would require citing at least some of the well-studied body of work we’ve mentioned here, which Damore ignored." NO, IT WOULDN'T. Tomato - Tomahto, I like peanut butter, you hate it. There is nobody who would deny that preferences are part of our personalities. And they differ. Likewise, only a moron would say that job preference doesn't affect job choice, (if you are allowed to choose for yourself, of course). What these two are saying is that we need some scientific study done on whether my love of teaching and hatred of repetitive tasks had anything to do with my choice to leave my job as a driller and become an ESL teacher. I can tell you with 100% certainty, even without any scientific research backing me up, that it did. Again, another desperate use of believable SOUNDING arguments to fit a personally preferred narrative. And again, a great illustration of what Damore described in his memo. And once again, may I draw your attention to the word Damore uses again, not once, but TWICE: "may."
As it so often is, I'll use sports as a great example. Any athlete's love of any sport depends on his/her personality. General love or hatred of sport as well. And it follows naturally that love of a sport leads to the desire to play it more, which in turn leads to higher achievements in that sport, which finally leads to being chosen to join better and better teams. I suspect it is no different with computer programmers. If you fall in love with code writing, you will do it more than someone who hates it. Even if your parents are forcing you to do it. You will get better and you will be offered better jobs, maybe one at Google. This is not debatable. It's not science either, it's nature. There ARE no scientific studies on this, taste, preference, instinct, love, why we laugh or why salmon can instinctively find their way home that can produce any relevant, replicable facts, because it's nature. It's the mind. It's that part of science that arrogant scientists are constantly trying to ACT like they understand but they never will. So why would someone write in an article that there is research needed here?
It's that "echo chamber" Damore includes in the title. Preaching to the previously convinced. What passes as "intellect" nowadays is far too often, in my mind, just pandering to the pre-decided. We don't have time for objectivity. Prejudice saves time. Say what I say and you belong to the club. Because people have less and less free time, or have less and less educational things with which to fill it, the TL;DR attitude leads us to false conclusions/beliefs. However in our ignorance we can still be extremely supportive of ideas, or people we assume have done the reading on these ideas, even though we are completely wrong. I see it in science all the time. We ALL do! It's just not something well publicized. It's often not the popular narrative. One recent example on a few of my friends' facebook pages, is Bill Nye. He's the Science Guy! But he's not a scientist, he just plays one on TV. He makes false claims sometimes, citing science, even though science has either shown the opposite or is not sure. For instance he'll tell you that the cause of global warming is definitely human beings. He'll tell you science has proven this. Not true. But if you try to bring up studies, theories, ACTUAL SCIENCE, you all know what you get called: A "Climate Denier." Some of his ideas on GMO's are wrong too, I think possibly corporately wrong if you know what I'm saying. And despite his dedication despite scientific facts, I've seen him slag spirituality for the identical reasons.
If you have a problem with mercury or formaldehyde in any one single vaccination you might want answers about, (like why the hell they CAN make the same vaccination without them and why the hell THAT one is more expensive, or why the hell they didn't even until recently let us know what was in vaccinations), no, you are not a person rightfully concerned about injecting poison directly into your bloodstream, you all know what you are, right? An "Antivaxxer!"
And if you haven't heard or read the phrase, "You can't argue with science," at least once today, you're probably not on the same media sites as I am. This is one of the least scientific things you can say. Not long ago it would have been laughed at as ridiculous, and rightfully so since constant and rigorous questioning is what USED TO make science science. But now we can't argue with it. We can't question it. We have to believe everything, I mean ER Vre THANG about science, about vaccinations and about climate that people tell us. The commonly accepted narratives. If not, shaming, exclusion, segregation, and in the case of James Damore, firing.
Look, I am totally on Bill Nye's side on reducing CO2 emissions, I get my vaccinations and am grateful for not having polio or the measles right now, probably because of them. I don't think the Earth is 6000 years old and I almost always agree with science. To be honest, I'd bet that a great deal of the male/female disparity in all the world's workplaces, including Google, has to do with discrimination against women. But I'll tell you what DOES need some further scientific study, the one to one relation between population and hiring. Would it be considered "right" if Google had 50% men and 50% women? Why? I believe this is no different than the discussion James Damore was trying to stimulate.
Let's use some crazy analogies. NASCAR. Shawna Robinson and Danica Patrick. That's it. In the history of NASCAR, since 1949, they're the only two to really be successful even though about 104 have actually raced. That's more than anybody would guess, I'm sure. But why? Why so few? Do men like going faster? I use sporting analogies too often. What about business. A traditionally male dominated area. Let's look at an area of business that's REALLY male dominated. Like very few women. Stock traders. The movie Wolf of Wall Street was a very good example of why. An in your face sausage fest of a movie in which every major character except the FBI investigator, was a douchebag. And only one or two of the traders were women. Every character is reprehensible, screwing other people to get rich, drug-abusing, don't-give-half-a-shit, midget-throwing scumbags! But how many guys watching that movie, no matter how "nice" they are, didn't think for even half a second, "Man, I kinda wish I coulda worked for Jordan Belfort." And how many girls wouldn't mind dating guys just like them?
In our society men are judged by achievement and women by beauty more often than not. No science really needed, it's fact. Therefore, a lot of men who are absolutely repugnant scumbags, are respected because they're rich. They are highly competitive, reckless, chance-taking, alpha male personalities in whom assertiveness translates to euphemisms like "career-minded," "going places," or "ambitious." The few women in this industry are probably single because they are viewed as bitches. Even if they're beautiful. We don't know WHY this stuff happens and there is no science, (I hesitate to type YET), that can prove why this happens, but we can all see it if we're honest with ourselves.
Women are careful investors, slower drivers, shitty tippers, they are more commonly risk avoiders. Again, not science, just nature. In women assertiveness translates into gregariousness, social interaction, maybe even gossip. That's cute, and nice and feminine. But if you become aggressive at work, you're a dragon lady.
People in every society are treated differently based on sex and that naturally leads to self-segregation. If people don't correctly segregate, it leads to micro-aggression in the pack, which stifles individuality. Don't kid yourself, assholes will use this to gain personal power through bullying, shaming, even blackmail.
If I see a company like Google with only 20% female employees, I could get upset, or I could get rich. I go to Google and propose some company programs to increase hiring of women. Not only that, I offer a description of company-wide sensitivity training and incentive programs for workers who display good relations with women or who ARE women. I outline some directives to increase female participation in company management and global representation and I charge the company a billion dollars. The company thanks me but refuses. So I shame them publically announcing their sexist policies and encourage people, (like those above), to write scathing, not necessarily accurate, articles about the company. They eventually cave to save their P.R. Is this far-fetched? I would have thought so as a young man. But nowadays, you KNOW I'm practically sure of it! Do you think this is 100% NOT the case? If so, you might have attended some of the above corporate brain seeding sessions.
Anybody ever heard of the Rainbow Coalition? How about Jesse Jackson? Sure you have! Well, it's a little bit different, but basically, he has been accused of doing this for black people in industry. Toyota being just one example. James Damore thinks he was fired for P.R. reasons. I'm inclined to agree. You see, for a month Damore's memo was circulating within the company. He was shamed and treated badly within the company but only after it went public was he fired.
Google had this famous saying within the company, "Don't be evil." But it's recently been changed to "Do the right thing." Here is a good article on the subtle difference that could be a pretty large one. Also, as always, boycott Nestle!!!
Now, if I were to look at the practice of hiring women to offset the low numbers of women at Google, I would say the policy is not evil. But I would also say that it is not the right thing. It takes actions, not words, to raise your ethical standards. Ethically, the question MUST be asked, if Google wants to hire more women because they have a 20% female worker rate as compared to a 50% female population, and they have no doubt that the one behaviour ethically and necessarily follows the other, then they are admitting to being unethical. Assholes. Or as Damore absolutely correctly puts in, "All disparities in representation are due to oppression." What they're saying is that by basing hiring on discrimination against women, we're doing the wrong thing. This is not the problem. The solution, as seen by Google and accurately described by Damore, is the problem. "We need to discriminate FOR women to correct the problem."
In Canada, the Employment Equity act had the same mentality and it has been a disaster. It's one of many things making it hard for both job seekers AND employers in Canada. To give one example, I know a guy with a business in Northern BC. He must hire natives to meet population and Employment Equity regulations in that area. I will not get into Canadian Native laws that make it easier for natives to be unemployed or the parts of their culture that may or may not have contributed to my friend's problems, but he could not keep a native working for him for any length of time. And every time a native quit, it was a huge expense to find and re-train another native worker. All the while passing over non-native, but better qualified workers. But he tried and tried and tried until one day he asked what the penalty for not obeying the Employment Equity laws would be. It was a considerable amount less than he was paying by obeying, so he simply hired a dreaded, politically incorrect, but qualified, white male for the job and lo and behold, he saved money. A lot of money. Meritocracy was outlawed by the Employment Equity Act of Canada I think in 1995. But it still goes on. Only it's illegally and secretly. Just another reason I can't live in my own country though.
Like James Damore, I believe this example should open up discussion. Free and open and edifying discussion that could be good for all of Canada. But I tell this story in Canada and I'm a racist. I'm a native hater. I'm a traitor to my country! I'm shamed and bullied. In fact, I doubt I'll get away with it even on this blog in this context. Much less the apparent misogyny. So I understand Damore's situation. Here's something important about the memo: At the very beginning, Damore wrote that there were many people within Google that have expressed agreement with him, but were too scared to publically do so for fear of ostracizing and even losing their jobs.
So what are you supposed to do if you are very smart, very qualified, very hard-working, but just don't fit into the racial, sexual, or other strict hiring categories of the place you most want to work? Should there be a Handicapper General who makes you a WORSE candidate for the job? I'm not making this up, folks. This is taken directly from a Kurt Vonnegut short story. Here it is in its entirety. Tell me this isn't where Google-type or Canada-type thinking is leading us. It is wrong, folks. And James Damore is right. And he got fired for being right. THAT is the bottom line.
Are we a world full of Bergerons being forced to suppress our intellects and settle for the lowest common mediocrity? Has Damore tried to kiss the ceiling and been cut in half by the Handicapper General's shotgun? Well, word is that he's launched a class action lawsuit against Google. Time for Google to put their considerable money where their motto is. Are they going to do the right thing or just not be evil? I guess we'll see...
In closing, I know there is a lot of reading in this blog post. A LOT. But if you read it, you will be able to make a better decision about the story of James Damore and possibly other things related. I'm not trying to persuade you to think as I think or abandon any beliefs, just research them. Don't use the TL;DR excuse on this blogpost. I think it is one of my more important posts. I strongly urge you to read the entire memo. I have it in PDF form and can't give it to you on this post. I actually had a hard time finding it with charts and citings. Maybe because I was using Google to search for it. But if you read nothing else in this post, read that memo. And if you read the memo and only read one other thing, read the Vonnegut story. It's really short.
To sum it up, I guess the message behind this post, the meme and pretty much life is, if you don't read, research or think for yourself, somebody might be able to convince you that Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream" speech, and Oprah's "Don't Say 'Me Too'" speech, cancel each other out.
Okay, happy reading, my friends.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou racist bigot babyboy spigot ! Wombmen r just as capable as menmen in programming , just as native n nativettes can just as easily hold jobs as cowboys (well, at least some of each respective group are and can) ; they just dont ! In the same, i cuda been Gretzky, i just didnt.
ReplyDeleteI coulda bin a contender... COOL! A comment! Thanks, Gord!
Delete