
Why I Was Fired by Google - dpflan
https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-i-was-fired-by-google-1502481290
======
Upvoter33
I personally find the whole "Goolag" thing ridiculous. I've had relatives
(great grandparents/uncles/aunts) in the USSR who were removed from their
homes in the middle of the night by the government. One was even shot/killed.

Getting fired from your high-paying job to go off and get another high-paying
job, after you spent numerous hours writing some controversial BS about
women/hiring instead of, you know, doing your actual job, is not anywhere
close to the type of persecution people have faced in the past - so let's
please not pretend it is.

~~~
ardit33
Alright, let me chime in:

For people that were less political danger, they usually were fired for
"Political Incorrectness" and "Agitation and Propaganda", sent to re-education
classes, and only given shitty job opportunities from now then. It was a
convenient way to keep the less dangerous masses at bay.

If "being conservative" becomes a "fireable" offense in most large tech
valleys, then we are in a path to similar stances.

Now, here where I disagree with the memo in general (it didn't seem
constructive), I disagree with the way google handled the whole situation
overall.

Anyway, this whole episode (if you are not a feminist you are the enemy stance
and the black list that managers at google have) starts smelling more of a
McCarthyism
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism)

For people that just want to do their job and don't want to get involved in
these discussions you almost are forced to do something, otherwise you are an
evil/enemy/suppressor/whatever else. That bothers me, as I lived under
communism and have lived the results of blind ideology.

~~~
frgtpsswrdlame
Why are we drawing the connection that he was fired for being a conservative?
Tons and tons of people in the valley are their own special breed of techno-
libertarian and they seem to be totally secure in their jobs. He was fired for
being political at work. Don't be political at work. No one wants someone
walking around their workplace talking about the evils of abortion. No one
wants your coworker to ask if you'll sign an ACLU petition on trans rights
while you're microwaving your pasta. No one wants to sit down at their email
and see something like _FW: My Thoughts on Women and the Workplace_ with
Damore's pdf attached.

~~~
kbenson
> He was fired for being political at work. Don't be political at work.

Well, more specifically, I think he was fired for being political in a way
that caught outside attention and caused bad PR. Plenty of people are
political at work, whether they be work politics or otherwise. This is a "You
made the company have to weigh in on something that is _way_ over your pay
grade, and that's not something we're going to take a chance happening again
with you." Executives and boards don't like when they have to stop what
they're doing and put out a PR fire started by a low rank employee, whether
that employee expected that outcome or not. That the firing of the employee
causing problems at the executive level coincides with a way to combat the PR
just makes the decision all that much easier.

~~~
ivoras
Whoa, there - doesn't the fact that a low ranking employee, to use the phrase,
can cause a global scale shitstorm, mean that just maybe, there are actually
problems which were swept under the rug for too long?

~~~
kbenson
Not necessarily. All that person has to do is tap into a controversial topic
that divides people and involves the company.

E.g. "Big pharma researcher says our system is killing people." If it wasn't
already done and old news, if it happened to get traction we'd have the same
situation. And let's not kid ourselves, he's probably not the first there to
state this or even the first to share his views. He is the first that had it
turn into big news because it went viral, but content isn't the only factor in
something going viral.

------
basseq
His take still seems a little tone deaf and defensive (e.g., repeated use of
"echo chamber"). But he hits the nail on the head of why Google fired him:

    
    
      ... they really couldn't do otherwise.
    

No matter what you think about the memo, Google had absolutely no option but
to fire Mr. Damore once this blew up into a firestorm (internally and
externally).

~~~
toomuchtodo
They could've had a spine and supported intelligent discourse. Seems like a
leadership problem.

"At Google, just as we strive for a diverse workforce, we also encourage the
free flow of ideas and along with that, support the vigorous discussion around
those ideas. We don't comment on specific HR issues." (EDIT: Minor grammar
edits for my faux PR statement)

And that would've been the end of it, had they had the fortitude to ignore the
witch hunt.

~~~
saidajigumi
Except, as has been pretty well documented elsewhere, it was _not_ intelligent
discourse. Whatever productive content may have been present, it was
overwhelmed by the senseless repetition of long-debunked stereotypical
nonsense.

Endlessly, emphatically parroting what is ultimately discriminatory nonsense
is an aggressive action against others, not "just an opinion". E.g. [1], and
numerous other examples. My favorite, which I'm having trouble digging up the
citation for, is a recent-ish study that compared test performance of various
minority/gender groups based on social anxiety measures (e.g. "girls aren't
good at math")... and found that it was literally possible to turn this
difference on and off like a switch based on triggering vs disarming these
anxieties as part of the test setup. This literally flies the in face of the
schoolyard "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt
me" mantra so ingrained in US culture. It turns out, we have increasingly good
scientific evidence that humans just don't work that way.

Let's be clear about that: being a toxic jerk to {insert out-group here}
actively harms those people, and can directly harm their performance
orthogonally to their actual potential capabilities. "Yeah, I'm meritocratic
in footraces, but only when I can stick thorns in my competitors' shoes."

[1] [https://psychcentral.com/news/2010/03/19/negative-effects-
of...](https://psychcentral.com/news/2010/03/19/negative-effects-of-
sexism/12252.html)

~~~
submersiveblue
> it was overwhelmed by the senseless repetition of long-debunked
> stereotypical nonsense.

This is why what Damore did is important and why having the discussion is
important. People like you either mistakenly believe this or are being
deliberately manipulative and misleading by claiming the science is settled.
In fact, the science is not settled, and if anything it is leaning in Damore's
favor. That you and people like you want to believe one thing very much is not
a substitute for the actual truth to the rest of us, and never will be.

~~~
frgtpsswrdlame
>if anything it is leaning in Damore's favor.

This isn't true.

~~~
submersiveblue
Sure it is, and a number of scientists in the relevant fields have spoken up
and said so. Here's a start for you:
[https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-
manife...](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manifesto-
isnt-sexist-or-anti-diversity-its-science/article35903359/)

~~~
BinaryIdiot
You know, every single person on the internet that I've seen argue that the
science is solid in the Google memo point to this article in The Globe and
Mail. It's bizarre.

I've tried to toe the line and not get into the argument as much as I can
because, as evidenced by the previous HN thread [1], it's just two sides
yelling past each. Some are citing scientific papers stating _they_ are
correct (which a single paper does not make), others are arguing based on
remembering other scientific papers and virtually no one seems to be an expert
but are all commenting as such.

What I would like to point out is the article in question isn't very well
sourced. It points to "four - academic studies" [2] [3] [4] [5] but none of
those are actual studies; they're all replies to a single study (Sex beyond
the genitalia: The human brain mosaic [6]) and none include a methodology to
how they came to their reply conclusion as the full text barely contains
anything additional to the extract. Now I'm not _writing them off_ as wrong
but those are being misrepresented as studies without having the proper
information a study or research paper would require. Unless it's available
elsewhere? It's unclear at least to me and appears, again to me, as very
misleading.

Ultimately there is _a boat load_ of research out there. Some of it is going
to support the Google memo writing. Some of it will not. Some of it can be
used to represent _both_ sides of the argument. I think a better article,
should one exist, should be used to defect your viewpoint should you side with
the Google memo. Much of science requires a consensus and rock solid testing
methodologies and I'm just not seeing that sourced in the article.

Again, I am not an expert but this is my impression from this article. Feel
free to make any corrections to my statement :)

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14952787](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14952787)

[2]
[http://www.pnas.org/content/113/14/E1968.extract](http://www.pnas.org/content/113/14/E1968.extract)

[3]
[http://www.pnas.org/content/113/14/E1971.extract](http://www.pnas.org/content/113/14/E1971.extract)

[4]
[http://www.pnas.org/content/113/14/E1966.extract](http://www.pnas.org/content/113/14/E1966.extract)

[5]
[http://www.pnas.org/content/113/14/E1965.full.pdf](http://www.pnas.org/content/113/14/E1965.full.pdf)

[6]
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4687544/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4687544/)

~~~
Spivak
That article is circulated because it showed up here and, unlike a lot of the
blogspam, the author has the credentials to have an informed opinion about the
current research. Here's another one, but from a Psychologist rather than a
neurologist.

[https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-
exagge...](https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exaggerated-
differences/)

~~~
BinaryIdiot
> the author has the credentials to have an informed opinion about the current
> research

If you say so. I'm not an expert but as I wrote in my comment it appears
either terribly sourced or the author equates replies to research as full
blown studies.

> Here's another one, but from a Psychologist rather than a neurologist.

This one, as far as I can tell, mostly ignores much of the critical feedback
that I've seen so far. Again, I'm not an expert but I'm surprised it doesn't
call this out explicitly and in greater detail if the critics are wrong. Like,
it has some small references to it but not a lot of direct discussion around
it.

Not that all of the critical articles are better in terms of sources, etc I
just haven't seen any of the articles in support of the memo be very well
sourced or respond to much of the criticism directly.

------
marcell
I think the key new information is this:

> When I first circulated the document about a month ago to our diversity
> groups and individuals at Google, there was no outcry or charge of misogyny.
> I engaged in reasoned discussion with some of my peers on these issues, but
> mostly I was ignored.

Apparently he published the memo about a month ago, and was only fired when it
went viral externally.

~~~
dcole2929
The document seems to have moved in several stages. Distributed first
narrowly, before eventually going viral to the entire company, and then
spreading outward from there to the tech community as a whole before the media
eventually picked up on it. It's hard to gauge what the internal opinion was
on the issue without knowing how long it had actually been in circulation
widely within Google. It's completely possible that it took management that
long to catch wind of it.

------
wonderwonder
His presentation and the way he is representing himself appears to have hit an
interesting cultural middle ground. He clearly has the alt right supporting
him, but he also has scientists and professors from prestigious and relatively
liberal colleges publicly supporting the science of his argument. Even
commentators on NPR and the Times are supporting him and blaming google.

He does not come across as vengeful, just disappointed, appearing to have just
genuinely wanted to have a conversation about what he say as flaw/injustice in
the way Google approached hiring.

He is well spoken for the most part and decent looking, that in itself will
give this story legs and the media will want to have him on.

Google really made a mistake in their approach to this. I believe that if they
had just spoken to him and heard him out in the beginning after he submitted
his memo to their diversity department this never would have happened. As
another poster said, they could even have just paid him off and have had him
sign an NDA to go away.

This is a monumental failure of PR on Googles part.

~~~
dguaraglia
A monumental failure of PR would've been Google getting sued for gender
discrimination if this guy was ever put in charge of a mixed-gender team and
someone in the team thought they were being put at a disadvantage.

This guy clearly wanted to stir controversy, that's why the memo kept doing
the rounds (he says he submitted it to several diversity groups inside of
google himself.) I doubt he would've put up with having a "sensible
discussion" with Google HR and let it go.

~~~
throwaway12124
Google could easily have blacklisted him from any future management positions.
This would have been essentially cost-free to them.

~~~
unityByFreedom
And employee evaluations? Everyone takes part in those.

~~~
throwaway12124
Sure. Again, costs nothing.

~~~
unityByFreedom
Hmm, I have a different understanding of "costs nothing" and what is "easy" in
this context.

It would've been a lot of work for HR to deal with this internally.

As it is, it is also a lot of work for them to deal with anyway.

In the long run, it's anyone's guess. Companies set and enforce their values
how they please.

------
nyxtom
Alternative title: why I will probably never get a job in a number of
companies by stringing along political controversy.

In all seriousness, he knew the climate; made a prediction about that climate
and chose to prove it correct - even string it along after being fired. It is
almost a tragic irony that despite his biology background, he failed (or
perhaps intended to be fired) to see the evolutionary case for collective
altruistic punishment. In a data oriented climate like Google, there are other
approaches that could of been taken to address the individualism-
collectivism/relational scales by actually conducting and collection data from
employees.

The principle prediction boils down to: it is likely that I will be fired for
saying these things, here is some conclusions I came across, watch as the
community proves me correct.

Based on this approach and his appearance in alt-right videos/blogs, I can
only conclude he wanted to instigate chaos rather than have a data driven
discourse by conducting surveys and opinions from collegues. As such, it is
not unlike calling your friend up and prefacing an insult by saying: you are
likely to be hostile from what I am about to say. That's not being fired for
group think, that's being fired for instigating chaos.

If he had done alternative approachs, it is likely things may of been better
received given that a number of people within and out of the community appear
to have some lines of reasoning to agree with. Heck, even Sundar saw merit in
discussing some points.

~~~
dfps
Why should he have to?

~~~
nyxtom
He doesn't, but he made a prediction and was proved correct and thus was fired
as a result of the nature and dynamics of altruistic punishment. I claim that
his observations and claims about the diversity policy were merely a footnote
in a much more pointed argument. That is to say, the diversity policy was not
really what he intended to gain from this controversy but rather make it a
point to focus on politics, which is toxic enough in this society. We don't
need another talking head (left or right)

~~~
dfps
I didn't get that impression from reading it. There seemed a "political" (if
you want to call it that, but really it was more just what a person thinks is
right vs wrong and voicing that to try to convince people of it - ie
altruistic) part of it - his motivation had a color of mild/repressed outrage,
which showed up, but it was fairly broad and illustrated with lots of
points/considerations about the diversity controversy. I don't think a person
can downplay the 'politics' part just because its 'toxic' in society, because
that is the whole point, impetus, and the only reason readers will pay
attention to a thing.

Second, do you have some jumping off point for learning about 'collective
altruistic punishment'? After seeing you use that term I want to learn more
about it, but Google search doesn't show results that relate to the type of
situation we're talking about here (blind punishment of a wellmeaning member
who actually doesn't do anything wrong other than put the majority in a
position they don't want to be in and possibly confront their own
'wrongthinking' or 'wrongdoing'). I really want to learn more about the
concept if you have a link or some?

~~~
nyxtom
Some research will attribute group cooperation as a fundamental necessity in
human progress (given that it is almost impossible that we got anywhere
without specialization of tasks and an inherit need to cooperate between
groups). Other research points to egalitarian motives that deal with equality
between people. For instance, high earners at the expense of the lower
earners. Perhaps the egalitarian motives have to due with concentration of
power over others. That typically access to survival becomes increasingly
limited as power is concentrated. These attributes are different than the
evolutionary concern of competitiveness and a will to survive; but certainly
there is evidence of both being the case.

I should note that there is no way that biology will simply distinguish
between a well-meaning deflector and one who is antagonizing a group (such
that there is another way to explain it).

There is a lot of history of great thinkers who challenged conventional
thinking and were persecuted to the fullest extent of the time. I claim that
the way most groups justify moral perception and punishment inequalities can
be attributed to this evolutionary concept. From justification of slavery
(indeed even the repercussions of standing up against slavery was met with
changes in laws, and increase deterrents). What is particularly telling is the
impact of having this content go widespread in modern society on the internet
in the form of social media. It truly brings all of the subgroups that
participate online in this discussion to be motivated (from an evolutionary
standpoint) to make their case heard in an effort to persuade the group or
general direction of behavior between people (whether in small social
communities like HN or larger in Twitter, or between small teams...etc).

[https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6868/abs/415137a...](https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6868/abs/415137a.html?foxtrotcallback=true)

[https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v433/n7021/full/nature...](https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v433/n7021/full/nature03256.html)

The base of the argument is that it doesn't really matter if it's well-
intended or not; whether the content of the article is factual or deliberately
bias or filled with hateful rhetoric. The only thing that matters is
collective moral perception and the emergent properties of social structures
(from the smallest group to the largest society). This is evident in fact by
how a smaller group of people were not as hostile towards the author but the
large viral group was. This merits the idea that approach to varying groups
dynamics is an important factor to consider when challenging the norm.

Thought provoking indeed!

Notes: __ Muhammad ibn Zakariyā Rāzī or Rhazes was a medical pioneer from
Baghdad who lived between 860 and 932 AD. He was responsible for introducing
western teachings, rational thought and the works of Hippocrates and Galen to
the Arabic world. One of his books, Continens Liber, was a compendium of
everything known about medicine. The book made him famous, but offended a
Muslim priest who ordered the doctor to be beaten over the head with his own
manuscript, which caused him to go blind, preventing him from future practice.

__ Servetus was a Spanish physician credited with discovering pulmonary
circulation. He wrote a book, which outlined his discovery along with his
ideas about reforming Christianity – it was deemed to be heretical. He escaped
from Spain and the Catholic Inquisition but came up against the Protestant
Inquisition in Switzerland, who held him in equal disregard. Under orders from
John Calvin, Servetus was arrested, tortured and burned at the stake on the
shores of Lake Geneva - copies of his book were accompanied for good measure.

The Italian astronomer and physicist Galileo Galilei was trialled and
convicted in 1633 for publishing his evidence that supported the Copernican
theory that the Earth revolves around the Sun. His research was instantly
criticized by the Catholic Church for going against the established scripture
that places Earth and not the Sun at the center of the universe. Galileo was
found "vehemently suspect of heresy" for his heliocentric views and was
required to "abjure, curse and detest" his opinions. He was sentenced to house
arrest, where he remained for the rest of his life and his offending texts
were banned.

~~~
dfps
Thanks for the explanation, links and references. I found a few free ones (one
is
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3590188/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3590188/))
since I don't have a subscription for Nature.

I'm still not sure where to draw the line between Google, its managers, larger
society, and general ethics, in this case, or how to distinguish 'collective
altruistic punishment' from 'selfish punishment to forcefully protect
interests against challenges'.

One thing I'll note is that the case at hand would be the same if it weren't
collective, but was only one (probably relatively powerful) person trying to
protect themselves from a challenge. A second thing: that the article was a
different object when it was widely circulated (not just the same object
treated by a large group versus an earlier smaller group).

------
gavanwoolery
Somewhere between 30-40 (rough estimate) percent of the people I know support
Damore. Hardly a majority, but also an indicator that these are not the ideas
of a lone heretic. I am not as concerned with the fact that Google fired an
employee for having an opinion, but more concerned with the fact that they
only fire people with opinions that do not match those of the majority. Even
if Damore's opinion's were wrong (which, according to several scientists, they
are not), it should be ok to pose a theory without subjecting yourself to a
potential witch hunt.

~~~
dclowd9901
> which, according to several scientists, they are not

Good thing that's enough for a quorum. /s

There is absolutely no evidence that there is a biological imperative that
prevents women from being as effective as men at software development. None.
Zero. Zilch. Just about every disparity you can imagine can be categorically
dismissed by upbringing and cultural side effects.

It doesn't even pass the sniff test: do you really think there's something
inherent to the Y chromosome that allows better rote analysis?

~~~
alexandercrohde
I'd just like to share, for those who didn't study psychology and don't know
of the sex differences (ON AVERAGE) between men and women, it IS a
scientifically established phenomenon, even at a few months of age (i.e. pre-
culture).

Here's a really fun example:
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/sex/add_user.shtml](http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/sex/add_user.shtml)
[requires flash though]

Now I'm not going to say anything about engineering or anything like that. All
I believe is that you can't rewrite science to align with your politics.
Science has no political leaning.

~~~
dclowd9901
Appreciate the addition to the conversation, but since it doesn't say anything
about efficacy in engineering, I'm afraid it's just noise.

~~~
renaudg
The memo didn't claim anything about _efficacy_ in engineering, period.

It claimed some contribution of biology to career _preference_ on average,
which is absolutely supported by research :

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3166361/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3166361/)

"We explored the contribution of sex hormones to career-related interests, in
particular studying whether prenatal androgens affect interests through
psychological orientation to Things versus People. We examined this question
in individuals with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), who have atypical
exposure to androgens early in development, and their unaffected siblings
(total N = 125 aged 9 to 26 years). Females with CAH had more interest in
Things versus People than did unaffected females, and variations among females
with CAH reflected variations in their degree of androgen exposure. _Results
provide strong support for hormonal influences on interest in occupations
characterized by working with Things versus People._ "

~~~
dguaraglia
Don't you think that, considering trying to get women into STEM fields is a
pretty recent effort, jumping to the conclusion that "it must be because of
biological reasons" that they are not interested and then we "shouldn't be
doing anything"?

Would you have held the same opinion, had I said "well, there might be
biological evidence that African-Americans are not interested in going through
higher education, so we should not worry about trying to help poor black kids
go through university" 40 years ago?

------
ejlangev
> "When I first circulated the document about a month ago to our diversity
> groups and individuals at Google, there was no outcry or charge of
> misogyny."

Kind of meaningless though, could be he only sent it to people who agreed with
him or who were men.

"Goolag" shirt is pretty on the nose, I guess true hardship in Silicon Valley
is losing your well paid tech job for... another well paid tech job?

It's funny that he refuses to admit any fault in what he said even in a
limited way when ideological rigidity and refusing to entertain other people's
ideas in good faith is exactly what he's complaining about in others. Doesn't
seem like this experience has resulted in him rethinking much of anything.
Suppose it's true that whatever you accuse the other side of is exactly what
you actually do.

~~~
leifaffles
What should he apologize for?

"I'm sorry for telling the truth."?

~~~
ejlangev
He doesn't have a monopoly on truth, that sort of presupposes that he was
completely right and handled the situation perfectly. Perhaps he'll feel
differently when the dust settles as another commenter suggested.

~~~
leifaffles
Again, what should he apologize for?

You seem to really want him to repent for something. What is it?

~~~
notacoward
How about for the things in his memo that were _not_ truth? Sure, there's a
bit of truth in it. There's much more that's debatable at best, and some
that's pretty clearly false. How about for the totally off-topic nastiness
toward the left, and diversity advocates, and others? Even in a memo about the
driest of technical minutiae, comments like "honest discussion is being
silenced" and "X tends to deny science" (with not even an attempt at proof on
either point) would be worthy of censure. The memo was clearly written in a
style more likely to escalate conflict than to create any positive outcome, so
the reaction when Damore or one of his cronies leaked it beyond its supposed
original distribution was entirely predictable. If you do something that
simple diligence and common sense say would lead to a massive productivity-
destroying flame war, you have something to apologize for.

~~~
fche
> "honest discussion is being silenced"

I'm pretty sure that being fired - having pitchfork crowds go after you and
people who agree - is close enough to being silenced.

~~~
notacoward
The memo was written before that, and one extreme case does not prove a
general trend. If one person is ejected from a concert or rally or trial for
being disruptive, does that prove there's a general conspiracy against people
with the same beliefs?

------
danso
Archive [http://archive.is/nc8Ij](http://archive.is/nc8Ij)

------
peripitea
"In my document, I committed heresy against the Google creed by stating that
not all disparities between men and women that we see in the world are the
result of discriminatory treatment."

If _that_ is why Mr. Damore thinks he's being lambasted, he really doesn't get
it.

~~~
kinkrtyavimoodh
Not sure what you mean, because plenty of people lambasting him ARE indeed
lambasting him over the suggestion that it's incorrect to insist that anything
short of a 50-50 gender ratio at Google is because of discrimination against
women.

Of course they are not lambasting him in those words (that would be
charitable). They are saying ridiculous nonsense like "Google employee claims
women are inferior than men" or "Google employee claims women are not suited
to be software engineers".

~~~
dguaraglia
> Of course they are not lambasting him in those words (that would be
> charitable). They are saying ridiculous nonsense like "Google employee
> claims women are inferior than men" or "Google employee claims women are not
> suited to be software engineers"

Things he wraps around in cozy wording, but essentially suggests to be true.
If not, what's the point of him complaining about outreach efforts? It's not
like right now we are in a scenario where, say, 45% of the engineering
workforce at Google is female, and Google is trying to force a 50/50 split.
It's _not even close_. Right now the number is 20%, are you telling me it's
settled science that should be the ratio? Because if you have hard numbers
proving that's the case, then by all means, Google is wasting money in
outreach efforts. You should tell them right now.

------
mtanski
> When the whole episode finally became a giant media controversy

This is a bit self referential.

But seriously who cares. People get fired daily, many of them get fired
unjustly... and you know what we don't write tons and tons of articles about
them.

At first I felt a bit bad for the guy... socially awkward guy who jumps to
some misguided conclusions based on quoted research. Ideally, he would get
some kind of training maybe an explanation from a sociology researcher how he
incorrectly jumped to conclusions.

But this woe is me shtick, reaching out to the alt-right publications, then
continuing on to do an op-ed on the WSJ. I no longer feel bad for him; he got
what he deserved.

~~~
gizmo686
He didn't make this a national controversy. But since it is a national
controversy, and he is at the center of it, why shouldn't he make the most of
this opportunity?

~~~
rhizome
That depends on what you mean by "most."

------
KaiserPro
So the problem is this:

there are parts of his "manifesto" that are actually quite interesting, about
the nature of diversity, its key importance for the health of a company. The
supplemental implication that diversity should be able to be justified by its
own terms, and not held on a pedestal, guarded by armed militia.

the problem is that he half-arsed the bit about biological differences.
Firstly he didn't bother to find decent primary sources (I suspect because
they didn't backup his initial point.) There are other assertions that are
iffy, but they will be utterly forgotten, as they are not as simple as "he
said women are Inferior"

The problem for google is this:

    
    
       o If they fire the author, they create a martyr
    
       o If they keep him on, he would have been de-anonymised
    
       o If they didn't fire him after being found out, they would have been accused of harbouring a malfeasant misogynist. 
    

Basically its your standard loose loose situation for a company.

All of which masks the main point of this whole cerfuffle. what is the nature
of diversity

I think Diversity is good. I want people from all walks of life in my company.
However I also want Equality of access and treatment.

Hiring someone because they conform to a (non work skill based) target is
discriminatory. discrimination is the enemy of diversity, be it positive or
negative discrimination.

~~~
nyxtom
> Hiring someone because they conform to a (non work skill based) target is
> discriminatory. discrimination is the enemy of diversity, be it positive or
> negative discrimination.

Not sure about this one, companies hire based on whether or not they feel like
people will be a cultural fit _all the time_ (in the positive and negative
sense). Is it discriminating to avoid hiring someone whom you perhaps could
expect will not keep pace with what is required of their job? Or use company
hours to stir up political controversy? I realize that some of this is a
straw-man argument given the overlap of the discussion, but cultural fits are
something companies do whether it is direct or indirect bias. Stirring up
controversy is almost by definition the antithesis of a productive work
environment; this is evident by all the time now wasted in the totality of
Silicon Valley at this point. Is it a bad idea to stir the pot? Absolutely
not, but these are definitely causal effects of it (good or bad). That being
said, there is probably some evolutionary utility in generating such
polarities as I would expect a social group to address the point of
controversy where they vehemently disagree.

~~~
KaiserPro
_this_ is the debate we should have been having.

Your observation is 100% correct, and the hardest part to overcome. How does
one change practices, without imposing, or lowering standards, or deliberately
introducing social 'sand' around which pearls must be built to maintain
productivity.

Hiring for cultural fit is not intrinsically antithetical to diversity. Most
cultural qualities that I've seen are based around universal human qualities.
But you are correct that they can be an impediment. Especially as cultural fit
is by its very nature difficult to define.

We must also tackle training, because we can't magic up highly skilled people
out of nowhere.

------
notliketherest
Let's hope this doesn't get flagged and buried like the "Google CEO should be
fired" link. This is clearly relevant to a large percentage of Hackernews
readers and bears discussion. There irony of stories related to this getting
flagged and hidden is rich.

~~~
alexandercrohde
I know nothing about the "CEO should be fired" link (nor does it sound like
something I'd want to read).

But I can wholeheartedly agree that this is one of the deepest, most emotional
divides I've seen in an otherwise fairly united community. I think it's been
continually swept under the rug for years because companies don't want it
associated with their name (remember the whole dongle-joke github thing?), nor
should they really.

~~~
peoplewindow
There was an op-ed in the New York Times saying Pichai should be fired. The
discussion was flagged off the front page.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14990494](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14990494)

------
naturalgradient
What I find very dysfunctional is that rarely anything ever happens to the
ones doing the shaming.

They are most toxic to an organisation's culture in the long run.

It is a failure of management that people fuelling the outrage cycles via
public shaming, virtue signalling and grandstanding feel empowered to exercise
mob justice.

~~~
rhizome
Are you saying that the entire concept of shame should be disregarded? On the
other hand, might he be _guilty_ of something? Of creating a hostile
workplace, of destroying his own credibility with regard to performance
reviews and interviewing, or at least, at Google, supporting his reasoning
with bad science? Even outside of his employment environment, there's
something to be said about his skills _as a scientist_ as they are illustrated
by the essay, about whether he was a false positive that slipped through
GOOG's hiring filters.

~~~
pooh_smear
> about whether he was a false positive that slipped through GOOG's hiring
> filters.

IIRC he mentioned in an interview that he got the highest performance rating
and a promotion last cycle.

There is a middle ground to shaming. People can overshame and instances of
overshaming have been very toxic. For example, calling for violence or for a
coworker to be fired. These instances are never punished.

~~~
jcranberry
He was also on the Google search team, which we all know is full of scrubs and
duds.

------
minimaxir
Although many of the submissions to HN about the Google Memo have been
redundant, this _is_ new information.

~~~
storrgie
It feels like it was a relatively 'quiet' scuffle when it comes to Hn
discussion. I hope this post gets discussed without being buried.

~~~
tajen
Previous posts have been censored: They would appear in the most active list
[https://news.ycombinator.com/active](https://news.ycombinator.com/active) and
never be seen on the homepage.

~~~
dang
You can use the word 'censor' if you like but it's the normal action of user
flags, software, and moderation and it works much the same way regardless of
the story. This tends not to be so visible during turbulent periods, but what
can you do.

'Google memo' stories have been on HN's front page. Many more have been
flagged off it. That is understandable because they didn't contain significant
new information. Quantity isn't the criterion here. Hot-topic discussions tend
to all be the same, and the substantiveness quotient declines steeply under
repetition.

Many of the flagged stories have still been vigorously discussed (i.e.
hundreds of comments each), so I wouldn't use the word 'censor' for those. The
site goal isn't to hide them, it's to preserve the variety and substantiveness
of the front page, which I believe is why most people come here.

~~~
peoplewindow
This thread has disappeared from the front page, but it doesn't say it's been
flagged. What's up with that?

~~~
dang
It's there now; there's a certain amount of fluctuation as upvotes and flags
come in.

The [flagged] annotation only appears when flags exceed upvotes by a certain
threshold. Story rank is affected by flags before that.

~~~
peoplewindow
Thanks for the explanation.

------
brian-armstrong
There's a lot of hypocrisy around this individual. If he were a woman facing
termination for speaking out about something, then people would be referring
to this media tour as "attention whoring." Instead this is being given the
context of somehow speaking out against some kind of oppression.

No matter where you stand on the issue, he disseminated a company wide memo
criticizing the company-wide hiring practices in a preachy way that didnt
leave room for the company to answer back. In what company would that not be
labeled insubordination?

~~~
adamiscool8
From my reading it actually left a ton of room for an equally well-measured
rebuttal, which I have yet to see.

~~~
milcron
[https://medium.com/@adljksbvkj/heres-your-point-by-point-
ref...](https://medium.com/@adljksbvkj/heres-your-point-by-point-refutation-
of-the-google-memo-b7201d0cca04)

~~~
zbobet2012
Oh lord that's note even close to a good rebuttal. Mostly because it starts
off with a list of "sexist" assumptions, some of which don't even tangentially
relate to the memo.

What the article says:

> Sexist assumption 6: Gender bias is not a real issue. Anyone who thinks so
> is blinded by political bias.

What the memo says:

> Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace
> differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole
> story.

Literally, can anyone argue against the guy without misrepresenting and
demonizing his argument? I don't even agree with him and find this stuff head-
ache inducing.

~~~
milcron
Also from the memo:

> We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal
> and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender
> issue issue [sic] affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and
> whiner[10].

"Gender issue issue", as in complaining that gender issues are taken too
seriously?

Damore kept saying he acknowledges that sexism exists, but none of his
suggestions actually address it. It's as though he paid just it enough lip
service to scrape by. The thrust of his argument is that the gender gap can be
entirely explained by personal choices or innate qualities.

I agree the rebuttal gets off to a rocky start because the assumptions seem
hyperbolic. It gets better by the end, as each one is explained.

~~~
zbobet2012

      > "When a man complains about a gender issue issue [sic] affecting men"
      > 
      > In no way is that referring to "complaining that gender issues are taken too seriously?"
    

Read the link cited with that sentence and you might understand it better.
That also is a complete misreading of that sentence.

It is saying that _gender issues which affect men are not taken seriously and
are discarded_. To quote the associated sources TL;DR

    
    
      Both genders have issues
    

Also:

    
    
      > The thrust of his argument is that the gender gap can be entirely explained by personal choices or innate qualities.
    

Let me emphasize the TL;DR from the memo for you, since you have seemed to
miss it.

    
    
      Differences in distributions of traits between men and women ***may in part explain*** why we don't have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership.
    

Honest question, why is it so _hard_ to accept that his position might be
nuanced?

~~~
milcron

        > Read the link cited with that sentence and you might understand it
        better. It is saying that gender issues which affect men are not taken
        seriously and are discarded.
    

I wonder what gender issue Damore found himself facing. Homelessness? Murder?
And when he raised those issues he was labeled a misogynist? That doesn't seem
to fit.

It's hard to accept that there is nuance in the memo, because it's only found
in broad sentences like this one:

    
    
        > Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part
        explain why we don't have 50% representation of women in tech and
        leadership.
    

There's nothing wrong with this sentence. The trouble is that he never
concretely addresses reasons for the gender gap other than innate traits.
There is some nuance in his memo, but there isn't _enough._

What about all these documented biases? Surely these are affecting womens'
careers too:

* Men get better assignments. [https://hbr.org/2013/09/women-in-the-workplace-a-research-ro...](https://hbr.org/2013/09/women-in-the-workplace-a-research-roundup)

* People assume mothers to be inherently less competent and less committed than fathers. [https://hbr.org/2013/09/women-in-the-workplace-a-research-ro...](https://hbr.org/2013/09/women-in-the-workplace-a-research-roundup)

* Women negotiate as often as men, but face pushback when they do. [https://womenintheworkplace.com/](https://womenintheworkplace.com/)

* Women get less access to senior leaders. [https://womenintheworkplace.com/](https://womenintheworkplace.com/)

* Women ask for feedback as often as men, but are less likely to receive it. [https://womenintheworkplace.com/](https://womenintheworkplace.com/)

* Women get less useful feedback than men. [https://hbr.org/2016/04/research-vague-feedback-is-holding-w...](https://hbr.org/2016/04/research-vague-feedback-is-holding-women-back)

* Women get criticized more than men. [http://fortune.com/2014/08/26/performance-review-gender-bias...](http://fortune.com/2014/08/26/performance-review-gender-bias/)

* Women are more frequently characterized as “too agressive”. [https://www.wsj.com/articles/gender-bias-at-work-turns-up-in...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/gender-bias-at-work-turns-up-in-feedback-1443600759)

* Women leaders face higher standards and lower rewards than men leaders. [http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/double-bind](http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/double-bind)

* Women leaders are perceived as competent or liked, but rarely both. [http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/double-bind](http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/double-bind)

* Women’s code is accepted more often than men’s, but only if gender is hidden. [http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35559439](http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35559439)

Sure, he says that innate traits are only part of the cause. But the rest of
his essay implies they are the primary cause.

~~~
zbobet2012
I felt like responding this bit seperately:

    
    
      > I wonder what gender issue Damore found himself facing. 
      Homelessness? Murder? And when he raised those issues he 
      was labeled a misogynist? That doesn't seem to fit.
    
    

because its bluntly, quiet tone def. In many ways much more tone def than the
memo. "Dalmore could not have possibly had a negative experience that had to
do with male gender issues".

Being a "nerd" he _almost assuredly_ deals with and has delt with male gender
issues such as "lacking masculinity" his entire life.

Playing a game of "my problems worse than yours". Or "your problems are
trivial" is not a great way to win over an audience wouldn't you agree?

~~~
milcron
You're right, I was missing this. I followed his hyperlink[0] and immediately
started reading section 10.1, but he probably meant section 10.3. In that case
I'll have to retract what I said. Thanks for putting me straight.

[0] [https://becauseits2015.wordpress.com/2016/08/06/a-non-
femini...](https://becauseits2015.wordpress.com/2016/08/06/a-non-feminist-
faq/#addressing)

------
notacoward
Predictably dishonest.

> I suggested that at least some of the male-female disparity in tech could be
> attributed to biological differences

...and then said whole lot more. Sundar Pichai did not specify _which_ parts
of the memo were considered to have violated the code of conduct. Without
that, it's disingenuous for Damore or anyone else to _assume_ it was the one
part they want everyone to focus on (because the rest are weaker).

> I committed heresy against the Google creed by stating that not all
> disparities between men and women that we see in the world are the result of
> discriminatory treatment.

OK, James, who was claiming _all_? Show us where that claim was made. Or is
that just a strawman?

> Upper management tried to placate this surge of outrage by shaming me and
> misrepresenting my document

Who _among Google 's upper management_ misrepresented the document? Where,
when, and how? Or is that just a Trumpian persecution complex?

~~~
dguaraglia
Prepare for the downvotes. Nobody points out holes in Damore's arguments and
survives the rage of the poor downtrodden males of HN.

~~~
Chris2048
Do you believe your own comments on the matter are "pointing out the holes"? I
think "misrepresenting" and "spreading vitriol" is more accurate.

------
anindha
If the memo was against the code of conduct, why did they wait one month to
take action?

A better response from HR would have been to tell him: "this may violate our
code of conduct - could you please take it down for the moment while we
discuss amongst HR".

This could have turned into a reasonable internal discussion than a media
circus.

~~~
tajen
I don't think he leaked the memo himself, did he? He showed it to coworkers, I
don't think he expected viral sharing.

~~~
anindha
He didn't leak the memo but it was shared publicly within Google.

------
t_fatus
It's nice to finally hear the other side of the story. It has been a public
execution for now, and I think, even if the way he formulates it might be
better, that he has got a very good point: more and more the debate is cut
short on some subjects, and some people rather keep their opinions to
themselves by fear of being ashamed by the 'empire of the Good'. Not that I
agree or not with their ideas, but it makes me sad to see self-limitation of
free speech.

------
frgtpsswrdlame
I think this is the problem:

 _Google is a particularly intense echo chamber because it is in the middle of
Silicon Valley and is so life-encompassing as a place to work. With free food,
internal meme boards and weekly companywide meetings, Google becomes a huge
part of its employees’ lives. Some even live on campus. For many, including
myself, working at Google is a major part of their identity, almost like a
cult with its own leaders and saints, all believed to righteously uphold the
sacred motto of “Don’t be evil.”_

Google may ingratiate itself into all these parts of your life but really it
only wants one thing: your work. Damore fell into the illusion that Google
really was a way of life, that they ever really cared about a political
debate. They don't. It's just a company. Keep your political opinions out of
the workplace.

~~~
alexandercrohde
I think the inconsistency I see, is that those who wrote letters of complaint
about him did so out of a political agenda. I see this argument being used
unilaterally. You could just as easily say to those offended "Don't read
things you are offended by. Shame on you for reading political stuff at work,
keep it out of here."

[Seeing the tone of this thread I expect to lose a lot of karma for this, but
it's just imaginary internet points]

~~~
frgtpsswrdlame
>I think the inconsistency I see, is that those who wrote letters of complaint
about him did so out of a political agenda.

You mean those outside of the company like on twitter and stuff? Sure I agree,
but they're not bringing it up at their workplace. The people working at
google who have complained I think is actually reasonable. Damore brought this
issue into the workplace. When somebody brings an issue like that in, your
solution is that everybody should ignore it? It has to be addressed at that
point. Really I'd say if you go to your job and you bring outside political
issues into your workplace you're creating a messy problem because you're
piercing the work-veil so to speak.

~~~
alexandercrohde
Does it have to be addressed?

It went largely ignored for months. I suspect the reason this went viral was
the offended parties recirculated it amongst themselves.

If the explosion is the problem, consider the gunpowder, as well as the spark.

~~~
frgtpsswrdlame
>Does it have to be addressed?

Yes.

>It went largely ignored for months. I suspect the reason this went viral was
the offended parties recirculated it amongst themselves.

But we don't know how widely circulated it was during those months, in fact we
don't really know anything about it's release. It seems to me that it was
circulated among what was probably a small group who agreed with damore (a
boys club if you will :P) and then broke out of that group, other people
started reading it and all hell broke loose. The fact that no one discovered
it for months doesn't really change anything about the memo or its contents.

>If the explosion is the problem, consider the gunpowder, as well as the
spark.

I do consider both. Damore wrote the memo (gunpowder) then released it at his
workplace (the spark.)

~~~
alexandercrohde
Or maybe there is a large community of very angry people who identify as
victims (gunpowder) and this particular piece was the spark.

Maybe it's just a matter of time until this same group gets offended by
another controversial political opinion held/shared by a coworker.

~~~
frgtpsswrdlame
Or maybe there is a large community of very angry people who identify as
victims (gunpowder) and this particular firing was the spark.

It's not a useful distinction. By the same argument all the people upset about
his firing should stop reading the news about it and get on with their day.
All these valley programmers who lean right politically do seem quite eager to
play the victim after all, really they're out looking for something to set
them off like Damore's firing aren't they? They obviously have a political
agenda don't they? They're recirculating news about damore's firing amongst
themselves aren't they?

It's inane, the problem has a defined source: Damore bringing his political
opinion into the workplace.

~~~
alexandercrohde
If your facts aligned with my experience, that'd be fine.

But let me tell you a story. Once at an SF unicorn a girl said in a public
slack channel "I'd feel unsafe as a woman if my manager ever said Trump isn't
a sexist." She was most certainly _not_ fired.

So it's not been my experience that politics in the workplace is the root of
the issue, because I seem to see it being really enforced unidirectionally
(mind you I'm on the left myself). Hell, I've worked at two places where the
CEO very clearly had a strong, personal negative reaction to Trump.

The issue I think I see is the weaponizing of PC to penalize non-left opinions
as "offensive/inappropriate" which I think undermines the pursuit of truth (a
value I hold higher than any political affiliation)

As a thought-experiment, suppose somebody had posted a writing exactly like
what Dalmore posted in tone, but had the _exact opposite view_. Do you think
they would have been fired for bringing up politics at work? Let's be honest
with ourselves here.

[Note these two issues keep getting conflated. It may be that sexism exists,
as well as asymmetrical regulations on how political speech is punished at
work. ]

------
Jun8
This piece is a huge missed opportunity for Damore. He could have used this
chance to reach a wide audience and explain his arguments; instead he goes for
a sensationalist tone (and image with the Goolag shirt).

~~~
Chris2048
a sensationalist tone _does_ reach a wider audience. If nuance attracted
eyeballs, none of this would be happening.

~~~
brailsafe
I really hate how right you are.

~~~
Chris2048
_alt_ -right? :-)

------
alexandercrohde
How does one vouch for this?

I don't think this article deserves to be flagged. I'm also unclear if whoever
flagged it was trying to flag the article itself or the discussion it created.

~~~
detaro
You can only vouch for things that have been killed by flags (are _[dead]_ )

~~~
alexandercrohde
Oh. Does the flag penalize it in the rankings?

~~~
detaro
Yes, flags have quite strong impact on ranking.

~~~
alexandercrohde
So there's no way I can "vouch" for it to not be buried somewhere off the
front page? That's too bad.

I understand the intent of the algorithm, but personally I feel these are some
of the great conversations of our age being held by some very smart people and
it seems like the discussions keep disappearing once they get good.

------
alexandercrohde
Can anybody please talk about the actual science here?

As far as wikipedia is concerned, yes there are biological mental differences
between men and women. I see a lot of "This is so disgusting I won't even
respond to it," which is a cop-out.

But here's wikipedia:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans#Psyc...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans#Psychology)

~~~
lancewiggs
Wikipedia is not a scientific source, nor is it (at all) an unbiased source.

~~~
alexandercrohde
All due respect, wikipedia cites only published scientific articles. You're of
course free to edit it if you think it has an anti-left bias...

------
egonschiele
So far most of the discussion has been around a. whether the facts in the memo
were accurate and b. whether google was right to fire him.

Can we talk about whether putting out a memo like this is a good idea? What is
the benefit of putting out a memo like this? Clearly James saw a problem and
is trying to fix it.

Sexism does exist, even today, even in Silicon Valley. Why put out a paper
saying that biological differences between men and women result in fewer women
in tech? Women are already the underdogs in this fight. Even if it's true,
what is being improved by him pointing this out?

It kind of feels like if someone was to put out a paper saying "The Koch
brothers pays millions of dollars in taxes but my neighbor doesn't. That's not
fair!" Why defend the side that already has too much power?

------
AcerbicZero
Another reasonable, fairly noninflammatory piece of writing from Mr. Damore.
I'm sure this will be read carefully by his critics, so they can provide a
rational, articulate rebuttal.

------
dcole2929
I think a lot of people struggle with the idea that how you say something
matters as much if not more than what you say. And Damore definitely seems to
suffer from that. He's focused on the fact that his document was to his mind
well reasoned and factually supported (it has citations I guess), while
ignoring the problem, that it was also incredibly tone deaf and to an
uncharitable reader offensive. Assuming you take no issue with the evidence he
cites, his reasoning is at best flawed, he ignores a lot of easily cited
counter evidence, and worst of all uses a lot of strongly coded language. I'm
fully willing to believe his intentions were as he stated but the fact is his
memo doesn't present well unless you're already inclined to believe his
argument.

Also generally speaking, upsetting a large number of people you work with is a
good way to get fired. Sound arguments or not. People have been fired for
repeatedly microwaving smelly food in the kitchen, and other comparably minor
offenses. Releasing a document which criticizes the companies hiring practices
and can be validly interpreted to call into question the credentials of many
of your coworkers is a no brainer pink slip.

------
unityByFreedom
When has it ever been socially acceptable to demand that another individual
discuss everything that you want? I would never go up to my friend and say, I
want to talk about coconuts! If you don't want to talk about coconuts, then
you're not really open and tolerant! You are intolerant of my affection for
coconuts! Meanwhile, I'm willing to talk about coconut milk, but you require
that the conversation include discussion of the shell.

Nobody would ever do that.

Damore stubbornly ignores Pichai's willingness to discuss some of what he
wrote more deeply. Damore pretends that Google isn't willing to discuss _any_
of the issues he raised, which isn't true. And, he really has no standing to
demand his political beliefs be discussed at work. If people don't want to
discuss them, including his managers, and they feel he's being a distraction,
then he's out.

------
dvfjsdhgfv
> I engaged in reasoned discussion with some of my peers on these issues, but
> mostly I was ignored.

So as long as the memo was internal, nobody cared. It looks like he was fired
because the memo went viral, not because he wrote and submitted it to the
diversity groups (which happened a month ago).

------
foobar_femme
Brilliant. At last Michael O. Church is not Google's silliest hire.

If only they had not fired this doofus and turned him into an alt-right
martyr. They could just have assigned his silly ass to Special Projects and
let him ride out the attendant humiliation.

------
losteverything
It doesnt sound like he regretted what he wrote or wished he had a "do over"

~~~
Chris2048
Why would he?

~~~
s_kilk
Because his piece is filled with logical errors, makes a big noise about
reason and logic while citing evopsych nonsense which isn't regarded as actual
science?

I mean, beyond any discussion of his ideology, the memo is laughable trash.

~~~
kevinsundar
I have read the memo the entire way through. Can you explain these logical
errors that it is filled with?

~~~
dguaraglia
OK, I'll bite.

The whole argument is weak simply based on his relative dismissal of societal
factors because, he argues, there's proven biological differences. So, he just
concludes that "meh, we shouldn't try to change the status quo, because that'd
be discrimination."

He built the straw-man ("politics based discrimination"), he gave it a name
("left-wing ideals") and then proceeds to beat it. The problem is the straw-
man has little merit: there's no known quantifier of how much 'lack of
interest' in the field is caused by societal factors, and how much might be
caused by biological factors. Without that, isn't it a bit premature to
conclude that it is discrimination _against men_ to have outreach programs for
females?

The point that bothers me the most about this memo is that Damore is
intelligent enough to know exactly what kind of reaction he would elicit. I'm
not buying for a minute his claim that he just wanted "a healthy discussion."
You don't put everything in terms of "left and right" and then say "and the
left is repressive and authoritarian, and what's more, wants to discriminate
against people like me" and then get to pretend you are not biased.

~~~
Chris2048
_you 'll_ bite?! _you_ are the one being asked to back up _your_ assertions.

You think you don't need to? It's your reasoning people would be incredulous
to swallow..

~~~
dguaraglia
Huh? The fact that the majority of people dismissed this memo, and is actually
a small amount of the usual suspects getting "offended" about Damore getting
fired, tells me that people are more "incredulous" about _his_ argument.

The funny bit about "my assertions" as you call them, is that actually the
only "assertion" I make is: this is not settled science; trying to build an
argument around it is as useless as us trying to decide policy by speculating
on whether Bitcoin will destroy fiat money or not. It's people like Damore
(and you, apparently) who are trying to make this a "settled matter".

Please, back _your_ assertions. Please tell me in concrete numbers what
percentage of women are not interested in STEM because of biological factors?
I mean, if it's settled science, you surely know the answer, right?

~~~
Chris2048
> The fact that the majority

Where are these "facts"? I was talking about the credulity of _your_ comments,
not the memo. But in fact I'll admit I made an error here - I misread, you
aren't OP.

> trying to build an argument around it is as useless

He tried to begin a discussion. His memo was based mostly on feedback he'd
received in doing so. Please quote Damore (or me) otherwise; I can't find
reference to "settled matter" you put in quotation marks.

~~~
dguaraglia
> Please quote Damore (or me) otherwise; I can't find reference to "settled
> matter" you put in quotation marks.

Let me break it down for you, because it seems like the inference chain is
escaping you:

\- The moment he starts suggesting "things we can do to fix this", it's clear
that there's a problem. I mean, why suggest fixes if nothing's broken?
(Engineering 101)

\- What's the problem? Apparently, trying to reach a 50/50 gender parity is
discriminatory. But wait a minute, that's about the split in population, so
how can that be discriminatory?

\- There has to be something that Damore knows that we don't know that
explains why 50/50 is wrong. Turns out, Damore has _solid evidence_ that women
are not willing to participate in engineering at the same rate as men are.
Never mind that only 70 years ago women couldn't even participate in the
workforce, or that all the way until double-income families became necessary
they were _actively discouraged_ to participate in the workforce. Never mind
that only about 30 years ago the US started programs to encourage women to
participate in STEM careers. I mean, all those things wouldn't explain the
disparity, so there has to be _something else_.

\- Well, of course! It's the genes! I mean, we know (from his memo) that women
are just not interested in "things" but "people" (conclusion derived by a
study that has been debunked and even the author couldn't replicate) and that
they "get more anxious". You know girls, they freak out and stuff! Of course
that'd explain why they feel anxious in a job where they are literally
surrounded by males. Nothing to do with things like "beer thirty" being the
norm, but rather it's _their genes_. D'oh!

So that's the crux of it: Damore admits that there's social issues, but rather
than addressing them and seeing if the disparity fixes itself, he'd rather
call the efforts "discrimination" without any proof that actually they are
affecting males. He could've made a solid argument (and one that wouldn't have
gotten him fired) if he had asked, honestly, whether creating different queues
for minority candidates isn't in itself a form of discrimination. Laying out
his theory about women being "different" is where he went against Google's
Code of Conduct. That kind of shit is better left for r/theredpill, not your
work environment where you have to interact with women.

I hate reminding you, but this kind of "biological arguments" were made about
black people until very recently. Going back to your "metaphor" about
segregation: Damore is not Rosa Parks, he's the driver trying to tell us that
"why should we let black people sit at the front of the bus, when they seem
pretty happy in the backseats."

~~~
Chris2048
If you've read the memo, then you don't understand it if this is your
conclusion.

> Turns out, Damore has solid evidence that women are not willing to
> participate in engineering

You've also tried to badger me with "demands" for whatever level of certainty
you decide. Please quote the memo section that you are referring to when you
say "Turns out".

> Never mind that..

If you think you have a better case for explaining the disparity, then do as I
suggested, and create a memo of your own. Are you claiming that the memo
_must_ be a fraud, because your own opinion isn't represented in it? Maybe if
you researched the matter you'd be surprised that your arguments aren't as
strong as you thought.

> a study that has been debunked

But don't bother to link to the study, the line/page in the memo, or any
aspect of its debunking?

You flip out over the Rosa Parks metaphor, but have no problem with saying:

> this kind of "biological arguments" were made about black people

Hmmm

~~~
dguaraglia
> Please quote the memo section that you are referring to when you say "Turns
> out".

That was obviously tongue-in-cheek. Damore doesn't have any solid evidence,
just an "intuition" (read: bias) based on some articles he's read. At least
he's honest enough to admit he's not infallible. You, on the other hand...

> Maybe if you researched the matter you'd be surprised that your arguments
> aren't as strong as you thought.

Please, correct my wrong assumptions. You seem to be well informed in the
subject, seeing as you are telling me I'm wrong. So far, you've been incapable
of answering the simplest of questions: what is the number of women who are
not interested in engineering because of biological causes?

> But don't bother to link to the study, the line/page in the memo, or any
> aspect of its debunking?

This is the study:
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222673203_Sex_Diffe...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222673203_Sex_Differences_in_Human_Neonatal_Social_Perception)

Here's some critique on methodology:
[http://www.thetutorking.com/2014/08/criticisms-of-
connellan-...](http://www.thetutorking.com/2014/08/criticisms-of-connellan-
baron-cohen.html). Google for more, it's not that hard.

As an aside, notice that the split in the study doesn't correlate with the
80/20% gender divide at Google. So even if the study was correct, Damore's
point would _still_ be bullshit.

> You flip out over the Rosa Parks metaphor, but have no problem with saying

Awe, look at you! Trying to do the old alt-right "by pointing out someone
else's racism you are the real racist" switcharoo! It would be cute, except
for the unfortunate events in Charlottesville that reminds us that racism is
alive and doing great in the US.

Yes, I do flip at people trying to use dubious "biological" causes to explain
away clear societal issues. You, my friend, are one of them.

~~~
Chris2048
> You, on the other hand...

Ad-hom?

> Please, correct my wrong assumptions

I've asked you to quote the memo, or provide citations. How can I correct your
assumptions, if I don't know how you came to those conclusions? Do you want me
to guess the ways you _might_ have come to those conclusions, or which parts
of the memo you might have misread? I'm not going to speculate if you aren't
going to substantiate your assertions.

> You seem to be well informed in the subject

The subject in this case is "What the google memo says", we've yet to advance
from there. Given the tone of your posts, I'm not inclined to enter into a
general discussion on the topic. But you've misrepresented Damore's memo, And
I think this should be corrected.

> This is the study..

Which paragraph of the memo cites the study? And where did you source your
version of the memo?

> Google for more, it's not that hard.

No, it's _your_ burden. And Google is not research.

> what is the number of women

I think I made myself clear. I'm not answering your questions until you
rescind or substantiate your assertions. And this question isn't one you want
answering, you are just asking it to imply it's relevant to the content of the
memo, which it isn't.

> switcharoo

Problem is "pointing out someone else's racism" requires "someone else's
racism". You flipped out because you don't want to conflate Damore's situation
with Parks', but you'll happily conflate it with that of racists of the same
era. You asked "what has [the memo] got in common with Jim Crow" in disgust,
but now you're equating google engineer writing a cited memo about gender
differences, to exactly that.

> racism is .. doing great in the US

So far as the events in Charlottesville are representative of the entire
country - which they aren't.

> You, my friend, are one of them.

In your opinion. And you opinion is informed by a severe lack of
comprehension, in both the contents of the memo, and my own posts. So long as
you are not arguing in good faith, I doubt this will change.

~~~
dguaraglia
Wow man, you managed to write a whole reply, line by line, without stating a
single thing about what you agree with in the memo. Not surprised.

------
graycat
Lesson 1: Don't talk about sex, politics, or religion.

Source: Very, very old stuff, I got from Mom. I wish I'd always followed it.

Lesson 2: Don't tell them ANYTHING!

Source: From an astoundingly, intensely socially cautious person, my mother in
law. Some of the most intense brain activity I ever saw was by her anywhere in
public. So, e.g., the woman I married found E. Goffman, _The Presentation of
Self in Everyday Life_ easy reading and obvious! In part the mother's
intensity came from some delicate, highly stressful circumstances of her
mother in the Great Depression where in their small community just a single
wrong word could wipe out the finances of the family, literally.

Lesson 3: "... keep to two subjects: the weather and everybody's health."

Source: _My Fair Lady,_ advice to Professor Higgins who was socially crude!

Lesson 4: He who always calls a spade a spade is fit only to use one.

Source: Common from some parts of the English upper class.

I was very slow to follow this advice. So, I had to learn the hard way, pay
"full tuition", from experience -- "Experience is the great teacher, and some
will learn from no other."

So, Professor Higgins had to learn these lessons the hard way. Much of the
theme of the movie _Patton_ was that Patton also had to learn the hard way.

IMHO, basically the advice is good. I've been astounded at how eager some
people, how many people, are eager to attack strongly against any violation of
those lessons. My current working guess is, TOO MANY people are just wildly
oversensitive to even small violations of those lessons. So, the simple
solution is, when in doubt, which means nearly all the time, follow the
lessons.

Yes, there is a downside: As in E. Fromm, _The Art of Loving,_ four of the
keys to intimacy (between the ears if not between the legs) are knowledge,
caring, respect, and responsiveness. Here, for "knowledge" he meant, roughly
from memory, "giving knowledge of one's self to the other."

So, the lessons above conflict with this part of Fromm's version of intimacy.
So, if have a really good relationship with your spouse and work at a place
where some wound up clique is running the place and has their war paint on and
are on the war path, then express your true feelings -- blow your stack, blow
off steam -- in private, at home, with your spouse.

For more examples, apparently in WWII, both the German army and the Japanese
navy were very intense organizations. Victorious? No. Intense? Yes!

So, can remember the movie _Tora, Tora, Tora_ where in the WWII Japanese navy
apparently a subordinate needed an explicit "you may speak freely" to say
much. And in the TV series _Winds of War_ apparently a German officer was
encouraged to voice whatever concerns he had until the superior issued a
direct order at which time the subordinate would stop the concerns and just
say "Immediately".

Once around DC I was in a part-time job working myself and my wife through our
Ph.D. degrees. At one point the US Navy had a request: Evaluate the
survivability of the US SSBN (missile firing submarines) fleet under a special
scenario of global nuclear war limited to sea. They wanted the results in two
weeks. Gads. Well, I found a continuous time, discrete state space Markov
process and delivered something in two weeks, and apparently they liked it.

Then a few days later, some guy I'd never seen before was in the offices. He
wandered back to my office and started making small talk. He did this for 1-2
hours a day, for about 2 weeks. Gee, it was no longer small talk! He got the
conversation going to current political topics of US national security and
defense. I answered like a well informed voting citizen with some reasonably
solid, not very unusual, opinions. Dumb de dumb dumb, dumb. Looking back it
was a high end security interview for some high position, and I missed out on
it. Should have followed Mom's advice: Don't talk about politics. Certainly
don't talk about national security politics in an office doing classified work
for the US Navy.

Another related lesson: Limit all communications with co-workers to objective
aspects of the work, and do not permit more than trivial instances of small
talk. Such small talk can be the seeds of destructive office gossip,
deliberate efforts to distract from the work, etc. Sure, the small talk should
avoid sex, politics, and religion, but should avoid essentially everything
else, too. So, limit small talk to, say, very short, obvious, trivial,
innocuous remarks on the weather -- of course, NEVER mention "global warming"
or "climate change"!

~~~
zbobet2012
This is his biggest mistake. Even if your managers are calling for you to do
so, don't break any of these rules.

And if you do, do it with careful preparedness about setting and context. Do
not publish it. Oh and be prepared to be fired anyways.

------
nunez
I just read the memo: [http://archive.is/5wD9x](http://archive.is/5wD9x)

I _really_ don't think he should have been fired over this.

~~~
dguaraglia
Let me guess: you are not a woman, or friends with women working in the field?

~~~
nunez
The former is correct; the latter is not.

------
wyclif
Apparently many HN users still don't understand how flagging is supposed to
work. This is a first-person account from the subject of the controversy, so
it shouldn't have been flagged. Flagging is for spam and off-topic posts. The
echo chamber, attacks on heretics, and attempts to enforce groupthink are
strong on HN, which should not surprise anyone given how woven it is into SV
culture.

------
systems
does anyone really believe that google handling of diversity, will have any
impact on its future

is it easy to copy google, to build a competitor can google competitors really
beat it, by handling diversity differently

lets be realistic .. unless google breaks the law somehow in its handling of
diversity .. anything they do is subjective ad of little impact on its future

~~~
wmil
> lets be realistic .. unless google breaks the law somehow in its handling of
> diversity .. anything they do is subjective ad of little impact on its
> future

Ad-words provides most of Google's revenue. As long at ad-words stays on top
the rest of the company can be dedicated to summoning Cthulhu without
endangering it's future.

------
rsp1984
Non-paywalled version go through here:
[https://twitter.com/fired4truth](https://twitter.com/fired4truth)

~~~
mrisoli
Thanks for the link, but how cringe-worthy is this Twitter? I find memes to be
very discrediting to one's claim and the Goolag bus stop felt like trying to
meme out a serious issue.

------
mychael
South Park predicted this

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXF8MIG_HQI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXF8MIG_HQI)

------
jsky_goog
This was briefly on the frontpage but now I can't find it listed on HN. Did
this violate some kind of rules?

------
devdad
A tinfoil hat would go great with that t-shirt.

------
ariofrio
How to read this through the WSJ paywall:

1\. Go to [http://drudgereport.com/](http://drudgereport.com/)

2\. Open your browser's inspector (usually F12)

3\. Modify a link to point to [https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-i-was-fired-
by-google-15024...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-i-was-fired-by-
google-1502481290)

4\. Click on the link

5\. Voilà!

~~~
vernie
Visiting the Drudge Report is too high a price to pay.

------
dfps
What will happen next though?

------
dfps
Can someone post this. It's paywalled

~~~
tartuffe78
prepend it with facebook.com/l.php?u= followed by the url and you should be
able to see it

------
vgprice
He is wearing a shirt that says "goolag" from Google's logo. I love it. One of
the better corporate slave names.

Edit: This is more memeish if anything. Google is obviously not comparable to
a gulag, its just the closest negative pun.

~~~
akhilcacharya
Seems a bit much to me. When the Soviets put undesirables and political
prisoners into gulags they didn't give them fabulous salaries and incredible
perks.

~~~
m00x
I think the intent is for it to be over the top. Poking fun at something with
excessive force with a catchy name works really well for branding. Works right
in the meme culture.

------
dguaraglia
> That's your opinion. You've not made the case the memo has "no merit"

I just replied to your other comment clarifying why the memo is weak at best,
and a stupid violation of the code of conduct at worst.

> No you aren't, you don't have a case.

Oh, yes I do. Males working in Silicon Valley complaining about their precious
feelings have 0 of my sympathy. I'm a male and work in tech. You don't see me
or any of my friends whining about "discrimination" because more women are
coming into the field. It's beyond ridiculous. Only people who are not very
sure about their skills would be complaining about that.

> quote it specificly.

Refer to my other comments. Essentially he tries to pass the biological
argument as the One True Argument, completely ignoring that while the social
arguments are still there the biological argument is unquantifiable and
building a case around is bullshit.

> There are citations in the original memo

The citations don't quantify, they just quote. Nobody, ever, has put a number
to the percentage of women that don't go into engineering for "lack of
interest" derived from biological factors. It's literally unquantifiable.

> Just because you have none? Read the memo, that's a start.

I read the fucking memo. It reads exactly like the kind of shit I'd expect
from a "disenfranchised" alt-righter. I'm surprised he didn't publish it on
Breitbart.

> For me to read the memo to you?

No, for you to give me a number. What percentage of women are not interested
in engineering _because of genes_. C'mon, can't be that hard!?

~~~
Chris2048
>> you don't have a case

> You don't see me or any of my friends whining

ok, datapoint #1 - you and your friends. Have anything better? You think
that's a case made?

>> quote it specificly.

> Refer to my other comments

The ones where you also don't quote anything specifically?

> No, for you to give me a number.

Show me the part of the memo that requires it? _you_ are the one that
suggested the memo said things that it didn't.

~~~
dguaraglia
> Show me the part of the memo that requires it? you are the one that
> suggested the memo said things that it didn't.

What, _exactly_ does the memo say in your opinion? Because so far I hear you
complain about all kinds of things it allegedly doesn't say, but I haven't
heard you explain what it _does_ say. I understand that's the semantic game
most alt-righters love to play, but c'mon, if you want me to take you
seriously at least _argue_ something instead of just saying "no, didn't say
so."

~~~
Chris2048
Oh I see, I'm an "alt-righter" now? Presumably part of the down-voting brigade
from Breitbart you assumed to exist.

Sorry, but I'm not doing your work for you. You made false claims, burden on
you is to back them up, or otherwise rescind your claims. I've asked you to
quote, or cite the memo, and you haven't - now you want me to instead?

~~~
dguaraglia
The burden is on you to prove I've made false claims. Again, you keep saying I
said something wrong and yet never point out _what_. The moment I ask you to
point out what, you just scurry away saying "I'm not gonna do your work".
Seems to me like you don't have a point to make.

~~~
Chris2048
> The burden is on you to prove I've made false claim

Holy-shit. Ok, I'm calling you out as a troll. Enough is enough.

~~~
dang
You've posted something like a hundred comments in a row engaging in flamewar
and ideological battle on this site, after agreeing not to do that when I took
the rate limit off your account. What do you think we should do when people
promise to follow the rules and then don't?

I realize these threads have been wretched trainwrecks but it looks like
you've done as much as anyone to make them so. I'm putting the rate limit back
on your account, and if you continue to abuse HN by either (a) using it
primarily for political and ideological battle (b) stooping to incivility and
tedious tit-for-tats, we will ban you.

~~~
Chris2048
> after agreeing not to do that

What defines a "battle" or "flamewar"? There are no rules that clarify this. A
tit-for-tat would be if I were as uncivil, but I gave a _lot_ of good faith
before opting out.

------
pooh_smear
Things look like they are turning around. Mainstream media wouldn't normally
publish the "evil" side's story unaltered, although WSJ has always been
respectable.

~~~
dguaraglia
Please. The WSJ is owned by Murdoch, owner of Fox News, who brings you some
brilliant totally not biased authors like Suzanne Venker who teaches women
they are going to be way happier if they just give in and become doormats for
their husbands.

------
nilved
nm

~~~
atarian
He was publicly given job offers from Wikileaks and Gab:

[https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/894834730461483008](https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/894834730461483008)

[https://twitter.com/getongab/status/893975352804028417](https://twitter.com/getongab/status/893975352804028417)

~~~
cycrutchfield
LOL, birds of a feather flock together

------
dghughes
When I was a kid we used to take aptitude tests to figure out what we were
good at. Isn't aptitude essentially what Mr. Damore was debating?

------
wybiral
Yeah but it seems like Google was just a bad cultural fit for him anyway. He
should have applied at Uber or something.

Edit: Too soon?

------
ue_
>My firing neatly confirms that point. How did Google, the company that hires
the smartest people in the world, become so ideologically driven and
intolerant of scientific debate and reasoned argument?

This statement leaves me divided. One could soundly argue that Google isn't
the place for "scientific debate and reasoned argument" on that topic, and
there is such thing as appropriate and inappropriate topics, and correct and
incorrect channels to discuss those topics in.

To say that Google is simply "intolerant of scientific debate" misses the
point. I'm sure Google has research divisions in which scientific debate
occurs. The point is that they're not debating whether women are more
predisposed to front-end development or not.

There's a time and a place; I'm not sure what made Mr. Damore think it was
either the time or the place for his "scientific debate" (which, I may be
wrong, didn't actually invite debate, it was more of a rant) such that now he
has sound basis to say that the issue _doesn 't_ lie with his choice of words
in the document, how he approached the matter, where he published and if it
was in good faith or not, and it _does_ lie with Google simply being
"intolerant of scientific debate".

I wouldn't stand up in a high school (or any level of schooling) biology
classroom, read from a list of even science-based points about gender or race,
which genders or races are fit for certain tasks etc. with or without
citations, and complain my conservative views are being silenced. Why?
_Beacuse it 's not appropriate for the time and the place._

~~~
danarmak
> which, I may be wrong, didn't actually invite debate, it was more of a rant

You are wrong. Why do people persist in commenting about a document they
appear not to have read?

The memo can be found at
[https://diversitymemo.com/](https://diversitymemo.com/) .

~~~
ue_
I have read it, though I can't find where he calls for scientific debate (or
any kind of debate) rather than reeling off a list of points with more
Wikipedia links and popsci articles than someone with research skills should
know not to put in. I just realised how comical the little table of "left
biases" and "right biases" is, even if he does try to hedge out the unfounded
categorisations with "it's not 100% accurate".

------
jahaja
I have no idea why people are giving this guy the benefit of the doubt in
absurdum. Apparently if he quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, he is a cat.

I mean heck, among the first thing the guy did is to give interviews to
dubious people (with slanted views matching the docs generalizations) and
printing up a damn "Goolag" t-shirt?

So even now with the benefit of hindsight people seem still convinced that
this was more or less a scientific doc with no ideological bias. The ability
to read between the lines seems to blinded by vague links to academic papers.

------
monodeldiablo
Required reading for this discussion: [https://medium.com/@adljksbvkj/heres-
your-point-by-point-ref...](https://medium.com/@adljksbvkj/heres-your-point-
by-point-refutation-of-the-google-memo-b7201d0cca04)

And, for those still outraged by his dismissal: Damore made a subset of his
co-workers feel uncomfortable. That's all the reason any at-will employer
needs in order to pull the trigger. End of.

There are constructive ways to discuss diversity in the workplace and
potential ways to improve it. His memo (and the WSJ "open letter") is a great
example of how not to conduct this conversation.

~~~
zbobet2012
Oh lord that's note even close to a good rebuttal. Mostly because it starts
off with a list of "sexist" assumptions, some of which don't even tangentially
relate to the memo, or are directly contradicted.

What the article says:

> Sexist assumption 6: Gender bias is not a real issue. Anyone who thinks so
> is blinded by political bias.

What the memo says:

> Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace
> differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole
> story.

Literally, can anyone argue against the guy without misrepresenting and
demonizing his argument? I don't even agree with him and find this stuff head-
ache inducing.

