The trouble is that this was at work where Damore was earning that livelihood and the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech doesn't extend to work. Google was well within its rights in CA to fire him for having a bad haircut.
BTW, I have a new theory about the manifesto: Damore is a really bad writer. He probably got an A on every paper he ever turned in and he's still a bad writer.
One of Orwell's rules in Politics and The English Languages  is:
The great enemy of clear language is insincerity.
The right is defending him, and that by itself seems to be enough reason for the left to vilify him.
I'm left, and I feel ashamed at the way this is happening and how many of my friends do the same.
Would you mind elaborating on how/where that is very clear? Honest question. Not that I think it should matter, but I'm inclined to say the opposite and that he very much had an agenda.
> But as mainstream journalists across the globe reached out to him for interviews this week, Damore largely ignored the queries and instead selected two rightwing YouTube personalities [...] Stefan Molyneux and Jordan B Peterson, who both have large followings on YouTube and have espoused anti-feminist views.
Why is the CEO somehow obligated to debunk the theory? Why are we entertaining the notion that women might be biologically less inclined for engineering? Aren't we passed this?
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills or went through a time machine.
The notion that women may be biologically less inclined toward engineering is something that can be suggested in a non-contrived way from scientific studies. I am not claiming it is true.
When diversity training is based on the foundation that the totality of the gender disparity in tech is due to prejudice, and there is a possibility other important factors are at play, the resultant policies could have a negative or meaningless effect.
If this assumption about the cause of diversity is shoved down people's throat through a culture of shaming and silencing, then this is a serious workplace problem /unless/ the non-biological cause of the gender disparity is demonstrated to be the only cause by Pichai.
Because it's basically true and all the evidence points to it? (See my comment below.) That we aren't even supposed to talk about scientific facts for political reasons is deeply disturbing.
>Why is the CEO somehow obligated to debunk the theory?
Because the CEO is promoting policies that sexistly discriminate against women in favor of men and firing employees for their political opinions. The very least they could do is provide some argument for why their opinions are right.
Oh hang on a minute, that belief is absolutely rife and in fact often touted by women as evidence of their superiority for certain roles. If men and women are interchangeable in potential, how is so negative a stereotype not unspeakable?
There are very large and well documented differences in personality traits between men and women. There is an enormous difference between men and women in the "interest in things vs interest in people" dimension. See here:
93% of men are more "thing oriented" than the average women. And that's assuming there is no noise in the measurement, likely the true value is even higher! Similar for big 5 personality traits.
One thing that bothers me is the putting on a pedestal of social skills, as if it's the be all and end all. Of course, it's those with supposedly good social skills that do this (though their social skills apparently do not extend to being kind to those that are different). Who do these people think built the bloody technology they use to post their banal crap on Instagram?
I also had a tex flagged. It seems to happen to articles about the topic which mostly include a personal oppinion and not much more.
It's a quite reasonable argument.
But on the other hand I don't feel good about notions of genetic superiority being accepted in the workplace and I worry about the slopes that could be exposed from such discussion.