# Google Fires Author of Divisive Memo on Gender Differences **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [August 8, 2017, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055 "2017-08-08T03:12:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2017, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055/101 "2017-08-08T18:41:32Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I think it’s very possible there are intrinsic differences, on average, between women and men, in addition to size and strength or other superficial and easily quantifiable differences. But when someone suggests a difference is natural and intrinsic and it just so happens to both be extremely difficult to measure without talking culture into account and it just so happens to match some aspect of society that looks related to bias, like affinity for science or engineering, then I think it’s wise to be very skeptical and have a high bar for evidence. The problem is that you don’t have the luxury of just being skeptical. I mean, you do if you’re just writing a scientific paper. But you don’t if you’re making actual decisions that impact people’s lives. In that case, what counts is what’s most likely, not what you can prove. In this case, what’s at stake is whether the playing field should be tilted in the direction of favoring of women. If this is just counter-tilting a field that’s currently tilted in favor of men, such that it should level out, then that’s one thing. But if the field is not tilted in favor of anyone, and you’re making it tilted in favor of women, then you’re discriminating based on gender. And I assume we all agree that discriminating based on gender is a Bad Thing. So you don’t get the luxury of saying “I require a high level of proof before I assume there are differences”. That’s like saying “I require a high level of proof before I stop discriminating based on gender”. You need to go with what’s most likely, on balance. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2017, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055/102 "2017-08-08T18:42:36Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Google’s success in the next decades will be, in large part, a product of their ability to effectively use machine learning to solve more socially complex problems. That is partly an engineering challenge. But it’s also very much a psychological and sociological challenge. > > If your engineers are a bunch of first-rate coders who believe in phrenology, then you’re going to end up like those Chinese AI researchers who think they discovered that you can predict crime using facial recognition technology. > > You can try to screen for people whose relative gender and/or racial privilege influences their ability to think clearly about social issues, but another important and effective tactic is to hire people with a little more natural immunity to such myths, having been the subject of them for centuries. > > So I think quite apart from any other argument for diversity, Google has a really compelling argument for its particular business model. Knowing that you’re going to work with a walking MRA subreddit would probably not help their efforts in this area. Actually, this whole thread makes me pretty glad that China is going to become the most powerful country in the world at some point (they’ve already overtaken the United States in some fields, like ‘number of papers published per year’ in certain scientific fields). China seems to take a more healthy and value-free approach to the world, without some of the political shibboleths that plague the United States. In any case, I’m not sure why you would think women would be less likely to believe in innate gender difference. I no longer believe the Black-White test score gap in the US is partly genetic, having been convinced otherwise, but Black Americans are actually _more likely_ to believe that the gap is due to genetics than white people are. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2017, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055/103 "2017-08-08T18:43:35Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > The problem is that you don’t have the luxury of just being skeptical. I mean, you do if you’re just writing a scientific paper. But you don’t if you’re making actual decisions that impact people’s lives. In that case, what counts is what’s most likely, not what you can prove. > > In this case, what’s at stake is whether the playing field should be tilted in the direction of favoring of women. If this is just counter-tilting a field that’s currently tilted in favor of men, such that it should level out, then that’s one thing. But if the field is not tilted in favor of anyone, and you’re making it tilted in favor of women, then you’re discriminating based on gender. And I assume we all agree that discriminating based on gender is a Bad Thing. > > So you don’t get the luxury of saying “I require a high level of proof before I assume there are differences”. That’s like saying “I require a high level of proof before I stop discriminating based on gender”. You need to go with what’s most likely, on balance. That’s reasonable. If Google had very few white men, or considerably less than the population at large, then I’d consider that maybe their policy is discriminating against white men. ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2017, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055/104 "2017-08-08T18:47:11Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > If you didn’t mean testosterone would help someone do better in Google-relevant jobs, what did you mean? Hector\_St\_Clare explained it on post #53. If you want men and women to fill up different occupations at exact parity you are going to have to change how men and women are made and develop at a biological level. Just because people have the same potential to perform a job doesn’t mean they will seek to do it, other factors will sway their paths, and biology is one of the things responsible for that. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2017, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055/105 "2017-08-08T18:49:52Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > You need to go with what’s most likely, on balance. We’ve replicated racism and misogyny through quite a few decades of scientific advancement. We look back now and laugh at phrenologists, but people have made essentially the same mistakes both before and after. Given that history, and given our knowledge of how we imperfect humans operate, it is entirely prudent to be more skeptical of those results that confirm longstanding social prejudices. That is precisely how you get to “what’s most likely” instead of “what makes white dudes feel better about their undue social standing.” ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2017, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055/106 "2017-08-08T18:53:58Z")
> [@Ale](#): > > If you want men and women to fill up different occupations at exact parity you are going to have to change how men and women are made and develop at a biological level. Would women be better at Google-relevant jobs if they had more testosterone? ---
**Author:** ![HookerChemical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/278dde/32.png) [@HookerChemical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HookerChemical)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2017, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055/107 "2017-08-08T18:54:43Z")
> [@treis](#): > > This one has cites: > > [https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf](https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf) Thank-you. I withdraw my assertion that there were no citations. The couple versions I found appear to have been copy/pastes without the hyperlinks from the original. I still think his understanding of what empathy is and it’s role in the workplace and as a tool are grossly incorrect or misapplied. His stated desire to “understand how and why people think the way they do” is at odds with everything else in that section, from the header to the conclusion. It’s of no value if you understand at an academic level that a person is belittled by being called “sweetie” but you refuse to empathize and understand emotionally why that might cause them to leave the company/field. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2017, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055/108 "2017-08-08T18:55:34Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > China seems to take a more healthy and value-free approach to the world, without some of the political shibboleths that plague the United States. May I use this quote as my sig? ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2017, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055/109 "2017-08-08T19:03:32Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > May I use this quote as my sig? I’m more referring to my hope that in a China-dominated world there will be less emphasis on judging countries by their adherence to liberal values, democracy, human rights record, etc. and more on “we do business with whoever wants to do business with us”, rather than on Chinese attitudes towards gender per se. You can certainly use it though. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2017, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055/110 "2017-08-08T19:18:01Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > That’s reasonable. If Google had very few white men, or considerably less than the population at large, then I’d consider that maybe their policy is discriminating against white men. That doesn’t logically follow, or address the question. You _know_ that Google is doing things to help out women specifically. The question is whether there prior playing field biased in favor of men. You know that there’s a disproportionate number of men employed there. The question is if that disproportionate number is the result of a biased playing field, or possibly due to biological factors. If you don’t have any basis for assuming that there are no biological factors, then you have no basis for deciding that the playing field is biased in favor of men. It’s as if you decided that the NBA should actively promote white players unless someone can come up with hard evidence that there are non-bias factors which account for the currently disproportionate racial breakdown. That’s the wrong way to look at it. Before you go about actively discriminating, you need a basis to believe that you’re just leveling the playing field, rather than the other way around. > [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > We’ve replicated racism and misogyny through quite a few decades of scientific advancement. We look back now and laugh at phrenologists, but people have made essentially the same mistakes both before and after. Given that history, and given our knowledge of how we imperfect humans operate, it is entirely prudent to be more skeptical of those results that confirm longstanding social prejudices. That is precisely how you get to “what’s most likely” instead of “what makes white dudes feel better about their undue social standing.” Being skeptical of how conclusive given evidence might be is not the same thing as evidence for the opposing hypothesis. We can “look back now and laugh at” virtually every field of science from prior generations. You want to say that’s a reason to be someone skeptical of how conclusive current scientific understanding is, that’s fine. But that’s not evidence that they’re wrong either. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2017, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055/111 "2017-08-08T19:19:48Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > That doesn’t logically follow, or address the question. > > You _know_ that Google is doing things to help out women specifically. The question is whether there prior playing field biased in favor of men. You know that there’s a disproportionate number of men employed there. The question is if that disproportionate number is the result of a biased playing field, or possibly due to biological factors. If you don’t have any basis for assuming that there are no biological factors, then you have no basis for deciding that the playing field is biased in favor of men. > > It’s as if you decided that the NBA should actively promote white players unless someone can come up with hard evidence that there are non-bias factors which account for the currently disproportionate racial breakdown. That’s the wrong way to look at it. Before you go about actively discriminating, you need a basis to believe that you’re just leveling the playing field, rather than the other way around.Being skeptical of how conclusive given evidence might be is not the same thing as evidence for the opposing hypothesis. > > We can “look back now and laugh at” virtually every field of science from prior generations. You want to say that’s a reason to be someone skeptical of how conclusive current scientific understanding is, that’s fine. But that’s not evidence that they’re wrong either. There could be biases (and I think there’s clear evidence of such) whether or not biological factors are at play. ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2017, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055/112 "2017-08-08T19:22:41Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > This person has a Phd in Biology. Everything he said was supported by the citations he included and is not particularly controversial to anyone with knowledge of the relevant science. > If I was a business owner and an employee had knowledge from another discipline that a policy the business was pursuing was counterproductive, I would hope that they would feel free to share that knowledge. His argument was that people in Google do not feel free to share knowledge and opinions if they are politically incorrect. Silencing these heterodox opinions make groupthink more likely and groupthink is a recipe for bad decisions. One of the benefits of diversity is that having people with different backgrounds on the same team means different perspectives on a problem. By silencing people who think differently this benefit of diversity is foregone. There was a survey of people who work at Google and one third of the respondents strongly agreed with the essay. This firing says to those people that intellectual conformity is more important to the company than productivity. It’s ironic that the guy is being lambasted largely on misrepresentations of what he wrote, specially in view of the opening paragraph: > [@](#): > > **I value diversity and inclusion** , am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. **If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber.** Despite what the public response seems to have been, I’ve gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change. Bolding mine. I think many people are not reading it properly (I suspect knee-jerk induced vision blurring) to see that the goals of the author are to get more diversity in the workplace, but believes there’s a dogmatic culture that actually hinders that goal by accepting (and forcefully imposing) a single ideological view of the matter. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2017, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055/113 "2017-08-08T19:23:06Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > That’s reasonable. If Google had very few white men, or considerably less than the population at large, then I’d consider that maybe their policy is discriminating against white men. Which population? Is the relevant population everyone in the world, everyone in the US, everyone with an IQ above 110, everyone with the skills and desire to be a software engineer? I would think it is everyone with the skills and desire to be a software engineer who is willing to move to where Google is located. Since computer science major graduates are 18% female and the percentage of women at Google is 30% then it would seem like the men are being discriminated against. If you think the relevant population is people in the US, white people are 75% of Americans and 61% of Google employees so it would seem like white people are being discriminated against. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2017, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055/114 "2017-08-08T19:24:38Z")
The irony is not at all surprising. People have terrible reading comprehension and are more interested in virtue signalling than having a rational discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2017, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055/115 "2017-08-08T19:26:49Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Would women be better at Google-relevant jobs if they had more testosterone? It’s not about who is better or worse, it’s about people making choices based on their affinities and aptitudes. You want everything to be 50-50 then you need to erase any form of… what’s the word? _diversity_ among people. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2017, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055/116 "2017-08-08T19:29:31Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > There could be biases (and I think there’s clear evidence of such) whether or not biological factors are at play. There might be cultural pressure the other way too. Maybe the effect of people like, well, yourself expressing their opinions through culture, books, movies, government programs to get more women into STEM, etc., is to push women into computer science who otherwise might not have considered it. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2017, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055/117 "2017-08-08T19:33:31Z")
> [@Ale](#): > > It’s not about who is better or worse, it’s about people making choices based on their affinities and aptitudes. You don’t think an aptitude is about who is better or worse? What is an aptitude if not that? ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2017, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055/118 "2017-08-08T19:38:03Z")
> [@Ale](#): > > It’s ironic that the guy is being lambasted largely on misrepresentations of what he wrote, specially in view of the opening paragraph: > Bolding mine. > > I think many people are not reading it properly (I suspect knee-jerk induced vision blurring) to see that the goals of the author are to get more diversity in the workplace, but believes there’s a dogmatic culture that actually hinders that goal by accepting (and forcefully imposing) a single ideological view of the matter. It’s almost like we don’t think “Not to be racist but…” doesn’t actually mean what follows won’t be racist. Subbing in “sexist” doesn’t actually change that. I especially love the “But I’m getting so many PMs in support!” ploy. That’s a new one! ---
**Author:** ![TimeWinder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bcef8e/32.png) [@TimeWinder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TimeWinder)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2017, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055/119 "2017-08-08T19:48:44Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > This presumes that what you consider misogyny, racism, xenophobia, homophobia etc are actually factually or morally _wrong_: where’s your evidence for that? And that, right there in a nutshell, is how we found ourselves in our current political state. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2017, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055/120 "2017-08-08T19:52:31Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Being skeptical of how conclusive given evidence might be is not the same thing as evidence for the opposing hypothesis. We can “look back now and laugh at” virtually every field of science from prior generations. You want to say that’s a reason to be someone skeptical of how conclusive current scientific understanding is, that’s fine. But that’s not evidence that they’re wrong either. That’s correct, but doesn’t address my point. If you are deciding how to proceed in a given situation, you must assess how much weight to give to each piece of evidence. If one of the pieces of evidence under consideration is some underdeveloped and inconclusive science that confirms longstanding social prejudices, you are going to reach the correct answer more often by marginally reducing the weight given to that evidence. That’s because your thumb on the scales will, on average, correct in the right direction for mistakes produced by social prejudice. One of the lessons we should draw from the history of scientific racism is that old bigotries tend to reemerge clothed in whatever the latest scientific fashion is. It is totally reasonable and prudent to be on the lookout for that happening and be especially cautious about seeming confirmation of these prejudices. This isn’t an approach to science as such, which should proceed according to the scientific method. It’s an approach to decision-making based on inconclusive evidence while the science is still being worked out. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055.md?page=7)