Fired Engineer James Damore: I Feel Google Betrayed Me | Hacker News Reader

Fired Engineer James Damore: I Feel Google Betrayed Me

bloomberg.com

41 pointstaytus25 comments

So is there actually something new in this particular story? Or is reading this going to be a waste of my time that just frustrates me?

"Guy gets fired for something he does at work, feels it was unfair" is not exactly Pulitzer Prize material.

Yeah I actually took a small interest but good god, this is getting a thousand times more attention than it warrants.

TL;DR version, James Damore works for Google, researches scientific sources for gender definitions. Compiles each definition and factor into a document that uses neutral third party citations and peer review to back up his citations.

Gets fired over SJW Politics, accusing him of making gender stereotypes by people using politics, culture, society for gender definitions, Google panics over the protesters, feminists, social justice warriors, etc upset over the document and under pressure fire James Damore.

He was not a shitty or toxic employee, he was assigned to do scientific research on genders and compile it into a document using scientific proof.

https://youtu.be/SEDuVF7kiPU

Look at the full text of that video to see the links cited:

Published on Aug 9, 2017 James Demore of Google recently wrote a memo detailing his thoughts about Google's various diversity initiatives. Inside the company, and then outside, it went viral. He lost his job, in consequence: for "perpetuating gender stereotypes." The problem is that everything James claimed is solidly backed by well-developed scientific literatures. Thus, the company that is arguably in charge of more of the world's communication than any other has now fired a promising engineer for stating a series of established scientific truths.

That's worth thinking about.

In this full 50 minute interview, James and I discuss his motivations, and the consequences of his actions. We are joined (audio only) by another Google employee who wishes, for obvious reasons, to remain anonymous.

A fund-raiser for James has been established, here: https://www.wesearchr.com/bounties/ja... Here are a series of references buttressing each and every claim James made in his memo, which has been erroneously deemed pseudo-scientific (full papers linked where possible):

Sex differences in personality: http://bit.ly/2gJVmEp http://bit.ly/2vEKTUx

Larger/large and stable sex differences in more gender-neutral countries: (Note: these findings runs precisely and exactly contrary to social constructionist theory: thus, it's been tested, and it's wrong). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1... http://bit.ly/2uoY9c4

(Women's) interest in things vs (men's) interest in things: http://bit.ly/2wtlbzU http://bit.ly/2fsq7Ru

The importance of exposure to sex-linked steroids on fetal and then lifetime development: http://bit.ly/2vP0ZLS

Exposure to prenatal testosterone and interest in things (even when the exposure is among females): http://bit.ly/2wI28RE

Primarily biological basis of personality sex differences: http://bit.ly/2vmtSMs http://bit.ly/2uoPzy0

Status and sex: males and females http://bit.ly/2uoWkMh http://bit.ly/2uoIOw8 http://bit.ly/2vNzcL6 To quote de Bruyn et al (first reference on status and sex, above): high status predicts more mating opportunities and, thus, increased reproductive success. “This is true for human adults in many cultures, both ‘modern’ as well as ‘primitive’ (Betzig, 1986). In fact, this theory seems to be confirmed for non-human primates (Cheney, 1983; Cowlishaw and Dunbar, 1991; Dewsbury, 1982; Gray, 1985; Maslow, 1936) and other animals from widely differing ecologies (Ellis, 1995) such as squirrels (Farentinos, 1972), cockerels (Kratzer and Craig, 1980), and cockroaches (Breed, Smith, and Gall, 1980).” Status also increases female reproductive success, via a different pathway: “For females, it is generally argued that dominance is not necessarily a path to more copulations, as it is for males. It appears that important benefits bestowed upon dominant women are access to resources and less harassment from rivals (Campbell, 2002). Thus, dominant females tend to have higher offspring survival rates, at least among simians (Pusey, Williams, and Goodall, 1997); thus, dominance among females also appears to be linked to reproductive success.”

Personality and political belief http://bit.ly/2hJ1Kjb http://bit.ly/2fsxIzB http://bit.ly/2fsILJd http://bit.ly/2uoPS87 http://bit.ly/2ftDhOq Conscientiousness associated with conservatism; neuroticism and agreeableness with liberalism: http://bit.ly/2wHNA4r

Occupations by gender: https://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/occ_gend...

Problems with the measurement and concept of unconscious bias: http://bit.ly/2vGzhQP http://bit.ly/2vQuwEP (this one is particularly damning)

You forgot the coda: "Takes advantage of controversy to enjoy fifteen minutes of fame. Arguments ensue. Nothing of value comes of it."

This remind me of the Streisand effect. I feel like more people are being exposed to the fired engineer's opinion as a result of Google (and even the media) trying to discourage his views.

When a third of Google's employees agreed with it, it's far past the point of minimizing exposure.

This particular "viewpoint" is widely known, period, because there's no shortage of douchebros that freely advocate it, and more to the point, there's nothing to be gained from "suppressing" it.

Rather, more publicity of exactly this sort, is desirable, to make it clear that this type of thing is (1) nonsensical, and (2) (more importantly from fire-your-ass-from-google point of view), unacceptable.

No matter which side of the argument you're on, I think we can agree that this guy is naive to think he can turn the general opinion about his actions around by appearing in a live interview.

I'm glad he did it though.

He mentioned there is scientific evidence that males tend to like "things" while females tend to like "people". I've heard this before on HN...can someone point me to this research?

I did a google search: "Men and things, women and people: a meta-analysis of sex differences in interests."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19883140

I somehow found a pastebin with a link to the full study: https://pastebin.com/PjpuFS5U

It should be noted that this particular study doesn't claim the 'thing':'people' differences are biological, just observed. He does mention something about 'pre-natal testosterone' but that doesn't appear to be in this study.

edit: found http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X11... which suggests pre-natal hormones can influence interest in STEM occupations.

this one talks about finger lengths influencing interests which is kinda cool: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886910...

there's unfortunately not a significant scientific consensus on the issue by the psychology community at large due to the sheer number of confounding factors in these sorts of studies, and pretty much anybody who tells you there's a definitive answer is probably trying to sell you something

if he wants to have a successful lawsuit he needs to shut up right now until after the case. Anything he says can be used against him in the courts, nothing he doesnt say cant be said later.

Is he really that naive to believe you have free speech at work?

IANAL but I believe in CA you can't be discriminated against for political beliefs. That could be a stretch in this case, I don't know.

well not unless you're a member of certain notorious far-left parties anyways [1], but I'm fairly certain Pichai cited not his political opinions but the creation of a hostile work environment in the firing so they'd have a tough time proving political discrimination anyways

[1] http://law.onecle.com/california/government/1027.5.html

he's a potential whistleblower about their discriminatory hiring practices. the ceo very publicly condemned him prior to his termination; a possible case for retaliation. if the lawsuit goes to trial, they will compel discovery, which would probably be more expensive than a 7-8 figure payout.

You can be fired for _no_ reason, but you can't be fired for _any_ reason.

Is that a pledge pin on your uniform?! You're fired!

I don't think writing something which will make your co-workers sad deserves rights of free speech.

I guess you are only being sarcastic, but it's worth pointing out that the only speech worth defending is speech that you disagree with and or find offensive.

No-one tries to stop you from saying nice things that they already agree with.

A successful lawsuit isn't the point. alt-right celebrity is the point, and he's got that in spades now.

I don't see the problem in having more women than what one would find in a natural distribution. There is no reason a natural distribution should be followed.

I think the problem arises because employment at a company is often a zero sum game, so an artificial bias to increase female employment for instance necessarily means some equally-qualified males will not get employed to free up the limited employment space.

The problem is it makes it unfair for the other gender. "Helping" women get into tech means easier interviews, which is unfair - it is harder for you if you are a man. This is what sexism is all about.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com