Dec 14, 2017

You should definitely read it and make up your own mind:

Nov 05, 2017

I don't care if he was right or wrong, or objective. And I don't claim to have sufficient knowledge about the topic to disprove/approve his points. I care about the right to discuss things without the fear of being smeared. Discussions are essential for us to iron out or positions, learn something new or change our mind. If you simply ignore one side of the issue, people will retract into their bubble, which is the exact opposite of what we need right now.

If he's wrong, you have every right to discuss this issue with him. That's actually what he wanted, if you look towards the end of his memo. Did you read the original?

Nov 05, 2017

These cowards don't link to the original:

Instead, they link to the heavily edited Gizmodo hit piece, that has the sources removed. Dishonest

Sep 10, 2017

Okay, I picked up where you left off.

> It is complete and utter nonsense that people find it hard to garner female and minority applications through traditional channels...We aren’t getting hired, and aren’t being paid well, because of unconscious biases.

Support for this comes from a large number of (not listed) posts.

Then we launch into James Damore.

> Or, for shits and giggles, check out the Google Manifesto, and see that some milquetoast gish galloping member of /r/IAmVerySmart decided to ram his face into Google’s hiring practices and get himself fired over crying about diversity hurting hiring practices.

After complaining "tons of writers just here on with a hand-wave", the author in the next breath dismisses Damore and his citations of Wikipedia, research articles, Wall Street Journal, The New Yorker, etc. [1] with a hand-wave.

> There is no biological basis to be found for any of this Google Manifesto garbage.

Tear that 10-page manifesto apart you want, but take more than one sentence. "This is BS because I say so."

And I stopped there.


Aug 15, 2017

Well... interesting.

According to the PDF(0), it states on page 6, footnote 6

...Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done)....

The smoking gun here is "which is illegal and I’ve seen it done"... Well, shit. That seems to answer your question, "YES".

However... On James Damore's official website(1), it states the following from the same quote area.

...or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal).....

Which is illegal. No more claim of being a witness. How interesting. That would not validate your claim/question.



Aug 11, 2017

The primary thesis of Damore's memo [1] was not that women are biologically unsuited to STEM careers. The primary thesis was that, at Google, you cannot even advance the hypothesis that biology might be a factor without putting your career at risk. Ironically, by firing Damore, Pichai proved him correct.

EDIT: if you doubt this, just look at the document's title and TL;DR section.


Aug 11, 2017

I was able to find no such suggestion. Perhaps you can point it out? Here's the full text of the memo:

It starts with "I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes.", and has many suggestions on how to increase diversity (not just viewpoint diversity), all ideas attributed to the left†.

†I feel compelled to mention I find that left/right are woefully inadequate labels, and serve better as a tool to divide and conquer people so they don't unite on common interests. But they work well-ish enough in this case, and a discussion on this would be long and orthogonal to the topic at hand.

Edit: Reading your other reply, it seems you think any action at all done to increase diversity is affirmative action. That's not what's usually meant by the term.

Aug 10, 2017

There is a leaked copy with the links intact:

The citation for higher neuroticism is, this in turn cites, which confirms the claims.

> ... gender differences are small relative to individual variation within genders; differences are replicated across cultures for both college-age and adult samples, and differences are broadly consistent with gender stereotypes: Women reported themselves to be higher in Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Warmth, and Openness to Feelings, whereas men were higher in Assertiveness and Openness to Ideas.

Aug 10, 2017

is a better link, because it preserves the links to references, the formatting, and the graphic clarifying distributions vs. averages.

Aug 09, 2017

Assuming you've looked at the actual document ( and not redacted/censored versions of it, it does in fact have a lot of links...[0] How many citations would you expect though? He's not publishing for an academic journal. He's not even publishing for an audience outside of coworkers.

[0] Links from the paper in order not counting internal g/ go/ links, whatever those are (not all of them technically citations, but some are; many just to help point out that a technical definition is being used and a common parlance one the reader may have in mind shouldn't be used): (My favorite in-context just because the link text is "research suggests", a common phrase that all too commonly lacks any sort of citation or link of any kind.)

Aug 09, 2017

Most of the "citations" are inline links to Wikipedia.

Aug 09, 2017

> backed by links

Oops, sorry I guess my comment was worded a bit confusingly there. When I said "backed by links to scientific studies" I was referring to the original memo. The Gizmodo article which originally leaked the memo omitted those links, but they're present in the original document:

> PhD in sexual neuroscience

> female

These qualities are helpful for getting other people to take the article seriously instead of just immediately dismissing it as an "anti-diversity screed", but they don't in and of themselves affect the factual accuracy of the statements being made. As I said, this author is mostly just re-affirming the same points that were made in the original memo; those underlying points are equally valid regardless of who's making them.

Aug 09, 2017

Here you go:

Aug 09, 2017

Yeah, I heard he eats babies by the "progressive media" as well.

Maybe I should believe that too, and be completely ignorant about the contents of the actual document....

<insert rage, anger, mad flailing of arms>


Aug 09, 2017

Pay attention to the PDF's page 6 footnote (

" Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs."

....discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done).....

If that's true, then he could bolster the case with Department of Labor - which directly has to do with the claims that Google is paying women engineers much less than their male counterparts.

This is going to get ugly, and fast. (err, wait, it already has)

Aug 08, 2017

The document is the definition of sexism and a perfect example of why we still need diversity laws and programs.

Despite the attempts to provide disclaimers, many of the comments he wrote were explicitly sexist. For example the sections "Personality differences" and "Men's higher drive for status".

Sexism means prejudice related to gender. Prejudice means pre-judging a group. For example the belief that women do not have as high as drive for status can (and previously has been) used as an excuse for promoting men instead of women or a particular man instead of a particular woman.

And other comments. In the context of discussion of things like hiring, promotion and pay, acting on the beliefs he stated has been outlawed (even though unfortunately these biases are still very prevalent). If they do not fire him, the document will be used as evidence in discriminatory lawsuits.

These sexist beliefs are still just as popular as ageist and racist beliefs. Many may be able to find scientific studies that back up their prejudice. There are usually studies backing up just about any view, just due to the nature of science. Regardless of how well accepted or not these studies are, the laws have already been made years before. So if you want these types of prejudicial beliefs to be openly consulted in hiring, promotion, etc. decisions in companies, those laws will need to be changed.

Aug 08, 2017

the full memo :

Aug 08, 2017

.. 3, 2, 1 ...

Lets see what he wrote that was so offensive, remembering that it was to a private list and only posted to the wider Internet by Googles 'diversity' chief Danielle Brown.

"Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber"

Aug 08, 2017

Either: * You're hypothesizing and I don't quite get it, * haven't read the text and are basing on some misinterpretation you have seen somewhere on the internet * or you're purposefully lying (which I assume you're not).

Please, just read the text:

Aug 08, 2017

Gizmodo and other sites removed charts and citations from the memo. The full version with links to references is here:

Aug 08, 2017

Gizmodo and many other websites removed charts and references. The memo in its entirety is here

Aug 08, 2017

Here is a link to the guy's original memo (with all his references that have been removed from much popular media coverage of its content):

You should read it before you draw any conclusions. Although I don't necessarily agree with everything he says (and how he says it), he does make some interesting points in a way that I would hope can promote constructive discussion. I definitely don't think he should have been fired just for the memo - maybe there is more to the story? - or maybe he shouldn't have been fired?

Aug 08, 2017

> unsupported

Did you only read the Gizmodo version that removed all the references?

Here's a copy with the references:

Aug 08, 2017

Original memo:

Might be worth actually reading it before arguing over whether this kind of material should be censored and its author shunned.

Aug 08, 2017

Try this one then:

Aug 08, 2017

> No, we're mostly offended by ideas that are false and actively harm people - like the entirely unproven notion that women suffer from biological weaknesses that make them less likely to be qualified as engineers.

All good, except he did not make that argument or anything similar to it. He did not state that women inherently suffer from biological weaknesses of any sort. And no, his ideas did not harm anyone (except perhaps indirectly himself). Literally nobody got hurt except him, he is the sole victim of the ordeal.

I hope that you have read the document in its original form, which is a PDF with some (admittedly weak) references.

Aug 08, 2017

Where is the text snippet where he writes that "straight out"?

Here's the unedited document with all the references. I'd like to see that.

All of the data he shows are what scientific research in psychology concluded. He then does some leaps to deduce why some of these differences, that are scientific facts, could create inequalities. This part asks for discussion which he didn't get at all. Of course his theorizing is not a fact, therefore he wants discussion, additional data, and openess of some of these diversity processes.

"As society becomes more prosperous and more egalitarian, innate dispositional differences between men and women have more space to develop and the gap that exists between men and women in their personality traits becomes wider."

The above happens in Norway and Sweden where women hate STEM even more. Yet, I believe, both have schools not using any gender role bias for decades.

Unconscious bias training that Google uses is in worst case brain washing, best case does not work at all. So that critique was in place.

Aug 08, 2017

I think it's this one, but the links don't seem to work:

Edit: Here is the PDF with working links:

Aug 08, 2017

> Here is a copy of the memo

A copy that conveniently leaves out all the links and citations, as well as several graphs and charts.

And while they do note that "two charts and several hyperlinks are also omitted", one of those charts is quite important given that it's right before he starts going on about how men and women differ on average, but that

"Populations have significant overlap. Reducing people to their group identity and assuming the average is representative ignores this overlap (this is bad and I don't endorse that)"

Anyway, here's the full thing, links and charts included:

Aug 08, 2017

On page 3, he clearly discusses overlap between men and women even with biological differences. He did not write in absolutist terms.

Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions. _______________________________________________________

Aug 08, 2017

If you read it, it was about his opinions about damage that Ideological Echo Chamber causes to company.

This discussion needs to happen at google. And he made it clear that this arent his opinions but he sourced most of controversial claims in memo.

His paper was completely aligned with section 1.5 of Google's code of conduct that says “Any time you feel our users aren’t being well-served, don’t be bashful - let someone in the company know about it. Continually improving our products and services takes all of us, and we’re proud that Googlers champion our users and take the initiative to step forward when the interests of our users are at stake.”

Google CEO Sundar Pichai wrote in memo “We strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves, and much of what was in that memo is fair to debate, regardless of whether a vast majority of Googlers disagree with it.”

...and fired him anyways. It seems to me that he will easily win on court saying he was fired for political reasons and accuse them of defamation.

Aug 08, 2017

I believe the majority of people haven't actually READ the memo and just form their opinion based on what different websites tell them. It was actually hard to find the actual memo. Everyone is talking about it, but almost no article linked to it.

Here it is. Read it and form you own opinion.

Aug 08, 2017

He cites plenty of science, it's just that Gizmodo conveniently edited out all of his references when they posted the text. Here's the full memo in its entirety:

Aug 08, 2017

In case it hasn't already been posted, this (apparently) is the original memo which includes sources and reads much differently.

Aug 08, 2017

Here's the document with the links:

Aug 08, 2017

> No, my point is solely in response to that post - to say "we need to have an honest discussion" is quite specifically to say "we need to end/severely cut down on it"

That's not how I read it.

I read it as trying as carefully as possible to start a discussion about having a discussion about a topic by many deemed to be sensitive. And change doesn't have to merely be cutting something, as you suggest. It can be replacing something ineffective/unfair with something more effective or less unfair.

There's literally nothing in that sentence which says "we need to remove/cut down on all programs related to subject $x". I'm not sure where you're getting that from. To me, your response to this fairly harmless email seems overly defensive. Are you acting rationally based on what has been said, or are overreacting based on things you assume to be said?

Maybe this would be a good time to (re?)-read the original email[1]?


Aug 08, 2017

> not a [...] statement of fact.

He cites quite a few sources under the "Personality differences" section. Care to refute them?

For your convenience, here is the memo in its entirety, links to sources included:

Aug 08, 2017

Unedited version of the memo:

Aug 08, 2017

Until very recently, almost no one has read the entire piece, because Gizmodo intentionally stripped out all the citations and charts the original author had in the document. Hmm. I can't imagine why....

Aug 07, 2017

I think it's important to require quotes alongside so to make discussion easier, by not having to force others to read long single-spaced 14px pages, and more accurate, by allowing the discussion to narrow in on the specific points.

1). The original claim was:

>"On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because: - They’re universal across human cultures

- They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone

- Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males

- The underlying traits are highly heritable

- They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective" (pg 3)

The claim is not that differences in each gender are universal across all cultures, only that, on average, there are biological differences that can be accounted for, without including social construction

The paper you linked also does not refute universal differences across human cultures, but suggest nurture may influence the behaviour of different genders. I believe the following:

"The underlying cultural differences between the Khasi and the Maasai offer room for speculation on environmental factors." (pg. 1656)

sums up the paper well.

2). There were three claims. You're going to need to quote the specific points where you believe he implied or directly said it was okay to discriminate on gender.

Here was the short section on it:

"Women, on average, have more​ : - Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in ​ people rather than things​ , relative to men (also interpreted as ​ empathizing vs. systemizing​ ).

- These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or ​ artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.

- Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.

- This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.

- Neuroticism​ ​ (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance). This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs." (pg. 4)

That source is also not credible. It cites itself here:, and also states that there are personality differences between men and women in all the companies surveyed, except for google.

Here they are:

"- Male Facebook employees are 40% more likely to have an inflated sense of superiority compared to female employees.

- Female employees at Apple and Microsoft are 23% more prone to anxiety than their male counterparts.

- Men at Microsoft are 35% more ambitious and 34% more calculating than females.

- Male Uber employees are 32% more socially assertive than female employees.

- Google’s workforce displayed no major differences between male and female employees."

These align with the author's points. However, we don't have access to the data and it should not be taken as evidence. I'd also like to note that the only reference outside of the website itself, is a plug for a job board. There are eight links citing itself and one for Good&Co.

3). This is not addressing the point that the bar is lowered. You're arguing that diversity is more efficient, which is not the focus.

I will humor the first source, which happens to be lying terribly with statistics.

"In a global analysis of 2,400 companies conducted by Credit Suisse, organizations with at least one female board member yielded higher return on equity and higher net income growth than those that did not have any women on the board."

What they don't say is that the difference of 4% (from 12% and 16%) and spread over 6 years. That's 6 basis points (.6% or .006) per year, a very negligible amount. I'd like to also note that ROE is only a measure of stockholder value, by itself.

"Net income growth for companies with women on the board has averaged 14% over the past six years compared to 10% for those with no female board representation."

Again, 4% spread over 6 years, 6 basis points. This also is another measure of stockholder value. I'll diverge from the facts in saying that this also aligns with the author's point that women have a stronger interest in feelings and people, than money.

"Large-cap companies with at least one woman on the board have outperformed their peer group with no women on the-board by 26% over the last six years, according to a report by Credit Suisse Research Institute"

Also, that 26%? It comes from adding up all of the negligible differences from 6 different measurements, across years.

4). This is misrepresentation. What was actually stated:

"At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. 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." (pg 3)

If anyone would like the full source memo with references, you may find it here:

Aug 07, 2017

Gizmodo removed the citations to scientific studies and also took out the images.

The original document is here (credit to lisper)

Aug 07, 2017

Aug 07, 2017

The links are clickable if you get the original PDF, rather than using DocumentCloud's PDF viewer.

Aug 07, 2017

The original is here:

At least I'm pretty sure that is the original. It has the author's name on it.

Aug 07, 2017

Link to the original memo: