He seems quite an odd dude, but then lots of people in tech are. The point is he wrote a discussion paper with citations to peer reviewed academic work, which then somebody stripped of the citations / edited and leaked to make it appear like he was simply ranting against diversity. Google higher ups have seen the original document and decided that firing him is the right course of action.
Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.
The memo is crass and stupid..
That may well be the case.
If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?
Possibly: that may well depend on his terms of employment or contract with the company. Certainly, its release into the public arena could (has?) damaged Google's reputation.
But as I said below, Google hasn't handled this well, either. I'm guessing the totality of the story has yet to emerge ...
If he was a Senior VP of HR then he would deserve sanction for releasing a memo that possibly didn't balance conflicting evidence.
As it is Google has proved his case - dissenting views will be punished.
Edit AFAIK the memo was released by the witch burners
Company reputation is not limited to senior positions, and he distributed it widely.
He says it had limited distribution and only within his work group where it excited little interest. It was a month after it was originally written that others distributed it widely and ...
Do you agree, or disagree?
"The fundamental question surely is "are men and women the same?" (In gross population terms) "
That is not the fundamental question. It is a false question posed by people wanting to justify discrimination.
And remarkably similar in kind to the argument racists make about 'population differences'....
He seems quite an odd dude, but then lots of people in tech are. The point is he wrote a discussion paper with citations to peer reviewed academic work, which then somebody stripped of the citations / edited and leaked to make it appear like he was simply ranting against diversity. Google higher ups have seen the original document and decided that firing him is the right course of action.
Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.
The memo is crass and stupid..
That may well be the case.
If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?
Possibly: that may well depend on his terms of employment or contract with the company. Certainly, its release into the public arena could (has?) damaged Google's reputation.
But as I said below, Google hasn't handled this well, either. I'm guessing the totality of the story has yet to emerge ...
If he was a Senior VP of HR then he would deserve sanction for releasing a memo that possibly didn't balance conflicting evidence.
As it is Google has proved his case - dissenting views will be punished.
Edit AFAIK the memo was released by the witch burners
From his shareholders perspectives, the CEO did the right thing. It's shitty, and if he was a good person he'll help the guy find a job elsewhere, but a company shouldn't be expected to stand up to a mob.
If you cravenly cave into the mob, they don't go away satisfied.
Unless our political leaders will stand up to the mob, you can't ask a company to do the same. It will destroy stakeholder value.
When the mob are your customers, why would you want them to go away anyhow ?
He seems quite an odd dude, but then lots of people in tech are. The point is he wrote a discussion paper with citations to peer reviewed academic work, which then somebody stripped of the citations / edited and leaked to make it appear like he was simply ranting against diversity. Google higher ups have seen the original document and decided that firing him is the right course of action.
Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.
The memo is crass and stupid..
That may well be the case.
If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?
Possibly: that may well depend on his terms of employment or contract with the company. Certainly, its release into the public arena could (has?) damaged Google's reputation.
But as I said below, Google hasn't handled this well, either. I'm guessing the totality of the story has yet to emerge ...
If he was a Senior VP of HR then he would deserve sanction for releasing a memo that possibly didn't balance conflicting evidence.
As it is Google has proved his case - dissenting views will be punished.
Edit AFAIK the memo was released by the witch burners
From his shareholders perspectives, the CEO did the right thing. It's shitty, and if he was a good person he'll help the guy find a job elsewhere, but a company shouldn't be expected to stand up to a mob.
If you cravenly cave into the mob, they don't go away satisfied.
Unless our political leaders will stand up to the mob, you can't ask a company to do the same. It will destroy stakeholder value.
Yes, it would certainly help if the politicians would also stand up to this nonsense.
"The fundamental question surely is "are men and women the same?" (In gross population terms) "
That is not the fundamental question. It is a false question posed by people wanting to justify discrimination.
Men and women are not the same.
Whether their biological differences make any difference in the tech world is an interesting question, but not one that anyone can have a meaningful discussion on as this incident shows.
He seems quite an odd dude, but then lots of people in tech are. The point is he wrote a discussion paper with citations to peer reviewed academic work, which then somebody stripped of the citations / edited and leaked to make it appear like he was simply ranting against diversity. Google higher ups have seen the original document and decided that firing him is the right course of action.
Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.
The memo is crass and stupid..
That may well be the case.
If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?
Possibly: that may well depend on his terms of employment or contract with the company. Certainly, its release into the public arena could (has?) damaged Google's reputation.
But as I said below, Google hasn't handled this well, either. I'm guessing the totality of the story has yet to emerge ...
If he was a Senior VP of HR then he would deserve sanction for releasing a memo that possibly didn't balance conflicting evidence.
As it is Google has proved his case - dissenting views will be punished.
Edit AFAIK the memo was released by the witch burners
Company reputation is not limited to senior positions, and he distributed it widely.
He says it had limited distribution and only within his work group where it excited little interest. It was a month after it was originally written that others distributed it widely and outside Google.
The fundamental question surely is "are men and women the same?" (In gross population terms)
He argues "no" and each population has different strengths and weaknesses. These are minor compared to individual differences, (so woman A can easily be a better leader (for example) than man , but bear examining in an organisation of tens of thousands.
Do you agree, or disagree?
"The fundamental question surely is "are men and women the same?" (In gross population terms) "
That is not the fundamental question. It is a false question posed by people wanting to justify discrimination.
He seems quite an odd dude, but then lots of people in tech are. The point is he wrote a discussion paper with citations to peer reviewed academic work, which then somebody stripped of the citations / edited and leaked to make it appear like he was simply ranting against diversity. Google higher ups have seen the original document and decided that firing him is the right course of action.
Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.
The memo is crass and stupid..
That may well be the case.
If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?
Possibly: that may well depend on his terms of employment or contract with the company. Certainly, its release into the public arena could (has?) damaged Google's reputation.
But as I said below, Google hasn't handled this well, either. I'm guessing the totality of the story has yet to emerge ...
If he was a Senior VP of HR then he would deserve sanction for releasing a memo that possibly didn't balance conflicting evidence.
As it is Google has proved his case - dissenting views will be punished.
Edit AFAIK the memo was released by the witch burners
Company reputation is not limited to senior positions, and he distributed it widely.
He says it had limited distribution and only within his work group where it excited little interest. It was a month after it was originally written that others distributed it widely and outside Google.
The fundamental question surely is "are men and women the same?" (In gross population terms)
He argues "no" and each population has different strengths and weaknesses. These are minor compared to individual differences, (so woman A can easily be a better leader (for example) than man , but bear examining in an organisation of tens of thousands.
Do you agree, or disagree?
"The fundamental question surely is "are men and women the same?" (In gross population terms) "
That is not the fundamental question. It is a false question posed by people wanting to justify discrimination.
He seems quite an odd dude, but then lots of people in tech are. The point is he wrote a discussion paper with citations to peer reviewed academic work, which then somebody stripped of the citations / edited and leaked to make it appear like he was simply ranting against diversity. Google higher ups have seen the original document and decided that firing him is the right course of action.
Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.
The memo is crass and stupid..
That may well be the case.
If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?
Possibly: that may well depend on his terms of employment or contract with the company. Certainly, its release into the public arena could (has?) damaged Google's reputation.
But as I said below, Google hasn't handled this well, either. I'm guessing the totality of the story has yet to emerge ...
If he was a Senior VP of HR then he would deserve sanction for releasing a memo that possibly didn't balance conflicting evidence.
As it is Google has proved his case - dissenting views will be punished.
Edit AFAIK the memo was released by the witch burners
From his shareholders perspectives, the CEO did the right thing. It's shitty, and if he was a good person he'll help the guy find a job elsewhere, but a company shouldn't be expected to stand up to a mob.
It isn't the CEO's job to defend the (purported) values of the company?
(Snip)
his actions post-memo will hardly have helped.
Post memo or post firing?
He has acquired some unfortunate allies - which parts of his memo in context do you object to?
On topic, I would not expect a third party, still less one led by James Chapman. He's obviously enjoyed a few days of settling scores with the assorted loonies, opportunists and careerists that comprise the Leave camp, and exposed many of them for the unpleasant intellectual vacuums that they are. But new parties aren't led by obscure journalists and James Chapman will know that as well as anyone. He's just having holiday fun.
unpleasant intellectual vacuums
but they still outwitted Remain
how do you explain that ?
Putting things on buses must been covered in PhD courses - it is the only explanation.
It was a 20+ year campaign of infiltration and subversion of democracy that would have made Militant blush. People like Daniel Hannan should never have been allowed anywhere near the Conservative party.
He seems quite an odd dude, but then lots of people in....
Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.
The memo is crass and stupid..
That may well be the case.
If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?
Possibly: that may well depend on his terms of employment or contract with the company. Certainly, its release into the public arena could (has?) damaged Google's reputation.
But as I said below, Google hasn't handled this well, either. I'm guessing the totality of the story has yet to emerge ...
If he was a Senior VP of HR then he would deserve sanction for releasing a memo that possibly didn't balance conflicting evidence.
As it is Google has proved his case - dissenting views will be punished.
Edit AFAIK the memo was released by the witch burners
Company reputation is not limited to senior positions, and he distributed it widely.
He says it had limited distribution and only within his work group where it excited little interest. It was a month after it was originally written that others distributed it widely and outside Google.
The fundamental question surely is "are men and women the same?" (In gross population terms)
He argues "no" and each population has different strengths and weaknesses. These are minor compared to individual differences, (so woman A can easily be a better leader (for example) than man , but bear examining in an organisation of tens of thousands.
Do you agree, or disagree?
"The fundamental question surely is "are men and women the same?" (In gross population terms) "
That is not the fundamental question. It is a false question posed by people wanting to justify discrimination.
Amusingly, perhaps... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment At-will employment has also been identified as a reason for the success of Silicon Valley as an entrepreneur-friendly environment...
I find it notable that only now, when someone's particular prejudice has been twitted, that they should display such concern for the rather draconian hiring and firing practices which are commonplace in the US.
Sadly it looks to be heading that way finally - it is already above it by some way for many tourists.
What is sad about euro/sterling parity? More successful economies than ours have manipulated their currencies downwards (Germany and China, for instance) yet in Britain an overvalued currency is seen by politicians, press and public alike as a national virility symbol.
Germany has manipulated its currency all the way down up from 3.85 to the pound in 1980, 2.77 to the pound at the time of the launch of the Euro in 1999 to an equivalent of only 2.16 to the pound today. If this is a race to the bottom, I know who my money's on.
Germany has locked in an artificially low rate by membership of the Euro. Greece, to take one example, has locked in too high a rate. If either or both countries were to exit the Euro tomorrow, we can judge which way their currencies would float.
At the time Germany first joined the Euro it was called the sick man of Europe and people were saying it had locked itself in at too high a rate. The Eurosceptic arguments change to suit the prevailing wind.
It wasn't popular in Germany either where it was nicknamed the Teuro (a pun on 'teuer', expensive) because it caused prices to rise. As I recall it took several years of quite painful reform to get through that phase.
Now Greece, Spain, Italy and Ireland have had or are still partly in the painful phase. The problem being of course that while it does force them to take the difficult but productive route, it gives them little grace in terms of time to do so. Devaluing buys time, but as we can see in or own economy sometimes leads people to ignore the fundamental weaknesses.
"The fundamental question surely is "are men and women the same?" (In gross population terms) "
That is not the fundamental question. It is a false question posed by people wanting to justify discrimination.
Men and women are not the same.
Whether their biological differences make any difference in the tech world is an interesting question, but not one that anyone can have a meaningful discussion on as this incident shows.
This are the thought processes that underpins the thinking of some:
"Men are better than women at x"
"That means that when I interview someone, I should consider whether the candidate is male or female, regardless of the skills of the individual."
"Consequently, if the company has fewer women doing x, then that's all good and well, as men are better. I will, of course, ignore the fact that the difference between men and women in x is only 0.1%, and we have just 5% women..."
Sadly it looks to be heading that way finally - it is already above it by some way for many tourists.
What is sad about euro/sterling parity? More successful economies than ours have manipulated their currencies downwards (Germany and China, for instance) yet in Britain an overvalued currency is seen by politicians, press and public alike as a national virility symbol.
Germany has manipulated its currency all the way down up from 3.85 to the pound in 1980, 2.77 to the pound at the time of the launch of the Euro in 1999 to an equivalent of only 2.16 to the pound today. If this is a race to the bottom, I know who my money's on.
Germany has locked in an artificially low rate by membership of the Euro. Greece, to take one example, has locked in too high a rate. If either or both countries were to exit the Euro tomorrow, we can judge which way their currencies would float.
At the time Germany first joined the Euro it was called the sick man of Europe and people were saying it had locked itself in at too high a rate. The Eurosceptic arguments change to suit the prevailing wind.
It wasn't popular in Germany either where it was nicknamed the Teuro (a pun on 'teuer', expensive) because it caused prices to rise. As I recall it took several years of quite painful reform to get through that phase.
Now Greece, Spain, Italy and Ireland have had or are still partly in the painful phase. The problem being of course that while it does force them to take the difficult but productive route, it gives them little grace in terms of time to do so. Devaluing buys time, but as we can see in or own economy sometimes leads people to ignore the fundamental weaknesses.
We've been buying time like that for many, many decades.
Sadly it looks to be heading that way finally - it is already above it by some way for many tourists.
What is sad about euro/sterling parity? More successful economies than ours have manipulated their currencies downwards (Germany and China, for instance) yet in Britain an overvalued currency is seen by politicians, press and public alike as a national virility symbol.
Germany has manipulated its currency all the way down up from 3.85 to the pound in 1980, 2.77 to the pound at the time of the launch of the Euro in 1999 to an equivalent of only 2.16 to the pound today. If this is a race to the bottom, I know who my money's on.
Germany has locked in an artificially low rate by membership of the Euro. Greece, to take one example, has locked in too high a rate. If either or both countries were to exit the Euro tomorrow, we can judge which way their currencies would float.
At the time Germany first joined the Euro it was called the sick man of Europe and people were saying it had locked itself in at too high a rate. The Eurosceptic arguments change to suit the prevailing wind.
It wasn't popular in Germany either where it was nicknamed the Teuro (a pun on 'teuer', expensive) because it caused prices to rise. As I recall it took several years of quite painful reform to get through that phase.
Now Greece, Spain, Italy and Ireland have had or are still partly in the painful phase. The problem being of course that while it does force them to take the difficult but productive route, it gives them little grace in terms of time to do so. Devaluing buys time, but as we can see in or own economy sometimes leads people to ignore the fundamental weaknesses.
We've been buying time like that for many, many decades.
Yes.
From 'Yes Minister':
'The economic situation is invariably either dire or catastrophic.'
When was the last time we had a fundamentally sound and well-balanced economy? I'm almost inclined to say 1880 before the onset of the First Great Depression but I think that would be an exaggeration.
Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.
The memo is crass and stupid..
That may well be the case. If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?
Possibly: that may well depend on his terms of employment or contract with the company. Certainly, its release into the public arena could (has?) damaged Google's reputation.
But as I said below, Google hasn't handled this well, either. I'm guessing the totality of the story has yet to emerge ...
If he was a Senior VP of HR then he would deserve sanction for releasing a memo that possibly didn't balance conflicting evidence. As it is Google has proved his case - dissenting views will be punished. Edit AFAIK the memo was released by the witch burnes
Company reputation is not limited to senior positions, and he distributed it widely.
He says it had limited distribution and only within his work group where it excited little interest. It was a month after it was originally written that others distributed it widely and outside Google. The fundamental question surely is "are men and women the same?" (In gross population terms) He argues "no" and each population has different strengths and weaknesses. These are minor compared to individual differences, (so woman A can easily be a better leader (for example) than man , but bear examining in an organisation of tens of thousands.
Nope, the fundamental question is why there is an 80/20 disparity between men and women in tech. His argument about 'minor population differences' is effectively self refuting.
So firing employees who advance theories is a solution?
That's a different question. You were defending his argument; I said it was absurd. US companies fire a lot of people for worse reasons - or no reason at all, as US law, unlike ours, allows.
Don`t worry. Ours will too, if the hard-line Tories get their wicked way.
Yep (or at least one copy on the 'net - don't know if it was original). Have you? And if you did, do you understand the arguments against it?
Yes - and no - the latter often fall into the "impermissible thought" category.
I've been working in organisations trying to advance more female employment since 1980 - not for "political correctness" reasons but because it would be "better for the business" reasons - and what I've learned is that men and women interact differently - and not surprisingly women struggle in organisations with a "male" culture - which "firing dissenting employees" is a good sign of.
Despite his recent fanboys, the google employee had a point, which google have proved.
He seems quite an odd dude, but then lots of people in....
Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.
The memo is crass and stupid..
That may well be the case.
If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?
Possibly: that may well depend on his terms of employment or contract with the company. Certainly, its release into the public arena could (has?) damaged Google's reputation.
But as I said below, Google hasn't handled this well, either. I'm guessing the totality of the story has yet to emerge ...
If he was a Senior VP of HR then he would deserve sanction for releasing a memo that possibly didn't balance conflicting evidence.
As it is Google has proved his case - dissenting views will be punished.
Edit AFAIK the memo was released by the witch burners
Company reputation is not limited to senior positions, and he distributed it widely.
He says it had limited distribution and only within his work group where it excited little interest. It was a month after it was originally written that others distributed it widely and outside Google.
The fundamental question surely is "are men and women the same?" (In gross population terms)
He argues "no" and each population has different strengths and weaknesses. These are minor compared to individual differences, (so woman A can easily be a better leader (for example) than man , but bear examining in an organisation of tens of thousands.
Do you agree, or disagree?
"The fundamental question surely is "are men and women the same?" (In gross population terms) "
That is not the fundamental question. It is a false question posed by people wanting to justify discrimination.
Have you read his paper?
Have you recognised the flaw in his argument ?
There are many flaws in his arguments -ALL sacking offences?
I would like to address the Google employee's paper.
There is a fundamental flaw at the heart of all discussions on racial or sexuals characteristics. Let us assume, for a second, that those with brown hair have an average IQ of 90, and those with orange hair have an average IQ of 110, and that IQ accurately measures intelligence.
Congratulations, you now know the average intelligence of a ginger and a brunette.
But you know nothing about any individual.
If you are using "gingers are more intelligent" as a heuristic, you will miss the large number of extremely smart brunettes.
Differences between individuals inside groups are orders of magnitude bigger than those between groups themselves.
There are many flaws in his arguments -ALL sacking offences?
They don't need to all be sacking offences. Besides the fact that Americans don't need a sacking offence (simply bringing the company into disrepute is easily one and can be this side of the pond too) if ONE is a sacking offence that can be enough.
He says it had limited distribution and only within his work group where it excited little interest. It was a month after it was originally written that others distributed it widely and outside Google.
I fail to see how this matters.
Anyone who works in IT and isn't yet aware of the idea that something circulated online can go viral beyond the original circle is clearly too stupid to work in IT.
"In 1964, 1,200 members of the American Psychiatric Association declared that Barry Goldwater was psychologically unfit to be President of the United States, one of their number even going so far as to call him a paranoid schizophrenic. Goldwater may have been unfit on the grounds of his political opinions, but no evidence was of- fered of his psychological unfitness, except those opinions themselves. Again, it is doubtful whether anyone took notice of what the psychiatrists said."
I would like to address the Google employee's paper.
There is a fundamental flaw at the heart of all discussions on racial or sexuals characteristics. Let us assume, for a second, that those with brown hair have an average IQ of 90, and those with orange hair have an average IQ of 110, and that IQ accurately measures intelligence.
Congratulations, you now know the average intelligence of a ginger and a brunette.
But you know nothing about any individual.
If you are using "gingers are more intelligent" as a heuristic, you will miss the large number of extremely smart brunettes.
Differences between individuals inside groups are orders of magnitude bigger than those between groups themselves.
He seems quite an odd dude, but then lots of people in....
Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.
The memo is crass and stupid..
That may well be the case.
If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?
Possibly: that may well depend on his terms of employment or contract with the company. Certainly, its release into the public arena could (has?) damaged Google's reputation.
But as I said below, Google hasn't handled this well, either. I'm guessing the totality of the story has yet to emerge ...
If he was a Senior VP of HR then he would deserve sanction for releasing a memo that possibly didn't balance conflicting evidence.
As it is Google has proved his case - dissenting views will be punished.
Edit AFAIK the memo was released by the witch burners
Company reputation is not limited to senior positions, and he distributed it widely.
He says it had limited distribution and only within his work group where it excited little interest. It was a month after it was originally written that others distributed it widely and outside Google.
Do you agree, or disagree?
"The fundamental question surely is "are men and women the same?" (In gross population terms) "
That is not the fundamental question. It is a false question posed by people wanting to justify discrimination.
Have you read his paper?
Have you recognised the flaw in his argument ?
There are many flaws in his arguments -ALL sacking offences?
You've just been defending them. His arguments don't 'bear examination'; they are entirely absurd.
And yes, in context, sacking offenses.
In the UK, almost certainly not; in the US - I'd be exceptionally surprised if he were to succeed in a claim of wrongful termination.
There are many flaws in his arguments -ALL sacking offences?
They don't need to all be sacking offences. Besides the fact that Americans don't need a sacking offence (simply bringing the company into disrepute is easily one and can be this side of the pond too) if ONE is a sacking offence that can be enough.
So according to an Op-Ed in the NYT the CEO should go too?
"In 1964, 1,200 members of the American Psychiatric Association declared that Barry Goldwater was psychologically unfit to be President of the United States, one of their number even going so far as to call him a paranoid schizophrenic. Goldwater may have been unfit on the grounds of his political opinions, but no evidence was of- fered of his psychological unfitness, except those opinions themselves. Again, it is doubtful whether anyone took notice of what the psychiatrists said."
"In 1964, 1,200 members of the American Psychiatric Association declared that Barry Goldwater was psychologically unfit to be President of the United States, one of their number even going so far as to call him a paranoid schizophrenic. Goldwater may have been unfit on the grounds of his political opinions, but no evidence was of- fered of his psychological unfitness, except those opinions themselves. Again, it is doubtful whether anyone took notice of what the psychiatrists said."
There are many flaws in his arguments -ALL sacking offences?
They don't need to all be sacking offences. Besides the fact that Americans don't need a sacking offence (simply bringing the company into disrepute is easily one and can be this side of the pond too) if ONE is a sacking offence that can be enough.
So according to an Op-Ed in the NYT the CEO should go too?
If the Op-Ed in the NYT is the CEO's employer and has the power to make that decision: yes.
Pissing off your employer and bringing them into disrepute is not a great way of keeping your job.
I would like to address the Google employee's paper.
There is a fundamental flaw at the heart of all discussions on racial or sexuals characteristics. Let us assume, for a second, that those with brown hair have an average IQ of 90, and those with orange hair have an average IQ of 110, and that IQ accurately measures intelligence.
Congratulations, you now know the average intelligence of a ginger and a brunette.
But you know nothing about any individual.
If you are using "gingers are more intelligent" as a heuristic, you will miss the large number of extremely smart brunettes.
Differences between individuals inside groups are orders of magnitude bigger than those between groups themselves.
He made that point on multiple occasions in his paper
"In 1964, 1,200 members of the American Psychiatric Association declared that Barry Goldwater was psychologically unfit to be President of the United States, one of their number even going so far as to call him a paranoid schizophrenic. Goldwater may have been unfit on the grounds of his political opinions, but no evidence was of- fered of his psychological unfitness, except those opinions themselves. Again, it is doubtful whether anyone took notice of what the psychiatrists said."
"In 1964, 1,200 members of the American Psychiatric Association declared that Barry Goldwater was psychologically unfit to be President of the United States, one of their number even going so far as to call him a paranoid schizophrenic. Goldwater may have been unfit on the grounds of his political opinions, but no evidence was of- fered of his psychological unfitness, except those opinions themselves. Again, it is doubtful whether anyone took notice of what the psychiatrists said."
Sadly it looks to be heading that way finally - it is already above it by some way for many tourists.
What is sad about euro/sterling parity? More successful economies than ours have manipulated their currencies downwards (Germany and China, for instance) yet in Britain an overvalued currency is seen by politicians, press and public alike as a national virility symbol.
Germany has manipulated its currency all the way down up from 3.85 to the pound in 1980, 2.77 to the pound at the time of the launch of the Euro in 1999 to an equivalent of only 2.16 to the pound today. If this is a race to the bottom, I know who my money's on.
Germany has locked in an artificially low rate by membership of the Euro. Greece, to take one example, has locked in too high a rate. If either or both countries were to exit the Euro tomorrow, we can judge which way their currencies would float.
At the time Germany first joined the Euro it was called the sick man of Europe and people were saying it had locked itself in at too high a rate. The Eurosceptic arguments change to suit the prevailing wind.
It wasn't popular in Germany either where it was nicknamed the Teuro (a pun on 'teuer', expensive) because it caused prices to rise. As I recall it took several years of quite painful reform to get through that phase.
Now Greece, Spain, Italy and Ireland have had or are still partly in the painful phase. The problem being of course that while it does force them to take the difficult but productive route, it gives them little grace in terms of time to do so. Devaluing buys time, but as we can see in or own economy sometimes leads people to ignore the fundamental weaknesses.
Exactly.
Now, Spain and Ireland have taken the bitter medicine of reform. Italy, Greece and France have not.
You cannot be in the Euro and have an inflexible labour market. (Ironic, really, that so many countries with inflexible labour markets thought the Euro was a good idea.)
I don't know whether Italy, Greece or France will "make it". And while the Eurozone could probably survive - and maybe even benefit from - the ejection of Greece, the same is clearly not true of France and Italy.
I would like to address the Google employee's paper.
There is a fundamental flaw at the heart of all discussions on racial or sexuals characteristics. Let us assume, for a second, that those with brown hair have an average IQ of 90, and those with orange hair have an average IQ of 110, and that IQ accurately measures intelligence.
Congratulations, you now know the average intelligence of a ginger and a brunette.
But you know nothing about any individual.
If you are using "gingers are more intelligent" as a heuristic, you will miss the large number of extremely smart brunettes.
Differences between individuals inside groups are orders of magnitude bigger than those between groups themselves.
He made that point on multiple occasions in his paper
BURN THE WITCH!!!!
no further questions required.
Just as well the employer isn't in the information business...
Yep (or at least one copy on the 'net - don't know if it was original). Have you? And if you did, do you understand the arguments against it?
Yes - and no - the latter often fall into the "impermissible thought" category.
I've been working in organisations trying to advance more female employment since 1980 - not for "political correctness" reasons but because it would be "better for the business" reasons - and what I've learned is that men and women interact differently - and not surprisingly women struggle in organisations with a "male" culture - which "firing dissenting employees" is a good sign of.
Despite his recent fanboys, the google employee had a point, which google have proved.
No, he didn't have a point.
Your argument on 'male' cultures is very relevant: not only do such cultures restrict the opportunities for very good women, they restrict the opportunities for very good men who do not fit whatever stereotype the 'culture' is trying to live up to.
Often, cultures in companies are used as an excuse to restrict access rather than achieve the best results.
Anything that artificially reduces the pool of candidates reduces the company's capabilities.
I would like to address the Google employee's paper.
There is a fundamental flaw at the heart of all discussions on racial or sexuals characteristics. Let us assume, for a second, that those with brown hair have an average IQ of 90, and those with orange hair have an average IQ of 110, and that IQ accurately measures intelligence.
Congratulations, you now know the average intelligence of a ginger and a brunette.
But you know nothing about any individual.
If you are using "gingers are more intelligent" as a heuristic, you will miss the large number of extremely smart brunettes.
Differences between individuals inside groups are orders of magnitude bigger than those between groups themselves.
He made that point on multiple occasions in his paper
In which case, please ignore my comment in its entirety.
For the record, gingers are clearly more intelligent than the population at large.
"In 1964, 1,200 members of the American Psychiatric Association declared that Barry Goldwater was psychologically unfit to be President of the United States, one of their number even going so far as to call him a paranoid schizophrenic. Goldwater may have been unfit on the grounds of his political opinions, but no evidence was of- fered of his psychological unfitness, except those opinions themselves. Again, it is doubtful whether anyone took notice of what the psychiatrists said."
There are many flaws in his arguments -ALL sacking offences?
They don't need to all be sacking offences. Besides the fact that Americans don't need a sacking offence (simply bringing the company into disrepute is easily one and can be this side of the pond too) if ONE is a sacking offence that can be enough.
So according to an Op-Ed in the NYT the CEO should go too?
Pissing off your employer and bringing them into disrepute is not a great way of keeping your job.
Having you writing traduced by critics and getting fired is not a great way of encouraging a diversity of opinion among your employees.
I would like to address the Google employee's paper.
There is a fundamental flaw at the heart of all discussions on racial or sexuals characteristics. Let us assume, for a second, that those with brown hair have an average IQ of 90, and those with orange hair have an average IQ of 110, and that IQ accurately measures intelligence.
Congratulations, you now know the average intelligence of a ginger and a brunette.
But you know nothing about any individual.
If you are using "gingers are more intelligent" as a heuristic, you will miss the large number of extremely smart brunettes.
Differences between individuals inside groups are orders of magnitude bigger than those between groups themselves.
He made that point on multiple occasions in his paper
In which case, please ignore my comment in its entirety.
(Snip)
IMV from reading it, he makes that point in the memo, and then oddly disregards it.
What on earth do you keep on warbling about stopping Brexit for? Its dead! Lets have a few interesting articles about the sheer opportunity for us all.
"In 1964, 1,200 members of the American Psychiatric Association declared that Barry Goldwater was psychologically unfit to be President of the United States, one of their number even going so far as to call him a paranoid schizophrenic. Goldwater may have been unfit on the grounds of his political opinions, but no evidence was of- fered of his psychological unfitness, except those opinions themselves. Again, it is doubtful whether anyone took notice of what the psychiatrists said."
But "In your guts, you know he's nuts" was a great riposte to his campaign slogan "In you heart, you know he's right".
Future question on postwar American political history:
Barry Goldwater would have made a better President than Donald Trump.
Discuss.
Goldwater would probably have launched the nukes by now. That might colour your analysis, one way or the other....
'I want to lob one into the men's room at the Kremlin and make sure I hit it.'
'Our nuclear arsenal is now bigger and better than ever before.'
Mind you, Trump has yet to say he would rather see a talk show host in bed with his wife than appear on the show.
And onetime Goldwater Girl Clinton: "… I liked Senator Goldwater because he was a rugged individualist who swam against the political tide..." I'm not sure that even a high school Hillary Clinton would have succumbed to Trump's dubious charms.
Yep (or at least one copy on the 'net - don't know if it was original). Have you? And if you did, do you understand the arguments against it?
Yes - and no - the latter often fall into the "impermissible thought" category.
I've been working in organisations trying to advance more female employment since 1980 - not for "political correctness" reasons but because it would be "better for the business" reasons - and what I've learned is that men and women interact differently - and not surprisingly women struggle in organisations with a "male" culture - which "firing dissenting employees" is a good sign of.
Despite his recent fanboys, the google employee had a point, which google have proved.
Your argument on 'male' cultures is very relevant: not only do such cultures restrict the opportunities for very good women, they restrict the opportunities for very good men who do not fit whatever stereotype the 'culture' is trying to live up to.
Often, cultures in companies are used as an excuse to restrict access rather than achieve the best results.
Anything that artificially reduces the pool of candidates reduces the company's capabilities.
I agree with all of that - but if you advanced that in google how do you think you would fare?
"Culture" is like water - it doesn't taste of anything because you're used to it.
"In 1964, 1,200 members of the American Psychiatric Association declared that Barry Goldwater was psychologically unfit to be President of the United States, one of their number even going so far as to call him a paranoid schizophrenic. Goldwater may have been unfit on the grounds of his political opinions, but no evidence was of- fered of his psychological unfitness, except those opinions themselves. Again, it is doubtful whether anyone took notice of what the psychiatrists said."
But "In your guts, you know he's nuts" was a great riposte to his campaign slogan "In you heart, you know he's right".
Future question on postwar American political history:
Barry Goldwater would have made a better President than Donald Trump.
Discuss.
Goldwater would probably have launched the nukes by now. That might colour your analysis, one way or the other....
'I want to lob one into the men's room at the Kremlin and make sure I hit it.'
'Our nuclear arsenal is now bigger and better than ever before.'
Mind you, Trump has yet to say he would rather see a talk show host in bed with his wife than appear on the show.
And onetime Goldwater Girl Clinton: "… I liked Senator Goldwater because he was a rugged individualist who swam against the political tide..." I'm not sure that even a high school Hillary Clinton would have succumbed to Trump's dubious charms.
You do know that at one time they were quite good friends? Or do you mean politically?
There are many flaws in his arguments -ALL sacking offences?
They don't need to all be sacking offences. Besides the fact that Americans don't need a sacking offence (simply bringing the company into disrepute is easily one and can be this side of the pond too) if ONE is a sacking offence that can be enough.
So according to an Op-Ed in the NYT the CEO should go too?
Pissing off your employer and bringing them into disrepute is not a great way of keeping your job.
Having you writing traduced by critics and getting fired is not a great way of encouraging a diversity of opinion among your employees.
"Think outside the box"
"You're Fired"
It depends where the diversity of opinion is being sought. On what can be done technologically absolutely Google wants people to think outside the box but that is not what the letter was about. It doesn't extend a blank cheque to everything imaginable.
What on earth do you keep on warbling about stopping Brexit for? Its dead! Lets have a few interesting articles about the sheer opportunity for us all.
Och, I don't think Brexit is dead yet, just a wee bit sickly.
Chapman is certainly making the most of his sheer (but probably ephemeral) opportunity.
What on earth do you keep on warbling about stopping Brexit for? Its dead! Lets have a few interesting articles about the sheer opportunity for us all.
Och, I don't think Brexit is dead yet, just a wee bit sickly.
Chapman is certainly making the most of his sheer (but probably ephemeral) opportunity.
His opportunity is that he's an experienced tabloid journalist who is used to generating tabloid clickbait.
More fool anyone who is taking any of this seriously.
There are many flaws in his arguments -ALL sacking offences?
They don't need to all be sacking offences. Besides the fact that Americans don't need a sacking offence (simply bringing the company into disrepute is easily one and can be this side of the pond too) if ONE is a sacking offence that can be enough.
So according to an Op-Ed in the NYT the CEO should go too?
Pissing off your employer and bringing them into disrepute is not a great way of keeping your job.
Having you writing traduced by critics and getting fired is not a great way of encouraging a diversity of opinion among your employees.
"Think outside the box"
"You're Fired"
that is not what the letter was about.
What specifically do you see as grounds for termination?
There are many flaws in his arguments -ALL sacking offences?
They don't need to all be sacking offences. Besides the fact that Americans don't need a sacking offence (simply bringing the company into disrepute is easily one and can be this side of the pond too) if ONE is a sacking offence that can be enough.
So according to an Op-Ed in the NYT the CEO should go too?
Pissing off your employer and bringing them into disrepute is not a great way of keeping your job.
Having you writing traduced by critics and getting fired is not a great way of encouraging a diversity of opinion among your employees.
"Think outside the box"
"You're Fired"
that is not what the letter was about.
What specifically do you see as grounds for termination?
I don't really understand why an employer needs to give grounds for termination. Employees, after all, aren't required to tell an employer why they're leaving.
There are many flaws in his arguments -ALL sacking offences?
They don't need to all be sacking offences. Besides the fact that Americans don't need a sacking offence (simply bringing the company into disrepute is easily one and can be this side of the pond too) if ONE is a sacking offence that can be enough.
So according to an Op-Ed in the NYT the CEO should go too?
Pissing off your employer and bringing them into disrepute is not a great way of keeping your job.
Having you writing traduced by critics and getting fired is not a great way of encouraging a diversity of opinion among your employees.
"Think outside the box"
"You're Fired"
that is not what the letter was about.
What specifically do you see as grounds for termination?
I don't really understand why an employer needs to give grounds for termination. Employees, after all, aren't required to tell an employer why they're leaving.
They don't.
But an employer dedicated to diversity might want to explain why an employee who expressed controvrsial views was terminated
There are many flaws in his arguments -ALL sacking offences?
They don't need to all be sacking offences. Besides the fact that Americans don't need a sacking offence (simply bringing the company into disrepute is easily one and can be this side of the pond too) if ONE is a sacking offence that can be enough.
So according to an Op-Ed in the NYT the CEO should go too?
Pissing off your employer and bringing them into disrepute is not a great way of keeping your job.
Having you writing traduced by critics and getting fired is not a great way of encouraging a diversity of opinion among your employees.
"Think outside the box"
"You're Fired"
that is not what the letter was about.
What specifically do you see as grounds for termination?
In an American or British sense?
In America? Anything that damages the company, or goes against the interests of the company.
Attempting to trash your company in an open letter with views that you know go against your companies policies would fall under that.
There are many flaws in his arguments -ALL sacking offences?
They don't need to all be sacking offences. Besides the fact that Americans don't need a sacking offence (simply bringing the company into disrepute is easily one and can be this side of the pond too) if ONE is a sacking offence that can be enough.
So according to an Op-Ed in the NYT the CEO should go too?
Pissing off your employer and bringing them into disrepute is not a great way of keeping your job.
Having you writing traduced by critics and getting fired is not a great way of encouraging a diversity of opinion among your employees.
"Think outside the box"
"You're Fired"
that is not what the letter was about.
What specifically do you see as grounds for termination?
In an American or British sense?
In America? Anything that damages the company, or goes against the interests of the company.
Attempting to trash your company in an open letter with views that you know go against your companies policies would fall under that.
Given the memo was internal surely those who should be fired are those who disseminated it externally?
There are many flaws in his arguments -ALL sacking offences?
They don't need to all be sacking offences. Besides the fact that Americans don't need a sacking offence (simply bringing the company into disrepute is easily one and can be this side of the pond too) if ONE is a sacking offence that can be enough.
So according to an Op-Ed in the NYT the CEO should go too?
Pissing off your employer and bringing them into disrepute is not a great way of keeping your job.
Having you writing traduced by critics and getting fired is not a great way of encouraging a diversity of opinion among your employees.
"Think outside the box"
"You're Fired"
that is not what the letter was about.
What specifically do you see as grounds for termination?
Being stupid. If you're going to think outside the box, it's not sufficient to be outside the box - it's also necessary to think. Disseminating a paper which said nothing useful about Silicon Valley hiring practices, and employed tropes similar to those used by racists to rationalise racism was not smart, to put it mildly.
There is an issue about the ease with which companies can fire employees in the US. This guy is not the one to be the martyr who exemplifies that issue.
He seems quite an odd dude, but then lots of people in tech are. The point is he wrote a discussion paper with citations to peer reviewed academic work, which then somebody stripped of the citations / edited and leaked to make it appear like he was simply ranting against diversity. Google higher ups have seen the original document and decided that firing him is the right course of action.
Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.
The memo is crass and stupid..
That may well be the case.
If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?
Possibly: that may well depend on his terms of employment or contract with the company. Certainly, its release into the public arena could (has?) damaged Google's reputation.
But as I said below, Google hasn't handled this well, either. I'm guessing the totality of the story has yet to emerge ...
If he was a Senior VP of HR then he would deserve sanction for releasing a memo that possibly didn't balance conflicting evidence.
As it is Google has proved his case - dissenting views will be punished.
Edit AFAIK the memo was released by the witch burners
Company reputation is not limited to senior positions, and he distributed it widely.
He says it had limited distribution and only within his work group where it excited little interest. It was a month after it was originally written that others distributed it widely and outside Google.
The fundamental question surely is "are men and women the same?" (In gross population terms)
He argues "no" and each population has different strengths and weaknesses. These are minor compared to individual differences, (so woman A can easily be a better leader (for example) than man , but bear examining in an organisation of tens of thousands.
Do you agree, or disagree?
Anyone who thinks men and women are not different is either a crack head or a moronic halfwitted imbecile.
Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.
The memo is crass and stupid..
That may well be the case.
If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?
Possibly: that may well depend on his terms of employment or contract with the company. Certainly, its release into the public arena could (has?) damaged Google's reputation.
But as I said below, Google hasn't handled this well, either. I'm guessing the totality of the story has yet to emerge ...
If he was a Senior VP of HR then he would deserve sanction for releasing a memo that possibly didn't balance conflicting evidence.
As it is Google has proved his case - dissenting views will be punished.
Edit AFAIK the memo was released by the witch burners
Company reputation is not limited to senior positions, and he distributed it widely.
He says it had limited distribution and only within his work group where it excited little interest. It was a month after it was originally written that others distributed it widely and outside Google.
The fundamental question surely is "are men and women the same?" (In gross population terms)
He argues "no" and each population has different strengths and weaknesses. These are minor compared to individual differences, (so woman A can easily be a better leader (for example) than man , but bear examining in an organisation of tens of thousands.
Nope, the fundamental question is why there is an 80/20 disparity between men and women in tech. His argument about 'minor population differences' is effectively self refuting.
So firing employees who advance theories is a solution?
That's a different question. You were defending his argument; I said it was absurd. US companies fire a lot of people for worse reasons - or no reason at all, as US law, unlike ours, allows.
Most americans are on "at will" contracts so either party can sack or resign at will.
And I'd have slightly more sympathy with the anti-PC brigade here, had they displayed any previous concern for US hire and fire practices. Anyone would think from today's furore that they are supporters of EU employment rights....
Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.
The memo is crass and stupid..
That may well be the case. If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?
Possibly: that may well depend on his terms of employment or contract with the company. Certainly, its release into the public arena could (has?) damaged Google's reputation.
But as I said below, Google hasn't handled this well, either. I'm guessing the totality of the story has yet to emerge ...
If he was a Senior VP of HR then he would deserve sanction for releasing a memo that possibly didn't balance conflicting evidence. As it is Google has proved his case - dissenting views will be punished. Edit AFAIK the memo was released by the witch burnes
Company reputation is not limited to senior positions, and he distributed it widely.
.
Nope, the fundamental question is why there is an 80/20 disparity between men and women in tech. His argument about 'minor population differences' is effectively self refuting.
So firing employees who advance theories is a solution?
That's a different question. You were defending his argument; I said it was absurd. US companies fire a lot of people for worse reasons - or no reason at all, as US law, unlike ours, allows.
Don`t worry. Ours will too, if the hard-line Tories get their wicked way.
They can get rid of you here at will for a few thousand pounds so we are not far off America, at worst they have a sham consultation and then get rid of people for peanuts.
"In 1964, 1,200 members of the American Psychiatric Association declared that Barry Goldwater was psychologically unfit to be President of the United States, one of their number even going so far as to call him a paranoid schizophrenic. Goldwater may have been unfit on the grounds of his political opinions, but no evidence was of- fered of his psychological unfitness, except those opinions themselves. Again, it is doubtful whether anyone took notice of what the psychiatrists said."
But "In your guts, you know he's nuts" was a great riposte to his campaign slogan "In you heart, you know he's right".
Future question on postwar American political history:
Barry Goldwater would have made a better President than Donald Trump.
Discuss.
Goldwater would probably have launched the nukes by now. That might colour your analysis, one way or the other....
'I want to lob one into the men's room at the Kremlin and make sure I hit it.'
'Our nuclear arsenal is now bigger and better than ever before.'
Mind you, Trump has yet to say he would rather see a talk show host in bed with his wife than appear on the show.
And onetime Goldwater Girl Clinton: "… I liked Senator Goldwater because he was a rugged individualist who swam against the political tide..." I'm not sure that even a high school Hillary Clinton would have succumbed to Trump's dubious charms.
You do know that at one time they were quite good friends? Or do you mean politically?
Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.
The memo is crass and stupid..
That may well be the case.
If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?
Possibly: that may well depend on his terms of employment or contract with the company. Certainly, its release into the public arena could (has?) damaged Google's reputation.
But as I said below, Google hasn't handled this well, either. I'm guessing the totality of the story has yet to emerge ...
If he was a Senior VP of HR then he would deserve sanction for releasing a memo that possibly didn't balance conflicting evidence.
Edit AFAIK the memo was released by the witch burners
Company reputation is not limited to senior positions, and he distributed it widely.
He says it had limited distribution and only within his work group where it excited little interest. It was a month after it was originally written that others distributed it widely and outside Google.
The fundamental question surely is "are men and women the same?" (In gross population terms)
He argues "no" and each population has different strengths and weaknesses. These are minor compared to individual differences, (so woman A can easily be a better leader (for example) than man , but bear examining in an organisation of tens of thousands.
Nope, the fundamental question is why there is an 80/20 disparity between men and women in tech. His argument about 'minor population differences' is effectively self refuting.
So firing employees who advance theories is a solution?
That's a different question. You were defending his argument; I said it was absurd. US companies fire a lot of people for worse reasons - or no reason at all, as US law, unlike ours, allows.
Most americans are on "at will" contracts so either party can sack or resign at will.
Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.
The memo is crass and stupid..
That may well be the case.
If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?
Possibly: that may well depend on his terms of employment or contract with the company. Certainly, its release into the public arena could (has?) damaged Google's reputation.
But as I said below, Google hasn't handled this well, either. I'm guessing the totality of the story has yet to emerge ...
If he was a Senior VP of HR then he would deserve sanction for releasing a memo that possibly didn't balance conflicting evidence.
Edit AFAIK the memo was released by the witch burners
Company reputation is not limited to senior positions, and he distributed it widely.
Nope, the fundamental question is why there is an 80/20 disparity between men and women in tech. His argument about 'minor population differences' is effectively self refuting.
So firing employees who advance theories is a solution?
That's a different question. You were defending his argument; I said it was absurd. US companies fire a lot of people for worse reasons - or no reason at all, as US law, unlike ours, allows.
Most americans are on "at will" contracts so either party can sack or resign at will.
There are many flaws in his arguments -ALL sacking offences?
They don't need to all be sacking offences. Besides the fact that Americans don't need a sacking offence (simply bringing the company into disrepute is easily one and can be this side of the pond too) if ONE is a sacking offence that can be enough.
So according to an Op-Ed in the NYT the CEO should go too?
Pissing off your employer and bringing them into disrepute is not a great way of keeping your job.
Having you writing traduced by critics and getting fired is not a great way of encouraging a diversity of opinion among your employees.
"Think outside the box"
"You're Fired"
that is not what the letter was about.
What specifically do you see as grounds for termination?
In an American or British sense?
In America? Anything that damages the company, or goes against the interests of the company.
Attempting to trash your company in an open letter with views that you know go against your companies policies would fall under that.
Given the memo was internal surely those who should be fired are those who disseminated it externally?
No. As soon as you release a memo there is every possibility it will leak. Especially if the memo ks deliberately controversial.
I guess the email wouldn't have come out of the blue - his problem in claiming compensation might be a history of boring chats to his coworkers, complaints to his managers about other's promotions, complaints to HR...
Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.
The memo is crass and stupid..
That may well be the case.
If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?
Possibly: that may well depend on his terms of employment or contract with the company. Certainly, its release into the public arena could (has?) damaged Google's reputation.
But as I said below, Google hasn't handled this well, either. I'm guessing the totality of the story has yet to emerge ...
If he was a Senior VP of HR then he would deserve sanction for releasing a memo that possibly didn't balance conflicting evidence.
Edit AFAIK the memo was released by the witch burners
Company reputation is not limited to senior positions, and he distributed it widely.
Nope, the fundamental question is why there is an 80/20 disparity between men and women in tech. His argument about 'minor population differences' is effectively self refuting.
So firing employees who advance theories is a solution?
That's a different question. You were defending his argument; I said it was absurd. US companies fire a lot of people for worse reasons - or no reason at all, as US law, unlike ours, allows.
Most americans are on "at will" contracts so either party can sack or resign at will.
I guess the email wouldn't have come out of the blue - his problem in claiming compensation might be a history of boring chats to his coworkers, complaints to his managers about other's promotions, complaints to HR...
I suspect you're right. It's always dangerous to look at these things in isolation.
I guess the email wouldn't have come out of the blue - his problem in claiming compensation might be a history of boring chats to his coworkers, complaints to his managers about other's promotions, complaints to HR...
I suspect you're right. It's always dangerous to look at these things in isolation.
We'd have nothing to talk about if you enforced that rule!
City champions elect? Hard to see past them in my opinion.
It's them or Spurs in my opinion. Perhaps if United take advantage of their easy start they could have a chance.
If United get Bale before the transfer window shuts they might give City a game but short of that I can't see anyone matching City's strength in depth.
Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.
The memo is crass and stupid..
That may well be the case.
If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?
Possibly: that may well depend on his terms of employment or contract with the company. Certainly, its release into the public arena could (has?) damaged Google's reputation.
But as I said below, Google hasn't handled this well, either. I'm guessing the totality of the story has yet to emerge ...
If he was a Senior VP of HR then he would deserve sanction for releasing a memo that possibly didn't balance conflicting evidence.
Edit AFAIK the memo was released by the witch burners
Company reputation is not limited to senior positions, and he distributed it widely.
Nope, the fundamental question is why there is an 80/20 disparity between men and women in tech. His argument about 'minor population differences' is effectively self refuting.
So firing employees who advance theories is a solution?
That's a different question. You were defending his argument; I said it was absurd. US companies fire a lot of people for worse reasons - or no reason at all, as US law, unlike ours, allows.
Most americans are on "at will" contracts so either party can sack or resign at will.
We don't know that it has been lost: it could be renegotiated as part of a new arrangement between governments.
I'm also questioning whether your use of the word "right" is helpful. You have a benefit - the ability to work in multiple countries - but not an inalienable right.
The original discussion - many, many centuries ago now - was initiated by the OP who said he was unaware of rights that were lost. I listed some, one of which the right to live and work in other countries. Whether we refer to it as a "right", a "benefit", an "option" or whether we qualify it as "fundamental" or "inalienable"(?!) or even "elemental" is not germane to the point: namely that he currently has it and post-Brexit he will not.
As to your point that it might be regained: well, I hope so. But I fear it will be the same as Johnson's mooted freedom of movement between UK & Australia: allow people to come in but prevent me from going out. .
My argument is that something which is a byproduct of an agreement between two third parties is not a right. So no "rights" have been lost.
I am on the verge of quoting Dostoyevsky at you, so it's probably best if we leave it there. For future reference I do disagree with you.
We don't know that it has been lost: it could be renegotiated as part of a new arrangement between governments.
I'm also questioning whether your use of the word "right" is helpful. You have a benefit - the ability to work in multiple countries - but not an inalienable right.
The original discussion - many, many centuries ago now - was initiated by the OP who said he was unaware of rights that were lost. I listed some, one of which the right to live and work in other countries. Whether we refer to it as a "right", a "benefit", an "option" or whether we qualify it as "fundamental" or "inalienable"(?!) or even "elemental" is not germane to the point: namely that he currently has it and post-Brexit he will not.
As to your point that it might be regained: well, I hope so. But I fear it will be the same as Johnson's mooted freedom of movement between UK & Australia: allow people to come in but prevent me from going out. .
My argument is that something which is a byproduct of an agreement between two third parties is not a right. So no "rights" have been lost.
I am on the verge of quoting Dostoyevsky at you, so it's probably best if we leave it there. For future reference I do disagree with you.
Quoting Dostoyevsky is a crime. Let the knowledge of your transgretion be punishment enough.
Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.
The memo is crass and stupid..
That may well be the case.
If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?
Possibly: that may well depend on his terms of employment or contract with the company. Certainly, its release into the public arena could (has?) damaged Google's reputation.
But as I said below, Google hasn't handled this well, either. I'm guessing the totality of the story has yet to emerge ...
If he was a Senior VP of HR then he would deserve sanction for releasing a memo that possibly didn't balance conflicting evidence.
Edit AFAIK the memo was released by the witch burners
Company reputation is not limited to senior positions, and he distributed it widely.
Nope, the fundamental question is why there is an 80/20 disparity between men and women in tech. His argument about 'minor population differences' is effectively self refuting.
So firing employees who advance theories is a solution?
That's a different question. You were defending his argument; I said it was absurd. US companies fire a lot of people for worse reasons - or no reason at all, as US law, unlike ours, allows.
Most americans are on "at will" contracts so either party can sack or resign at will.
Comments
This is another example: http://www.vulture.com/2017/08/the-toxic-drama-of-ya-twitter.html
Men and women are not the same.
Whether their biological differences make any difference in the tech world is an interesting question, but not one that anyone can have a meaningful discussion on as this incident shows.
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/8/11/16130452/google-memo-women-tech-biology-sexism
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/11/female-google-engineer-on-viral-memo-i-was-painfully-unsurprised.html
+ more.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment
At-will employment has also been identified as a reason for the success of Silicon Valley as an entrepreneur-friendly environment...
I find it notable that only now, when someone's particular prejudice has been twitted, that they should display such concern for the rather draconian hiring and firing practices which are commonplace in the US.
Now Greece, Spain, Italy and Ireland have had or are still partly in the painful phase. The problem being of course that while it does force them to take the difficult but productive route, it gives them little grace in terms of time to do so. Devaluing buys time, but as we can see in or own economy sometimes leads people to ignore the fundamental weaknesses.
"Men are better than women at x"
"That means that when I interview someone, I should consider whether the candidate is male or female, regardless of the skills of the individual."
"Consequently, if the company has fewer women doing x, then that's all good and well, as men are better. I will, of course, ignore the fact that the difference between men and women in x is only 0.1%, and we have just 5% women..."
From 'Yes Minister':
'The economic situation is invariably either dire or catastrophic.'
When was the last time we had a fundamentally sound and well-balanced economy? I'm almost inclined to say 1880 before the onset of the First Great Depression but I think that would be an exaggeration.
I've been working in organisations trying to advance more female employment since 1980 - not for "political correctness" reasons but because it would be "better for the business" reasons - and what I've learned is that men and women interact differently - and not surprisingly women struggle in organisations with a "male" culture - which "firing dissenting employees" is a good sign of.
Despite his recent fanboys, the google employee had a point, which google have proved.
Chelsea 3 down at home to Burnley.
A betting shop has closed down in East Ham.
I blame Brexit/Thatcher/our alien overlords/Corbyn/chlorinated chicken/Tony Blair/the EU/ the Illuminati (delete as appropriate).
There is a fundamental flaw at the heart of all discussions on racial or sexuals characteristics. Let us assume, for a second, that those with brown hair have an average IQ of 90, and those with orange hair have an average IQ of 110, and that IQ accurately measures intelligence.
Congratulations, you now know the average intelligence of a ginger and a brunette.
But you know nothing about any individual.
If you are using "gingers are more intelligent" as a heuristic, you will miss the large number of extremely smart brunettes.
Differences between individuals inside groups are orders of magnitude bigger than those between groups themselves.
BURN THE WITCH!!!!!
Anyone who works in IT and isn't yet aware of the idea that something circulated online can go viral beyond the original circle is clearly too stupid to work in IT.
Interesting fact:
"In 1964, 1,200 members of the American Psychiatric Association declared that Barry Goldwater was psychologically unfit to be President of the United States, one of their number even going so far as to call him a paranoid schizophrenic. Goldwater may have been unfit on the grounds of his political opinions, but no evidence was of- fered of his psychological unfitness, except those opinions themselves. Again, it is doubtful whether anyone took notice of what the psychiatrists said."
http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/17th-march-1984/15/who-is-deluded
And blondes?
And yes, in context, sacking offenses.
In the UK, almost certainly not; in the US - I'd be exceptionally surprised if he were to succeed in a claim of wrongful termination.
Pissing off your employer and bringing them into disrepute is not a great way of keeping your job.
Barry Goldwater would have made a better President than Donald Trump.
Discuss.
That might colour your analysis, one way or the other....
Now, Spain and Ireland have taken the bitter medicine of reform. Italy, Greece and France have not.
You cannot be in the Euro and have an inflexible labour market. (Ironic, really, that so many countries with inflexible labour markets thought the Euro was a good idea.)
I don't know whether Italy, Greece or France will "make it". And while the Eurozone could probably survive - and maybe even benefit from - the ejection of Greece, the same is clearly not true of France and Italy.
no further questions required.
Just as well the employer isn't in the information business...
Your argument on 'male' cultures is very relevant: not only do such cultures restrict the opportunities for very good women, they restrict the opportunities for very good men who do not fit whatever stereotype the 'culture' is trying to live up to.
Often, cultures in companies are used as an excuse to restrict access rather than achieve the best results.
Anything that artificially reduces the pool of candidates reduces the company's capabilities.
For the record, gingers are clearly more intelligent than the population at large.
'Our nuclear arsenal is now bigger and better than ever before.'
Mind you, Trump has yet to say he would rather see a talk show host in bed with his wife than appear on the show.
"Think outside the box"
"You're Fired"
"… I liked Senator Goldwater because he was a rugged individualist who swam against the political tide..."
I'm not sure that even a high school Hillary Clinton would have succumbed to Trump's dubious charms.
"Culture" is like water - it doesn't taste of anything because you're used to it.
This is not a new problem.
Daydreaming (about Brexit)
2+2=5 (Brexit means World War 3!)
15 Steps (Then a sheer drop)
Reckoner (You are not to blame)
Nude (Oh my)
Burn the Witch
I Want To Break Free
Radio Gaga
Innuendo
Under Pressure
The Show Must Go On
Another One Bites The Dust
Mr. Meeks, or:
Breakthru
Heaven For Everyone?
YouTube is great.
Queen vs Radiohead.
Is that even a contest?
Chapman is certainly making the most of his sheer (but probably ephemeral) opportunity.
More fool anyone who is taking any of this seriously.
But an employer dedicated to diversity might want to explain why an employee who expressed controvrsial views was terminated
As Google are finding out.
In America? Anything that damages the company, or goes against the interests of the company.
Attempting to trash your company in an open letter with views that you know go against your companies policies would fall under that.
If you're going to think outside the box, it's not sufficient to be outside the box - it's also necessary to think.
Disseminating a paper which said nothing useful about Silicon Valley hiring practices, and employed tropes similar to those used by racists to rationalise racism was not smart, to put it mildly.
There is an issue about the ease with which companies can fire employees in the US. This guy is not the one to be the martyr who exemplifies that issue.
(spoken as a true Spurs fan...since the days of Irving Scholar)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-iIMNGs228
Less than the pay rise I've had this year and much less than what my financial assets have increased by.
I am thus better off and you seem to be bitter about it.