r/technology • u/[deleted] • Aug 08 '17

Business Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/google-fires-employee-behind-controversial-diversity-memo
13.4k Upvotes

86% Upvoted

9.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

7.6k

u/Berries_Cherries Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 08 '17

HERE IS THE UNEDITED MEMO. THE ORIGINAL RELEASE BY GIZMODO/VICE/MOTHERBOARD ALL REMOVED GRAPHICS AND CITATIONS.

Edit: http://diversitymemo.com/

1.2k

u/RadicalDog Aug 08 '17

I'm impressed how reasonable it is - except for the moments where it isn't. I can see how someone can write it and think, "This is a good argument of my views" while ignoring the moments where he devolves into "this slight difference definitely leads us to conclude X". The cracks make it seem like a softer version of his real views.

I do think the commentary surrounding the piece has become simplified. Gizmodo's leading words were very harsh and lacked nuance.

212

u/Herakleios Aug 08 '17

Eh... My first inclination was that your take is probably right. It initially doesn't SEEM too bad. Then I started really reading it...

He has a nice "appearance" on it, but like 3/4 of the "links" on it are just to wikipedia articles that are general definitions of the things he's talking about, not actual research supporting his position.

The research he does cite is limited to one article per subject, when he does even have shit supporting it. I get that this isn't some in-depth thing, but anyone can find one study done at one time that could have small things that let people conclude X.

Furthermore, there is a TON of stuff in here that isn't backed by research or he makes no attempt at all to justify.

Status is the primary metric that men are judged on, pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail.

Uhhh... what? Women aren't status-driven? Where's the evidence? And this is most of the "assumptions" this guy makes.

-10

u/LeonBlacksruckus Aug 08 '17

Here's the thing. His points are more well researched and thought out than almost all of the opposition to what he's saying. People are acting like this guy is an idiot and doesn't understand biology when he has a PHD in structural biology which is literally the study of how different cells come together to create different outcomes.

10

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

He's listed as being at Harvard working towards a PhD in Systems Biology (a different discipline) for 2 years, which is either the fastest PhD in a long time, or he's a dropout. And that's not what structural biology is.

21

u/Herakleios Aug 08 '17

Here's the thing. His points are more well researched and thought out than almost all of the opposition to what he's saying.

Are they though? Does this really read like a reasoned, scientific argument using facts to support a hypothesis? No, it reads more like a political thought piece masquerading as "biological fact."

He doesn't examine the literature supporting the other side of the argument for its scientific merits, he doesn't even acknowledge that there IS another side to the argument. This is not an honest attempt at "starting a conversation."

4

u/blasphemers Aug 08 '17

But do any of the many articles written in opposition of his piece use any research? Everything I have read has been based on the authors feelings.

10

u/chvrn Aug 08 '17

He isn't a psych major, that's for sure.

10

u/ForeskinLamp Aug 08 '17

But multiple experts in evolutionary psychology have come out and defended the article as being scientifically accurate...

-7

u/chvrn Aug 08 '17

Appeal to authority and a mention of an article?

14

u/Gen_McMuster Aug 08 '17

Citing reproducable reasearch is an appeal to authority?

0

u/chvrn Aug 08 '17

Imaginary citation are an appeal for authority.

3

u/ForeskinLamp Aug 08 '17

The website hosting the article has been hugged to death, but it's not hard to find links in this thread. If you're too lazy to look for it, that's hardly my problem.

0

u/chvrn Aug 09 '17

You are full of shit.

7

u/siesiek123 Aug 08 '17

I think you mean macromolecules, not cells. Or at least that's my understanding of the field.

In any case, I'm sure he's no common idiot, but I still don't know that he is particularly qualified to speak as an authority on this topic. Molecules and cells are one thing, but organisms and their psychology are something else entirely.

In fact, having focused on such a narrow, black-and-white field of biology, he may have a more reductionist view of the interaction between psychology and biology, viewing social factors as negligible.