Regardless of whether you agreed with the letter or not, it's 100% correct in asserting that it's super difficult to have productive, rational conversations about the issue of diversity. Google just reinforced that fact.
Perhaps more important (for Google, at least) is to be compliant with employment law, than to allow "rational conversations about the issue of diversity."
California is an at-will state. They won't be able to fire you for participating on a Trump rally or donating to Hillary Clinton, but sure as hell they can fire you for creating a hostile workplace, which is what this guy did.
Unless he can convince a judge that "creating a hostile workplace" is a euphemism for "having a political view management disagrees with".
Which might be easy. After all, he just alleged the Google workplace is clearly hostile to conservatives ... and they fired him for it. The argument that he was creating a hostile workplace is very weak. The argument that Pichai is, is very strong.
Right. The reason why this created a massive controversy was because he didn't do anything to stir up controversy. I get it, you really want to give this guy a pass because you agree with him, but reality doesn't agree with you.
"Controversy" is the easiest thing in the world to abuse. Anyone who doesn't like an opinion on anything can say it's "controversial" and therefore shouldn't be spoken about it in case it upsets people.
Mature organisations and cultures can tackle controversial topics. Google used to be able to do that too. It obviously cannot anymore.
> Mature organisations and cultures can tackle controversial topics. Google used to be able to do that too. It obviously cannot anymore.
You do realize that it wasn't the controversy that landed this guy in hot water, but rather the veiled attempt at using pseudo-science to create a conspiracy theory about Google discriminating against males, right?
The scientists who wrote the papers he cited said he got it right, and it wasn't pseudo-science at all. And there's no conspiracy theory: the things he talked about have happened.
The way in which you describe actual science as pseudo-science because you don't like the conclusions is very scary, by the way.
The scientists that wrote the papers were concerned with a single field of science. There's a whole societal context that's not considered, and that is what makes his position pseudo-science: just like phrenology, finding correlation and assuming causation is just bad science.
> The way in which you describe actual science as pseudo-science because you don't like the conclusions is very scary, by the way.
The way you describe cherry-picked papers on a single field of science as definite proof of your world view is really scary too. How low will you lower your bar to explain the world in terms you like?
Look, I'm not a huge fan of social science or psychology myself, but that's because they have trouble reproducing things. The scientists he cited and who wrote in support of him are social scientists and psychologists. They are discussing reproducible results. Are you saying that no psychological finding, no matter how reproducible, can ever be used if it's related to gender?
If you have hard scientific evidence with scientists willing to go on the record and say, no, in fact, there are no innate differences between the preferences of men and women, it's all just lies and in fact girls love computers when they are children just as much as boys and here's why the other studies are all flawed ... sure. Show them to us.
As it is, you look like someone who is scrabbling around for an excuse to ignore perfectly valid scientific debating by disclaiming entire fields as "pseudo science" and "cherry picked". Please debate properly - make real rebuttals with evidence.
He isn't citing anyone, he just stated "facts." Please show me the citations? Where are all these papers? Where are the peer reviews on the "facts" he mentions?
> Are you saying that no psychological finding, no matter how reproducible, can ever be used if it's related to gender?
Going back to the absolute lack of references, I am not dismissing any particular study, but rather the right-wing knee-jerk reaction that "the world is fine the way it is, and people trying to change it are just destroying the perfect equilibrium we live in." It's almost like the last century of social changes hasn't happened. Talk about disregard for evidence.
> If you have hard scientific evidence with scientists willing to go on the record and say, no, in fact, there are no innate differences between the preferences of men and women
Cute, asking to prove a negative. Let's use the same idea: do you have hard scientific proof and scientists willing to back it in public that a push for increasing diversity in engineering will go nowhere because the field is already in perfect balance? No? Didn't think so.
Also, I'm not saying there are no innate differences, but that ignoring the current societal context by pushing a theory that explains all behavior using genetic traits is ridiculous. By using the same standard, going back to pre-WW2 (which forced women into the workforce) we could assume that "women are only interested in domestic tasks".
> Show them to us.
Nice. I like that you identify with this group. I'm tired of people pussyfooting around trying to push the rhetoric, while at the same time trying to divorce themselves from the author. Good on you.
> As it is, you look like someone who is scrabbling around for an excuse to ignore perfectly valid scientific debating by disclaiming entire fields as "pseudo science" and "cherry picked". Please debate properly - make real rebuttals with evidence.
Again, show me the paper, show me how they play in the whole context of current society, and maybe I'll take you seriously. Until then, you look like someone cherry-picking data to paint the world to their liking.
Now, here's the trick. You got what you asked for. Will you change your perspective? I find myself somehow dubious because the root cause of the disagreement is you believe the world both is and should be entirely malleable, and that forced social engineering (e.g. by firing people with particular worldviews from influential organisations like Google) is a legitimate way to achieve particular ends.
You don't need to go very far and blame Google for the level of difficulty. Making generalizations based on sex and without references is hostile from the get go.
If you want to have a rational conversation, have it rationally.
Regardless of whether you agreed with the letter or not, it's 100% correct in asserting that it's super difficult to have productive, rational conversations about the issue of diversity. Google just reinforced that fact.