Sign in to follow this  
Michael Stuart Kelly

Google, Indoctrination and James Damore

Recommended Posts

Google, Indoctrination and James Damore

There is a former employee at Google who got fired for stating facts, especially about differences between males and females and about an oppressive SJW culture now contaminating Google's employee culture. His name is James Damore.

Here is his paper with links and graphs, albeit some links are now broken.

Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber

The reason I mention the links and graphs is that this paper went all over the place in the mainstream fake news with these items deleted and a few other alterations as the article writers vented their righteous indignation against Damore's "pseudoscience." See here at Gizmodo for a typical sleazy example. They don't use the term "pseudoscience," but they emphasize that the paper is Damore's opinion and nothing more than opinion--and they do this after cutting out all the science in the paper. What's more, Gizmodo says the article is updated, but they did not put the links or graphs, etc., back in.

For fact geeks, there is a pretty good collection at Heavy about this affair: James Damore: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know. Also, as a reaction, some scientists are publicly stating that Damore's portrayal of the science is accurate (see here).

Damore is probably going to be all right. He's getting job offers galore (including from WikiLeaks) and he's got a great case for a discrimination unlawful firing suit against Google. And to be fair to Google, it is currently embroiled in a potential massive gender discrimination suit (see here: More than 60 women consider suing Google, claiming sexism and a pay gap), so Damore's paper was probably about as welcome as rain to a sinking ship.

But the real reason I'm posting this is something that caught my eye in the Stephen Molyneux interview with Damore below (the interview was uploaded to YouTube Aug. 8, 2017).

The creepy creepy big honking creepy part for me was in a throwaway moment right in the middle (16:26).

Transcript (my bold):

Quote

MOLYNEUX: Now what was your thought process around this... I wish I had the right word for a change... it's been called all these.. you know... nonsense... screed... It's like it's an essay, an argument, a perspective... I think an argument is better because it's tightly reasoned. It's got lots of source notes and so on. Did you have, like, that Jerry Maguire moment where it's like, "I'm gonna write this thing!" Or is it just something where you're making notes for yourself and you built the case and thought: Wow, this is important to share. What was the process of generating the arguments?

DAMORE: Hmm... Yeah... So I went to a diversity program at Google and it was all... it wasn't recorded at all. It was totally secretive and... you know I heard things that I definitely disagreed with, and some of our programs (sic)... So I had some discussions with people there, but it was... there was a lot of just shaming and... "No, you can't say that"... "That's sexist"... "You can't do this"... and there's just so much hypocrisy in a lot of the things that they were saying... but... So I decided to create the document just, you know, to clarify my thoughts. And, also, I had to fly to China for work so I had a 12-hour flight to fill my time with, so (laughs)... that was one motivation.

What the hell is a totally secretive diversity program where they shame you to shape your behavior?

Hmmmmm?...

Doesn't this sound more suited to a communist indoctrination camp or a cult?

Come on, Google.

You can do better than this...

Don't be evil, goddammit.

Michael

 

EDIT: There is now an online website version of the document and it has all the links and graphs: Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber (website version).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brant Gaede    1

The man expected to get fired and getting the resultant publicity. This is an extremely effective publicity tactic and I applaud him for it.

This will benefit Google if they realize what a sea of shit they are swimming in and do something about it. Otherwise the company will fail slowly over time. The reason is if the various layers of a company aren't communicating with each other it won't survive major sea changes in its productive-economic environment. This is explained in Andy Groves great book, Only the Paranoid Survive.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is Jordan Peterson's interview with James Damore.

Note that Dr. Peterson recently had his YouTube account canceled and was informed that it would not be reinstated under any circumstance. Articles about this ban started appearing (kicked off at The Daily Caller) and within a few hours, the account was reinstated without comment from YouTube.

Dr. Peterson is a harsh critic of postmodernism and the SWJ movements on college campuses, including feminism. But he's not a politician or ideologue. He comes at it from a unique perspective that is a mix of psychology, evolution, literature, culture and history. (Apropos, I find Dr. Peterson extremely compatible with the ideas of Ayn Rand, with a few adjustments for scope and meaning.)

I am listening to this right now, but I wanted to post it right away. I already know it will be good stuff.

Also, in the YouTube description, Dr. Peterson included all the links. I only visited a few so far, but I suspect he found alternatives for the broken links in Damore's PDF. Here is the description written by Dr. Peterson:

Quote

In this video, I talk to James Damore and another employee who wishes to remain anonymous about James' memo regarding Google's diversity programs and their overweening ideological basis. He was fired last night. That says everything that needs to be said.

This means that the company that is arguably in charge of more of the world's communication than any other has now fired a promising engineer for stating a series of established scientific truths. That's worth thinking about. 

A fund-raiser for James has been established, here: https://www.wesearchr.com/bounties/ja...

Hate facts: references (full papers linked where possible):

Sex differences in personality: 
http://bit.ly/2gJVmEp
http://bit.ly/2vEKTUx
Larger/large and stable sex differences in more gender-neutral countries: (Note: these findings runs precisely and exactly contrary to social constructionist theory: thus, it's been tested, and it's wrong). 
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...
http://bit.ly/2uoY9c4
(Women's) interest in things vs (men's) interest in things: 
http://bit.ly/2wtlbzU
http://bit.ly/2fsq7Ru
The importance of exposure to sex-linked steroids on fetal and then lifetime development:
http://bit.ly/2vP0ZLS
Exposure to prenatal testosterone and interest in things (even when the exposure is among females):
http://bit.ly/2wI28RE
Primarily biological basis of personality sex differences:
http://bit.ly/2vmtSMs
http://bit.ly/2uoPzy0
Status and sex: males and females
http://bit.ly/2uoWkMh
http://bit.ly/2uoIOw8
http://bit.ly/2vNzcL6
To quote de Bruyn et al (first reference on status and sex, above): high status predicts more mating opportunities and, thus, increased reproductive success. “This is true for human adults in many cultures, both ‘modern’ as well as ‘primitive’ (Betzig, 1986). In fact, this theory seems to be confirmed for non-human primates (Cheney, 1983; Cowlishaw and Dunbar, 1991; Dewsbury, 1982; Gray, 1985; Maslow, 1936) and other animals from widely differing ecologies (Ellis, 1995) such as squirrels (Farentinos, 1972), cockerels (Kratzer and Craig, 1980), and cockroaches (Breed, Smith, and Gall, 1980).” Status also increases female reproductive success, via a different pathway: “For females, it is generally argued that dominance is not necessarily a path to more copulations, as it is for males. It appears that important benefits bestowed upon dominant women are access to resources and less harassment from rivals (Campbell, 2002). Thus, dominant females tend to have higher offspring survival rates, at least among simians (Pusey, Williams, and Goodall, 1997); thus, dominance among females also appears to be linked to reproductive success.”
Personality and political belief
http://bit.ly/2hJ1Kjb
http://bit.ly/2fsxIzB
http://bit.ly/2fsILJd
http://bit.ly/2uoPS87
http://bit.ly/2ftDhOq
Conscientiousness associated with conservatism; neuroticism and agreeableness with liberalism: http://bit.ly/2wHNA4r
Occupations by gender:
https://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/occ_gend...

My links:
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/jordanbpeterson
Self Authoring: http://selfauthoring.com/
Jordan Peterson Website: http://jordanbpeterson.com/
Podcast: http://jordanbpeterson.com/jordan-b-p...
Reading List: http://jordanbpeterson.com/2017/03/gr...
Twitter: https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marcus    0

It's their company and they can run it however they see fit. Capitalism 101.

James Damore and his ilk are free to set up their own Google competitor, exclude the "untermenschen" and employ 100% men if that's their prerogative.

P.S.

(Of course you and I both know he doesn't have the chops to do such a thing)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BaalChatzaf    0
7 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

More reaction:

:)

Michael

Do you realize that Google is The Circle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brant Gaede    1
7 hours ago, Marcus said:

It's their company and they can run it however they see fit. Capitalism 101.

James Damore and his ilk are free to set up their own Google competitor, exclude the "untermenschen" and employ 100% men if that's their prerogative.

P.S.

(Of course you and I both know he doesn't have the chops to do such a thing)

But he does have chops.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marcus    0
3 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

But he does have chops.

--Brant

Just not to start another Google. Heh. Racists (with the exception of Hitler) don't tend toward having ambitions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Marcus said:

It's their company and they can run it however they see fit. Capitalism 101.

I wish this were true.

Alphabet is one of the worst crony corporatist companies in the world right now. They were even one of the main players behind that mess called the Arab Spring.

Also, one of the main actors in the Damore affair, Google's chief diversity officer, Danielle Brown, (or maybe vice chief or whatever, there are conflicting reports in the MSM) is a radical left-wing activist who was important in Hillary Clinton's campaign. Brown was probably directly instrumental in firing Damore. She has certainly been blasting him as if she were.

Alphabet is shot through and through with Clintonites at the senior management level. Tsk tsk tsk... They bet on the wrong horse and... sniff sniff... had to take their grubby hands out of the public coffers. Not all, but a lot. And that hurts...

Of course, Alphabet can hire whoever they want. That would be simple capitalism. But there are all those damn entanglements with governments, not just in the USA, but all over the world.

So, no... Just like governments cannot run their organizations as they see fit and have moral validation, crony corporations in bed with governments have forgone that right and privilege. They have other masters to obey. And even on the freedom side, they have triggered the rights of others. 

The moment someone points a gun at my head, he has given up his right to not be attacked. 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marcus    0
6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I wish this were true.

Alphabet is one of the worst crony corporatist companies in the world right now. They were even one of the main players behind that mess called the Arab Spring.

Also, one of the main actors in the Damore affair, Google's chief diversity officer, Danielle Brown, (or maybe vice chief or whatever, there are conflicting reports in the MSM) is a radical left-wing activist who was important in Hillary Clinton's campaign. Brown was probably directly instrumental in firing Damore. She has certainly been blasting him as if she were.

Alphabet is shot through and through with Clintonites at the senior management level. Tsk tsk tsk... They bet on the wrong horse and... sniff sniff... had to take their grubby hands out of the public coffers. Not all, but a lot. And that hurts...

Of course, Alphabet can hire whoever they want. That would be simple capitalism. But there are all those damn entanglements with governments, not just in the USA, but all over the world.

So, no... Just like governments cannot run their organizations as they see fit and have moral validation, crony corporations in bed with governments have forgone that right and privilege. They have other masters to obey. And even on the freedom side, they have triggered the rights of others. 

The moment someone points a gun at my head, he has given up his right to not be attacked. 

Michael

Why single out just Google/Alphabet? What major company isn't "crony capitalist"? What major company isn't lobbying government? If they morally sanctioned his racism/sexism and allowed James Damore to stay would that make them more agreeable to you? If they dropped support for Clinton and became pro-Trump would this still be a problem?

Its not Googles fault they have to lobby government in order to keep a gun from being pointed at *them*. Certainly they did not start out that way. Never mind Google is one of the worlds most productive and valuable companies with or without government aid. I see Google ads all over your site, for example. They're dominating advertising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Marcus said:

I see Google ads all over your site, for example. They're dominating advertising.

Dominating?

That's an interesting word...

(For the record, OL makes less than 10% from those ads than the hosting and software costs of running this site. I keep the ads on out of habit, not out of income. Later, when I make my planned big changes to the site, I will eliminate them.)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MereMortal    0
1 hour ago, Marcus said:

If they morally sanctioned his racism/sexism and allowed James Damore to stay would that make them more agreeable to you?

Uhh.. I'm confused.  His racism/sexism??  Did you read the memo??  Can you quote the part that is racist/sexist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, MereMortal said:

Uhh.. I'm confused.  His racism/sexism??  Did you read the memo??  Can you quote the part that is racist/sexist?

MM,

Good questions. It will be interesting to see if any intelligent answers emerge.

But keep an eye on the news on this one. So far, there are articles in WaPo and NYT saying Damore is not sexist, etc. Even the Boston Globe of all things (see here: How the Internet got the ‘Google memo’ wrong). And that is totally out of character for those left-leaning venues.

Some substantial cracks are starting to appear in the SJW feeding frenzy in the mainstream news. This one hits too close to home for the press--even the goofball mainstream fake news press--when they think about their own freedom of expression.

As a comical aside, I have seen lots of people bash Damore for his use of the word "neuroticism" without understanding he was using a category of the Big Five personality measurements. The Don Quixote SJW folks charging at their windmills think he was claiming women are more neurotic than men as if he was using the popular meaning and being derogatory, but he was referring to relative scores in the testing.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with David Brooks on just about everything. He's an elitist posting as a simple man. He's a progressive posting as a conservative. And so on. 

But I've never felt he is insincere. He actually believes in the drivel he preaches. Hell, I've seen him preach the kind of altruism and self-sacrifice that Ayn Rand crusaded against almost to a tee. At least that's the message I got from his 2016 book, The Road to Character.

One caveat on that book. I only managed to get through a couple of hours of the audiobook when it came out. Then I got tired of a sensation similar to chewing on razor blades while drinking rubbing alcohol and decided enough self-punishment. I abandoned the book. So my understanding of his message pertains to the part I heard. Oh yes... and his godawful constant altruism-and-conformity-based finger-wagging in his New York Times editorials. 

But, Brooks is not a stupid man and he does struggle with understanding when things don't line up in his head. How much he must have suffered to write the editorial below. Surprise of surprises, he kinda nailed it well nailed. But, of course, the itching in his finger was unbearable, so he had to wag it at Pichai. (This guy Pichai deserved it, but it's still finger-wagging from a busybody. :) )

Sundar Pichai Should Resign as Google’s C.E.O.

From the article:

Quote

There are many actors in the whole Google/diversity drama, but I’d say the one who’s behaved the worst is the C.E.O., Sundar Pichai.

The first actor is James Damore, who wrote the memo. 

. . .

The third player in the drama is Google’s diversity officer, Danielle Brown. She didn’t wrestle with any of the evidence behind Damore’s memo. She just wrote his views “advanced incorrect assumptions about gender.” This is ideology obliterating reason.

The fourth actor is the media. The coverage of the memo has been atrocious.

The third player in the drama is Google’s diversity officer, Danielle Brown. She didn’t wrestle with any of the evidence behind Damore’s memo. She just wrote his views “advanced incorrect assumptions about gender.” This is ideology obliterating reason.

The fourth actor is the media. The coverage of the memo has been atrocious.

As Conor Friedersdorf wrote in The Atlantic, “I cannot remember the last time so many outlets and observers mischaracterized so many aspects of a text everyone possessed.” Various reporters and critics apparently decided that Damore opposes all things Enlightened People believe and therefore they don’t have to afford him the basic standards of intellectual fairness.

The mob that hounded Damore was like the mobs we’ve seen on a lot of college campuses.

That has very little to do with the David Brooks I have grown to dislike so intensely. I actually agree with him here. All of it.

But this is what I meant when, in a post above, I said watch the mainstream news. This affair is going to play out a little differently than when these folks are bashing Trump and praising Clinton and Obama.

Including a propaganda bonus. Because the media coverage was so "atrocious" (to use Brooks's own word), but did not deal with the press's main interest (trying to impeach the current president), the press can correct itself and do a mea culpa to pretend to the public it still has standards, meaning it is not fake news--and still keep bashing Trump with fake news. :) 

Michael

 

PS - Brooks is calling on Sundar Pichai to resign, but not Danielle Brown, who he blasted worse than Pichai. It's probably because she's a woman. :) This article is proof that  he can go far against his progressive-ass soul, but apparently not that far. His progressive agenda will always triumph over merit to him when push comes to shove.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BaalChatzaf    0
2 hours ago, merjet said:

Very soon anyone with "politically incorrect opinions"  will have to share their views with others under an assumed name on computer websites not associated with their employer.  Eventually the demons of political correctness will attempt to have those websites  purged from the internet.  In which case anyone with divergent opinions will have to resort to what the Soviets called  Samidtzat,  an underground illegal  means of communicating and sharing  "wrong ideas". 

It is coming comrades.   We already have a kind of neo-Lysenkoism in the field  of climate  studies.  Bend down and kiss your freedom of speech goodbye. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Fight for your freedom.

--Brant

Indeed.

I believe AR said or wrote...Those who fight for the future are living in it today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/12/2017 at 9:01 PM, Backlighting said:

 

On 8/12/2017 at 8:22 PM, Brant Gaede said:

Fight for your freedom.

--Brant

Indeed.

I believe AR said or wrote...Those who fight for the future are living in it today.

Here is Jordan Peterson saying the same thing within the context of this Google affair.

Man, I like this guy.

This even hit Real Clear Politics Video: Jordan Peterson: What Can You Do About Censorship And Tyranny?

He was talking about what to do if you are in a job and you are demanded to do (or say) things you find morally repugnant or just plain wrong. His tactical advice is to speak up before the evil and oppression grows. You can get away with it and make the greatest impact when these things are small. When they are gigantic, they will crush you if you refuse.

Also, he says once you are firm in your belief that you are doing something wrong, plan to get another job. Don't stay where you feel immoral.

Here is a direct quote of the spiritual price you pay for just swallowing it:

Quote

If you don't say what you think, then you kill your unborn self.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RobinReborn    0

I read the memo.  I thought it was poorly written and while it does cite some science it doesn't offer a full survey of the relevant literature and seems motivated towards a specific conclusion.

 

I think that publishing the memo was a bad idea and if he had instead had some conversations with the relevant people at Google he might have understand why google has the policies that it does and either been happy to continue to work at Google or left on better terms.  By publishing the memo he is effectively attacking google's HR department.  I'm sure that he also made a lot of women who work for google less productive, look into stereotype threat (it's important science that the author of the memo ignored).

 

There is a huge problem of sexism in tech in general.  It's in Google's interest to appear to be non-biased towards women so that they can hire the best women.  Additionally, all of the science out there is confounded by societal sexism, as sexism decreases I'd expect all these gender differences he's cited to grow smaller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, RobinReborn said:

I think that publishing the memo was a bad idea and if he had instead had some conversations with the relevant people at Google...

RR,

Damore didn't publish the memo. The SJW's did. Damore provided it internally to other employees in a "suggestions for improvement" program Google set up and encouraged its employees to participate in. Someone inside Google leaked it to Motherboard, then Buzzfeed. Since both Motherboard and Buzzfeed butchered the document to leave out the science when they published it (and bashed it), Damore put it on a website with the science included. Other media that wanted the whole thing ended up publishing it by copying it from that website.

If you watch his interviews, you will see that in the memo, he wanted to explore why women were not so well represented in the tech part of Google which had always been open to them. There just weren't that many applications for tech positions from women. And he was offering suggestions as to how to make tech more attractive to them.

The SJW's both in Google and the press interpreted this to mean he was saying women were too inferior to be in the tech part, so they should be excluded. They distorted what he was saying.

And there were those damn secret diversity indoctrination meetings he disagreed with...

As to the science, there are a bunch of high-level scientists who have come out and endorsed the science he presented in the memo. I can easily find links to them if you like. Facts are facts irrespective of political agendas. 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this