Hacker News Reader

> Imagine thinking that you can literally publish and circulate several revisions of an internal company memo telling 50% of your coworkers that they should be paid less because they're genetically inferior to you in regards to the job

This is an outright fabrication. Nowhere did Damore write that women should be paid less, or that they were genetically inferior at tech. He said that gender differences can explain, in part, difference in preferences between men and women.

Is it sexist to say "hey, maybe 95% of kindergarten teachers are women not because men are discriminated against, but because men don't prefer to work with young kids at the same rate as women due to innate biological reasons."

>This is an outright fabrication. Nowhere did Damore write that women should be paid less, or that they were genetically inferior at tech.

Oh no, he simply stated that women get paid less not because of sexism, but because it's natural, since they genetically lack assertiveness and are worse at leadership positions and negotiating:

>Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness. This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading.

And certainly he didn't say that women were genetically inferior in high-powered tech jobs! He simply said that they're genetically predisposed to dislike jobs that involve systematizing (such as...tech jobs), and that they're genetically inferior when it comes to handling stressful jobs (which, by pure chance, he happens to exemplify with Googlegeist, a...tech job), since they can't handle stress as well as men do because they're genetically predisposed to anxiety and neuroticism:

>Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing). (...) More men may like coding because it requires systemizing. >Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance). This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist

I don't even know why I bother. I regret getting into this argument. Believe what you like; as long as you see movements for social improvement as some kind of personal accusation, it's what you'll do anyway. Yes, women in tech are not discriminated against, or if they are, it's either exaggerated or there's a reasonable explanation for it. Whatever, downvote away.

> Oh no, he simply stated that women get paid less not because of sexism, but because it's natural, since they genetically lack assertiveness and are worse at leadership positions and negotiating

Closer to reality, but you're still injecting your own narrative here. He did not say that women are worse at negotiating. He said that Google rewards assertiveness rather than agreeableness in it's negotiations, and because women are on average more agreeable this disadvantages women. And later, he suggested that Google should make it's environment more rewarding of agreeableness to make things fairer for women.

How people made the jump from this to, "women are genetically inferior at tech" is astounding to me.

I'm not sure I see any part of that quote even suggesting "50% of your coworkers... should be paid less because they're genetically inferior to you".

And regardless of the correctness of firing him, him getting fired is a little stronger than "people tell[ing him] that [he's] kind of a dick".

You don't see it because it's not there.

People make these leaps of fiction on their own from usually well meaning but confused stances.

No, it's not there, it's on the memo itself, in his own words, in a section literally titled "Non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech" if you'd like a more reliable source than Wikipedia.

>Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness. This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading.

Do you see it? The part where he says women are genetically worse leaders, and have worse salaries because they're genetically worse negotiators? Remember, the section is titled "Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech", implying that women are paid less because it's natural, not because of sexist bias.

At any rate, I appreciate the patronizing "making well meaning but confused leaps of logic" pat in the head.

No, it does not say that women should be paid less than men. It says that just because there are differences in average pay between men and women there isn't necessarily discrimination. And he offers suggestions to help close this gap later on in the memo.

Yes, your are making an unsubstantiated leap from what was actually written to claiming that Damore write that his female coworkers should be paid less than men for the same work.

He said it was a possible explanation, not that it was necessarily true or that the current situation is fair. The memo was a response to the very common fallacy "Women are underrepresented in X, this is proof that women are discriminated against".

It is a leap on your part.

Statistics are all we have to go on in this regard, and they are in Damore's favor.

The truth is not bigoted.

"White men can't jump" is generally true.

Personality traits are like most things on a spectrum, and women tend to have less of the traits which have until now been perceived to be necessary for "negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading"

There are leaders that are women, see AMD.

It's on the memo itself. You can read it here, among many other places: https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-di...

On a section dedicated to offering alternative explanations to sexism for the gender gap in tech, James writes:

>Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness. This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading.

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

The implication is that it's partly natural that women do worse and get lower salaries at tech. In case there's any adoubt, the section it's written in is titled "Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech", in the subsection "Personality differences".

Your characterization of things makes it sound like you only read headlines and never the memo. Which is fine I guess, but it seems silly to have such strong opinions about something without looking into it at all.

Ignorant opinions are usually the strongest.

Dunning/Kruger etc

Have YOU read it? Jesus Christ.

> Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness. This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading.

Yes, that does say that women are genetically worse leaders and implies that their lower salaries are at least in part because they are naturally worse negotiators.

The whole section it's written on is focused on explaining how sexism is mostly a exaggeration and that sex differences can instead be explained by genetic factors. Any more questions?

> Yes, that does say that women are genetically worse leaders and implies that their lower salaries are at least in part because they are naturally worse negotiators.

No it does not. It says that women are more agreeable and less assertive, on average. And because Google rewards assertiveness, this means women have a harder time negotiating salaries at Google. In a workplace the prioritizes agreeableness over assertiveness, women would be at an advantage. And later in the memo he says Google should better reward agreeableness.

It does not claim "women are genetically worse leaders". This is a fabrication.

>No it does not. It says that women are more agreeable and less assertive, on average.

Please, PLEASE look up the definition of 'discrimination' in any dictionary you like, and tell me if you really believe that saying 'women are more agreeable and less assertive, on average' does not fit the definition, or that James Damore's many characterizations of women on his memo ("higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance", "women generally have a harder time leading") don't, either. If that's the case, we are simply not going to agree with each other, so we shouldn't waste our time trying.

Saying "Women do on average have more of trait X" is sexism, not discrimination. Discrimination would be if you said something like "We shouldn't hire women since they have trait X" or "Since women often have trait X they need to score higher in other areas for me to hire them" or "I always make sure that women don't have trait X before hiring them".

So for example "I want to hire people who don't have trait X. I give an objective test for this. More men than women pass it. Studies have shown that more men than women pass this globally, so it is as expected. Therefore, due to this test, the people I hire tend to be more men than women." is not discrimination.

>Saying "Women do on average have more of trait X" is sexism, not discrimination.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexism

>Definition of sexism

>1. prejudice or discrimination based on sex

Enough. Just believe what you want, I give up. There's no sexism on the tech industry or schools. James Damore is right and is an oppressed victim of his own bravery. Whatever.

I hope people on a tech forum understand what "or" means.

I hope so too. Let's check out the definition of discrimination.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination

>1. prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment

Hm. Let's check out the definition of sexism again.

>1. prejudice or discrimination based on sex

Prejudice or discrimination. And discrimination also means prejudiced or prejudicial...since I'm not a tech person like yourself I wouldn't know what 'or' means, it's too complicated for me, but I think I do know what 'and' means: for example, you are wrong about your definition of sexism, and about your definition of discrimination, and about your use of 'or'.

This is great, I love learning new tech concepts on tech forums from tech experts.

Damore advocated for neither prejudice nor discrimination. He explicitly stated that people should not assume that differences in averages should be applied at an individual level. And not only did he not advocate for discrimination, he advocated for Google to eliminate it's discriminatory practices.

No, it does not fit the definition of discrimination. For example, saying men are on average more violent than women is not discrimination either - it's fact.

Yes: the claims James Damore makes are cold, hard facts based on the many, many studies and statistics available on, for example, women's assertiveness (which is genetically and biologically quantifiable), that he carefully reviewed and contrasted in order to form an opinion. As such, they are facts, which do not fit the definition of discriminatory.

In order to be discriminatory, they would have to be broad, ignorant statements based on personal anecdote and prejudice that he pulled out of his ass right before adding 'on average' at the end of the phrase; since they are not that in any way, but carefully researched, unbiased observations, they do not fit the definition of discriminatory.

Now that you've explained to me what facts are, I finally understand James' logic, so please consider this argument won.

What happened to James, who simply circulated a fact-based memo telling half of his coworkers that they need special rules to make things fair since they're at least partly genetically inferior when it comes to the job, was yet another gratuitous act of SJW, PC, fact-censoring repression against one of society's most silenced and powerless collectives: top-salaried, Ivy League educated young white males working at the top companies of male-dominated high growth industries in the largest economy on the planet, like so many others we sadly see so often here on HN.

It's time we finally took a stand on these issues.

> In order to be discriminatory, they would have to be broad, ignorant statements based on personal anecdote and prejudice that he pulled out of his ass right before adding 'on average' at the end of the phrase; since they are not that in any way, but carefully researched, unbiased observations, they do not fit the definition of discriminatory.

If you think that there is no difference between saying people who belong to a certain group are more or less X on average, and saying that individual members of that group are X then I really cannot help you. This is just patently wrong. There's nothing sexist about saying "men on average commit rape 50 times more than women". That's fact. If you told a man, "you're a rapist" because of mere fact that he is a man, then yes that is prejudice.

He didn't just add the word "on average" at the end. He explicitly pointed out that conflating population wide averages and individual characteristics is wrong:

> Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.

I'll keep it simple, so that you can't keep obtusely ignoring it: there are stats on rape. So they are fact. There are no stats on "women's assertiveness". So they are not fact.

Yes there are and he cited them in his memo. And the studies have been replicated in studies that draw participants from as many as 51 countries and find similar results across different cultures [1].

If you think his presentation of this data is ineffective, then the productive thing to do is offer a reasoned refutation. Not exaggerate (to be generous, I'm more inclined to call these fabrications) and write that he claimed "women are genetically worse leaders" and "naturally worse negotiators."

1. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-13299-011