James and the Giant Echo Chamber

A nod to the Roald Dah classic in the title! My year is complete.

Silicon Valley, indeed the tech industry worldwide, has been rippling recently about a certain ten-page manifesto, titled Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber, submitted internally by former Google software engineer James Damore. Former, you say? Well, apparently Damore was fired for breaching the Code of Conduct. At least, that was the reason provided, though let's face it, Google, like most other tech companies in Silicon Valley, due to "at-will employment", doesn't need a reason. Your breath stinks? You're out. My pet goldfish hates you. Pack your bags. You put pineapple on your pizza? Get away from me, you monster.

Unforgivable?

Jokes aside, let's see what the fuss is about. It's been claimed that Damore "advanced incorrect assumptions about gender" and accused his female colleagues of being "biologically unsuited to do their jobs". If you want to read the manifesto, this was what Gizmodo published - the document, minus the references and the graphs. You'd be better off viewing it here. The links and charts don't add all that much to the document, but credit where it's due, they do present a certain amount of effort on Damore's part... more than I'd have been arsed to put up anyway.

After reading choice excerpts from The Atlantic and Vox, I had a gander at the manifesto, fully expecting to be filled with righteous disgust. What I felt instead was bafflement. Look, there's quite a fair bit I didn't agree with, but frankly I think the condemnation and outrage was overkill. Oh sure, I am filled with disgust, but towards those publications rather than Damore. This is exactly what I meant when I discussed fake news back in January. Nowadays journalists seem more intent on milking our outrage for extra clicks than actually reporting the facts, and it fucking stinks. They insisted on calling it an "anti-diversity screed" which is bound to raise the hackles of even people who don't identify with crazy feminists or nutty Liberals. There is something very rotten about journalism these days, but that's not what we're discussing here today, so I'll shut up about it for now.

Instead, do look at the manifesto. Not the shit-stirring versions peddled by the likes of Recode and Gizmodo, with claims of "sexism" and "anti-diversity". The original, unaltered version that James Damore sent out. Stop letting these slimeballs tell you what to think; we're techs, not sheep. Read the damn thing, and then draw your own conclusions.

I tried really hard, but couldn't find anything about it that screamed, or even whispered anti-diversity. Damore's not going to win any literary awards anytime soon, and his arguments weren't all that convincing, but he came across as painfully earnest, and sincere.

Although, it has to be said, there were parts I found questionable. What did make sense to me, was this.

Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women's representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.

To use a cooking analogy, if there's too much salt in your soup, adding sugar will offset the taste, but it will not reduce the salt content in your soup. The end result is that you have both salt and sugar in your soup. And that you have a very unhealthy diet.

And yes. This.

As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the "victims".

A company can, and should, impose ethics on its employees. That's part and parcel of professionalism. But ethics should never be confused with morals.

And finally, this. This, oh so very much.

I'm also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I'm advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).

Damore's manifesto was not "anti-diversity". He was all for diversity; he merely disagreed with Google's implementation. And here, I'm inclined to agree. Engaging in discriminatory practices just to undo the results generations of similarly discriminatory practices is silly. True, lasting diversity should take place organically. Remove the obstacles for women in the tech industry, stop thinking of people as "male" or "female", and let evolution take care of the rest. Trying to force it just seems artificial. And insane.

Roots run deep

Look at the sexism and chauvinism in tech. Did any of it happen overnight? Did some group of douchey bro-grammers just wake up one morning and decide, OK, we're going to start oppressing women in tech from this day forth? Or was it a result of generations of chauvinism culminating in the mess we see today? This is so hard to uproot precisely because that tree wasn't planted yesterday. It grew from a seed and its roots have sunk in way deep. It has lasted generations, and therefore undoing it will require the same long, slow process. Change is inevitable. It cannot be hurried, it cannot be slowed. Change will proceed, like it or not, at its own pace.

As for what raised my eyebrows, take a look at this...

Women, on average, have more

• Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing).
  • These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.
• 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. Note that these are just average differences and there's overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women's issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
• 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

Women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading? Leading? I'm not sure what kind of women Damore has been exposed to, to make such a claim. Neuroticism? Lower stress tolerance? Seriously?

That said, I'm no biologist or psychologist, thus if the actual scientific experts say so, I'm not prepared to argue. One such expert, Debra Soh, did back up Damore's statements here. However, I've also found another source that refutes them.

You know what? All this is goobledy-gook to me and I'm content to let the real scientists duke it out over this. Because whether Damore is right or wrong in his assertions isn't really the issue.

People are screaming that his manifesto reeks of sexism, but that's not quite ringing true for me. They claim that he said women are biologically unsuited for tech jobs. Now, that is a load of hogwash and anyone perpetuating such a fallacy - men and women - should be ashamed of themselves. Remember Ada Lovelace? She (yes, she) was credited for producing the first algorithm. How about America's own Grace Hopper? That goes beyond science. That's history. And bear in mind that these remarkable women accomplished what they did, back in the 1960s and earlier, way before virtue-signalling your way to "woke" Nirvana on the behalf of downtrodden women everywhere, became fashionable!

Any tech worth his salt knows who these women are. Why would Damore, who presumably was good enough to be hired by Google, ignore their contributions by claiming that women are biologically unsuited for technical jobs? That's not up for debate. Women can code as well as men - it's been historically proven.

Look at what Damore wrote, rather than what others claimed he wrote. I've underlined the relevant words.

These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social
or artistic areas.

More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.

We always ask why we don't see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.

Prefer. Like. Want. All words suggesting intent and desire, rather than capability. Damore was saying that biological differences between men and women make women less inclined towards tech jobs, not unsuited for them. There's a huge frickin' difference. He's not saying that women can't do those jobs or are bad at them - he's saying that they wouldn't want to.

All Damore is saying is that preferences might account for the gender gap in tech. Has anyone ever considered that people simply prefer what they prefer? If women (or men, for that matter) don't want tech jobs, why is that such a bad thing? What, I should assume everyone should love working in tech just because I do? What rubbish is this?

The manifesto was boring, yes. Pedantic, certainly. Sexist? Offensive? Debatable. I'm not a woman and I'm not working in Silicon Valley, and I'm definitely not some hyper-sensitive Liberal itching for any excuse to be offended, so, y'know, I could be biased.

I've always been a big fan of Google's purported inclusiveness. I liked the fact that if you were good enough to work there, they wouldn't turn you away for trivialities like sexual orientation, visible tattoos, or skin color. But if they went the other way and started hiring people of various sexual orientations with tattoos and piercings regardless of their actual ability just to appear inclusive, that would be a lot less cool. In fact, it would be pretty lame.

Which leads me to my next point...

Google's political idealogy

Damore thinks that Google leans too far to the Left. Some have claimed the opposite - that Google is as Right-leaning and Capitalist as any other corporation.

I disagree with all of them. I think Google has no political ideology to speak of. Its primary concern is staying afloat, and profitable, as a company. And this whole diversity schtick is merely a smoke-screen. Google doesn't care about diversity. Or the Left. Or the Right, for that matter. But it wants - needs - to look like it does.

Why? Because it's fashionable to do so. And, as a tech company, it makes more commercial sense to appeal to the Left than the Right. Assuming that representations of Left and Right in the USA are roughly equal, the younger tech-savvy crowd are mostly from the Left. Sure, you could find young people who identify as Conservatives, but how many old computer-literate Liberals are there? No, most of the aging population are dyed-in-the-wool Conservatives who are still trying to figure out how many pages a Facebook has. And the Lifetime Value of a senior citizen customer, let's face it,  just isn't that great.

And also because (ahem!) Google is currently facing gender pay discrimination charges, since April of this year.

All that seems to point to Google needing to appear as though it values diversity. Pronto.

That would explain why they're trying to force diversity across rather than let it happen organically. Because the latter could take decades. And Google needs it to happen now. Yesterday. Instant gratification. Just like their search engine.

That would also explain why they fired James Damore, rather than simply reprimand him and/or have that open honest discussion. Because they weren't interested in a discussion, open, honest or otherwise. The direction had already been set. Get on board, or get lost. Damore's manifesto was begging for the latter.

Did James Damore deserve to be fired?

CEO Sundar Pichai released a memo that explains the decision to sack Damore, saying that "portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct".

Rather ironically, he also notes that "The author had a right to express their views on those topics - we encourage an environment in which people can do this and it remains our policy to not take action against anyone for prompting these discussions."  In light of everything that happened, this one had me in stitches.

Sure, dude. Suuuure.

Damn, that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Who else wants some of Pichai's "encouragement" to express your views? Any takers? Maybe this is just a ploy to weed out more of those dissenting voices. Very sneaky, bro. I approve!

"The memo has clearly impacted our co-workers, some of whom are hurting and feel judged based on their gender." Sundar Pichai goes on to say, and at this point the urge to facepalm is overwhelming. You're firing somebody for hurting peoples' feelings? What the hell, Pichai? Now that's just patronizing. We're developers. We've all had to work with people we wouldn't give the time of day outside of the office. It's called professionalism - look it up!

On the basis of his opinion alone, Damore did not deserve to be fired. The kid had balls. Time will tell if he has brains to go with them. It was a difficult topic to write about without offending anyone, especially people who are traditionally eager to take offense. To his credit, Damore remained calm and took a neutral tone throughout his manifesto. The same cannot be said about some of his colleagues. A certain Jaana Dogan Tweeted "If HR does nothing in this case, I will consider leaving this company for real for the first time in five years." The Tweet was eventually removed, but its existence, however brief, unfortunately seemed to validate the less credible parts of Damore's manifesto regarding the fragile emotional state of women. In fact, it was reported here that female colleagues in Google had taken the day off because they were too upset at the contents of the manifesto to work. Is the irony lost on anyone?

That said, Google is facing some legal challenges as noted above, and the timing of this manifesto is bad publicity. If Google wishes to fire an employee for bringing the company into disrepute, I certainly don't have an argument against that. However, Damore only wrote the manifesto. He circulated it internally. Who were the miscreants who leaked it? We'll probably never know, but those are the real culprits. They leaked the email, and left Google with very few viable choices as to how to handle the situation.

On the other hand, James Damore did make a grave mistake.

Damore probably joined Google thinking that it was an open and liberated workplace, where only the strength of your skills matter. This incident has taught him the error of his ways.

Google is a company like any other, and it does what it must to survive. Google does not need to have an open and honest discussion about diversity because they don't actually care about diversity. They only care about appearing to care about diversity. Firing Damore was quick, efficient (again, just like their search engine) and threw Google's target demographic a bone. In effect, Damore effectively painted a target on himself as a convenient scapegoat for the insecurities of the Left.

He began his manifesto with

I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don't endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can't have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem.

He was polite, respectful in tone, and practically bent over backwards trying not to say anything explicitly triggering. But did he somehow imagine that appealing to a middle ground and attempting to sound neutral would not get twisted into an outright attack on women? God, that's painfully naive. This is a sensitive issue and there can be no middle ground, no naunced position. The PC culture permeating tech is full of land mines such as the one Damore just tripped.

Watch your step.

For failing to recognize that, for his lapse in judgement, yes, Damore needs to have his ass fired. 

Effect on Google

It's tempting to say Google dropped the ball on this one, but that would only be true if I thought Google actually valued diversity and freedom of speech.

See, if Google really cared about openness, freedom of expression and diversity, they would have taken the opportunity to address this internally, and engage Damore in a civil discussion. Canning Damore only made him a martyr in the Right's ongoing war against the Left. And, let's be real here, Damore's opinion wasn't formed in a vacuum, all by his lonesome. Google can say that Damore's opinion does not reflect the culture at Google, but can they honestly say that the vast majority of their remaining employees, men and women, fully disagree with Damore? Sure, they got rid of the noisy contrarian, but he was only a symptom of a larger problem. The resentment is still brimming at Google, and no amount of forcing Affirmative Action through is going to change that. So, if Google was truly all about that openness and progressiveness, they dropped the ball big time.

But I'm firmly of the opinion that Google isn't about any of those things. This is not a criticism in any way - remember what I said about moralizing anything? Well, I ain't about to start. Google is a business, and expecting it to conform to some high-minded ideals that have nothing to do with their core business, is muddleheaded. Google is about staying profitable, period. And all that jazz about inclusiveness is a means to an end, not the end in itself. A PR gag, nothing more.

No, Google didn't drop the ball. They weren't even playing ball. Hell, they weren't even on the friggin' pitch. From that business point of view, they did the only thing they could have done. Fire the dude, appease the ravening mob - instant PR damage control.

Still, this firing probably made a lot of people uneasy, even those who disagreed with Damore's manifesto. Aren't the people who join Google usually the kind who don't enjoy censorship very much? It's Damore now, and you could probably make yourself feel better by telling yourself that the little shit had it coming. When's it your turn, next?

What's in store for Damore

James Damore has garnered a fair bit of support from the Right (what a surprise) once the powder keg exploded. He's gotten employment offers and even an official fundraiser at
WeSearchr, declaring "Now they're attacking a man for honestly, wisely, and politely expressing his opinions to his colleagues. And they've gotten him fired." (Honestly, yes. Politely, sure. Wisely? Er...)

Damore just went from being Google's PR sacrificial lamb to the cat's paw of the Rightists. This guy just can't catch a break, can he?

Whose side are you on, anyway?

You mean Left, or Right? Please. Crap like this and this just make me glad I don't work in Silicon Valley. Or the USA, for that matter. The whole lot of you are certifiably fucking insane. Batshit. All you're doing for me right now is providing a nice noisy spectacle for me to point and laugh at.

But it sure is pretty sad to see technology get perverted by political agenda. Can we just, y'know, get back to making cool stuff?

Very un-PC regards,
T___T