2017/08/08: James Damore and his Google Memo on Diversity (complete)

By: Jordan B Peterson

19387   344   435470

Uploaded on 08/09/2017

James Damore of Google recently wrote a memo detailing his thoughts about Google's diversity initiatives. Within a month, it went viral, and he was fired, for "perpetuating gender stereotypes." The problem is that everything James claimed is solidly backed by well-developed scientific literatures. Thus, the company in charge of much of the world's communication has now fired an excellent engineer for citing established scientific truths.

In this full 50 min interview, James and I discuss his motivations, and the consequences of his actions. We are joined (audio only) by another Google employee who wishes, for obvious reasons, to remain anonymous.

A fund-raiser for James has been established, here:
http://bit.ly/2uuI0lf

Here are a series of references buttressing the claims of James' memo:

Sex differences in personality/cognition:
Lynn (1996): http://bit.ly/2vThoy8
Lippa (2008): http://bit.ly/2vmtSMs
Lippa (2010): http://bit.ly/2fBVn0G
Weisberg (2011): http://bit.ly/2gJVmEp
Del Giudice (2012): http://bit.ly/2vEKTUx

Larger/large and stable sex differences in more gender-neutral countries: (These findings run precisely contrary to social constructionist theory: it's been tested, and it's wrong).

Katz-Gerrog (2000): http://bit.ly/2uoY9c4
Costa (2001): http://bit.ly/2utaTT3
Schmitt (2008): http://bit.ly/2p6nHYY
Schmitt (2016): http://bit.ly/2wMN45j

Differences in men and women's interest/priorities:
Lippa (1998): http://bit.ly/2vr0PHF
Rong Su (2009): http://bit.ly/2wtlbzU
Lippa (2010): http://bit.ly/2wyfW23
See also Geary (2017) blog: http://bit.ly/2vXqCcF

Life paths of mathematically gifted females and males:
Lubinski (2014): http://bit.ly/2vSjSxb

Sex differences in academic achievement unrelated to political, economic, or social equality:
Stoet (2015): http://bit.ly/1EAfqOt

Big Five trait agreeableness and (lower) income (including for men):
Spurk (2010): http://bit.ly/2vu1x6E
Judge (2012): http://bit.ly/2uxhwQh

The general importance of exposure to sex-linked steroids on fetal and then lifetime development:
Hines (2015) http://bit.ly/2uufOiv

Exposure to prenatal testosterone and interest in things or people (even when the exposure is among females):
Berenbaum (1992): http://bit.ly/2uKxpSQ
Beltz (2011): http://bit.ly/2hPXC1c
Baron-Cohen (2014): http://bit.ly/2vn4KXq
Hines (2016): http://bit.ly/2hPYKSu

Primarily biological basis of personality sex differences:
Lippa (2008): http://bit.ly/2vmtSMs
Ngun (2010): http://bit.ly/2vJ6QSh

Status and sex: males and females
Perusse (1993): http://bit.ly/2uoIOw8
Perusse (1994): http://bit.ly/2vNzcL6
Buss (2008): http://bit.ly/2uumv4g
de Bruyn (2012): http://bit.ly/2uoWkMh

To quote de Bruyn et al: 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:
Gerber (2010): http://bit.ly/2hOpnHa
Hirsh (2010): http://bit.ly/2fsxIzB
Gerber (2011): http://bit.ly/2hJ1Kjb
Xu (2013): http://bit.ly/2ftDhOq
Burton (2015): http://bit.ly/2uoPS87
Bakker (2016): http://bit.ly/2vMlQ1N

Occupations by gender:
http://bit.ly/2vTdgPp

Problems with the measurement and concept of unconscious bias:
Fielder (2006): http://bit.ly/2vGzhQP
Blanton (2009): http://bit.ly/2vQuwEP (this one is particularly damning)

Microaggressions: Strong claims, weak evidence:
Lilienfeld (2017): http://bit.ly/2vS28lg

And, just for kicks, two links discussing the massive over-representation of the left in, most particularly, the humanities:
Klein (2008): http://bit.ly/2fwdLrS
Langbert (2016): http://bit.ly/2cV53Q8

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

Comments (8):

By boona    2017-09-20

It seems that HN is flagging all articles that mention the Google Memo. Which speaks to the need to have this conversation even more.

For those who are interested, James has a new interview with psychology professor Jordan Peterson.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU

Original Thread

By cropsieboss    2017-09-20

Why is everyone appealing to emotions and producing red herrings?

No one refers to any points other than those which they interpret to be oppressive and offensive (mostly points having to do with female/male differences which are real and exist). The hypothesis put out are there to further the discussion, not to be taken as facts (there are words like "may", "in part" all over the place yet we interpret "may" as "is", and "in part" as "mostly").

What about Google's unscientific, hidden, irrational methods of fixing bias?

Unconscious bias training is unscientific yet they practice it. It does not work, or at worst it is harmful. Facebook does it too.

These methods come from one of the hardest fields of science - psychology. We know how much the studies aren't reproducible, repeatable, some results even depend on time (more known the methods the less they work).

Why is no one looking at those points?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU

Watched the interview above and cannot believe how media and almost every individual responding put this individual in some kind of aggressive, oppressive, racist frame.

Given the peer-reviewed sources in the video description of the interview no one sane enough could believe that the guy was being malevolent.

The real guilt goes to the leaker, the dramatizer and the reactionist.

I'm officially stopping with the tracking of this topic. It frustrates me that so many brilliant individuals become ideologues and witch hunters incapable of continuing the discussion. It saddens me that "discussion" has turned into calling this an "anti-diversity" memo and silencing.

Original Thread

By orionblastar    2017-09-20

TL;DR version, James Damore works for Google, researches scientific sources for gender definitions. Compiles each definition and factor into a document that uses neutral third party citations and peer review to back up his citations.

Gets fired over SJW Politics, accusing him of making gender stereotypes by people using politics, culture, society for gender definitions, Google panics over the protesters, feminists, social justice warriors, etc upset over the document and under pressure fire James Damore.

He was not a shitty or toxic employee, he was assigned to do scientific research on genders and compile it into a document using scientific proof.

https://youtu.be/SEDuVF7kiPU

Look at the full text of that video to see the links cited:

Published on Aug 9, 2017 James Demore of Google recently wrote a memo detailing his thoughts about Google's various diversity initiatives. Inside the company, and then outside, it went viral. He lost his job, in consequence: for "perpetuating gender stereotypes." The problem is that everything James claimed is solidly backed by well-developed scientific literatures. Thus, 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.

In this full 50 minute interview, James and I discuss his motivations, and the consequences of his actions. We are joined (audio only) by another Google employee who wishes, for obvious reasons, to remain anonymous.

A fund-raiser for James has been established, here: https://www.wesearchr.com/bounties/ja... Here are a series of references buttressing each and every claim James made in his memo, which has been erroneously deemed pseudo-scientific (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...

Problems with the measurement and concept of unconscious bias: http://bit.ly/2vGzhQP http://bit.ly/2vQuwEP (this one is particularly damning)

Original Thread

By kukx    2017-10-09

> This is why I dislike Damore. I don't care what his manifesto says ... Playing games is pathetic, dude.

Well, according to his statement he was a top performer at Google, so we can assume he was not afraid of being replaced by a woman. Besides he just started a discussion in a response to, according to him, shady moves in regards of equality performed by Google.

It is worth to listen to the other side: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU

Original Thread

By stcredzero    2018-02-20

He's citing "legitimate scientific sources" but he doesn't understand them, so his citations are meaningless.

You seemingly refuse to substantiate this.

I made no claim that his interpretations are "wrong". I said that his interpretations are most likely wrong because he's not a psychologist

What would you say if a prominent and widely cited academic and clinical Psychologist corroborated his interpretations?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU

I think your response would be to again be intellectually dishonest and tar him by association. However, in doing so, you abandon your former position.

You keep insulting me.

No, what you are doing semantically parallels what climate science deniers do. You are using the same techniques and tactics, seemingly counting on the audience to be too lazy to read the actual sources for themselves. My comparison is functional. If you wish to prevent me from making that point, then please start substantive responses, using facts, reasoning, and references. Otherwise you are just using the climate denier tactic of repeated assertion.

Original Thread

Popular Videos 69

Submit Your Video

If you have some great dev videos to share, please fill out this form.