Jewgle's Employee Manifesto Becomes Cancer

[Danielle]

> Zenaan Harkness zen at freedbms.net
> Sat Aug 5 22:39:48 PDT 2017
>
> vice
> not breaking links
>

We have a style guide for posting here, fakenewsanon; use it.

> Employee's Anti-Diversity Manifesto Goes 'Internally Viral'
>

Here is the fucking post, niggers:

# REPLY TO PUBLIC RESPONSE AND MISREPRESENTATION

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. Psychological
safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our
culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and
unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. Despite what the public
response seems to have been, I’ve gotten many personal messages from
fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very
important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage
to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of
being fired. This needs to change.

TL:DR
>Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with
psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of
psychological safety.
>This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas
are too sacred to be honestly discussed.
>The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian
elements of this ideology.
>Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression
>Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression
>Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in
part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and
leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair,
divisive, and bad for business.



# BACKGROUND [1]
People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are
invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who
disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I
wrote this document.[2] Google has several biases and honest discussion
about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What
follows is by no means the complete story, but it’s a perspective that
desperately needs to be told at Google.

Google’s biases:
At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race
and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political
orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus
biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social
sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine
these prejudices.

Left Biases:
>Compassion for the weak
>Disparities are due to injustices
>Humans are inherently cooperative
>Change is good (unstable)
>Open
>Idealist

Right Biases:
>Respect for the strong/authority
>Disparities are natural and just
>Humans are inherently competitive
>Change is dangerous (stable)
>Closed
>Pragmatic

Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a
functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the
right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of
others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be
changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests
(ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its
employees and competitors.

Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes
to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically
correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into
silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist
and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I’ll
concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are
due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that’s
required to actually discriminate to create equal representation.



# POSSIBLE NON-BIAS CAUSES IN THE GENDER GAP IN TECH [3]

At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit
biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and
women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should
be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story.

On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These
differences aren’t just socially constructed because:
>They’re universal across human cultures
>They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
>Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females
often still identify and act like males
>The underlying traits are highly heritable
>They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology
perspective

Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following
ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the
distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in
part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why
we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. 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.



# PERSONALITY DIFFERENCES

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.

Note that contrary to what a social constructionist would argue,
research suggests that “greater nation-level gender equality leads to
psychological dissimilarity in men’s and women’s personality traits.”
Because as “society becomes more prosperous and more egalitarian, innate
dispositional differences between men and women have more space to
develop and the gap that exists between men and women in their
personality becomes wider.” We need to stop assuming that gender gaps
imply sexism.



# MEN'S HIGHER DRIVE FOR STATUS

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.

Status is the primary metric that men are judged on[4], pushing many men
into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they
entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress
jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous
jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer
93% of work-related deaths.



# NON-DISCRIMINATORY WAYS TO REDUCE THE GENDER GAP

Below I’ll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits
between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and
suggest ways to address them to increase women’s representation in tech
and without resorting to discrimination.

Google is already making strides in many of these areas, but I think
it’s still instructive to list them:
>Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things
>We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair
programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits
to how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be and we shouldn’t
deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our
programs to get female students into coding might be doing this).
>Women on average are more cooperative
>Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates
to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there’s more we can
do. This doesn’t mean that we should remove all competitiveness from
Google. Competitiveness and self reliance can be valuable traits and we
shouldn’t necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what’s
been done in education. Women on average are more prone to anxiety. Make
tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with
its many stress reduction courses and benefits.
>Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a
higher drive for status on average
>Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status,
lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them.
Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work
though can keep more women in tech.
>The male gender role is currently inflexible
>Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female
gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role.
If we, as a society, allow men to be more “feminine,” then the gender
gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and
leadership for traditionally feminine roles.

Philosophically, I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering
of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and
women. For each of these changes, we need principles reasons for why it
helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google—with Google’s
diversity being a component of that. For example currently those trying
to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and
if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences.
Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind
that Google’s funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than
is generally acknowledged.



# THE HARM OF GOOGLE'S BIASES

I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should
strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race
representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:
>Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender
or race [5]
>A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
>Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity”
candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
>Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not
showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation
bias)
>Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can
incentivize illegal discrimination [6]

These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases
and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior
leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically
correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left
ideology[7] that can irreparably harm Google.****



# WHY WE'RE BLIND

We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run
counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science
that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g.,
evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning
biological differences between people (e.g., IQ[8] and sex differences).
Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally
aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of
humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates
enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains
myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap[9]. Google’s
left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results,
which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.

In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are
generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this
likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because
women are generally more cooperative and areeable than men. We have
extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and
social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender
issue issue [sic] affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and
whiner[10]. Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted
as a form of women’s oppression. As with many things in life, gender
differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”;
unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is spent to water only one side
of the lawn.

The same compassion for those seen as weak creates political
correctness[11], which constrains discourse and is complacent to the
extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to
advance their cause. While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftists
protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF
and in our culture has created the same silence, psychologically unsafe
environment.



# SUGGESTIONS

I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google
or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing
biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the
majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and
evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. 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).

My concrete suggestions are to:

01. De-moralize Diversity:
>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.”

02. Stop Alienating Conservatives:
>Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity
and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant
ways in which people view things differently.
>In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that
feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We
should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express
themselves.
>Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad
business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness,
which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work
characteristic of a mature company.

03. Confront Google’s Biases:
>I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about
diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than
that.
>I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political
orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases
are affecting our culture.

04. Stop Restricting Programs and Classes to Certain Genders or Races:
>These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead
focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.

05. Have an Open and Honest Discussion About the Costs and Benefits of
our Diversity Programs:
>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.
>There’s currently very little transparency into the extend of our
diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside
its ideological echo chamber.
>These programs are highly politicized which further alienates
non-progressives.
>I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against
government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire
since they incentivize illegal discrimination.

06. Focus on Psychological Safety, Not Just Race/Gender Diversity:
>We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive
effects and should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination.
>We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of
diversity
>Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and
testing our products, but the benefits are less clear for those more
removed from UX.

07. De-emphasize Empathy:
>I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues.
While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think
the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s
pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us,
and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally
unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.

08. Prioritize Intention:
>Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions
increases our sensitivity, which is not universally positive:
sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offense and our self
censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without the
fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but
these practices can remove that safety by judging unintentional
transgressions.
>Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech
with violence and isn’t backed by evidence.

09. Be Open About the Science of Human Nature:
>Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed
or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of
the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve
problems.

10. Reconsider Making Unconscious Bias Training Mandatory for Promo
Committees:
>We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias
training and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash,
especially if made mandatory.
>Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely
useful, but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the
factual inaccuracies and the examples shown.
>Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes.
Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information
than the training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I
[sic] just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the
training).



# FOOTNOTES

[1] This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google’s
Mountain View campus, I can’t speak about other offices or countries.

[2] Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my
viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical
liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I’d be very happy
to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.

[3] Throughout the document, by “tech”, I mostly mean software engineering.

[4] For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly
judged by status and women by beauty. Again, this has biological origins
and is culturally universal.

[5] Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and
several other Google funded internal and external programs are for
people with a certain gender or race.

[6] Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics.
We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a
better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey
scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal
and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize
the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.

[7] Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to
capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic
failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal
democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the
Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race
politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the
oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”

[8] Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when
meritocracy meant helping the victims of the aristocracy.

[9] Yes, in a national aggretavistock, women have lower salaries than
men for a variety of reasons. For the same work though, women get paid
just as much as men. Considering women spend more money than men and
that salary represents how much the employees sacrifices (e.g. more
hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes
around power.

[10] “The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the
idea of men needing support. Men are expected to be strong, to not
complain, and to deal with problems on their own. Men’s problems are
more often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood,, due to our
gendered idea of agency. This discourages men from bringing attention to
their issues (whether individual or group-wide issues), for fear of
being seen as whiners, complainers, or weak.”

[11] Political correctness is defined as “the avoidance of forms of
expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or
insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated
against,” which makes it clear why it’s a phenomenon of the Left and a
tool of authoritarians.