Google vs. Biology

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture
Submitted by Kyrel Zantonavitch on Tue, 2017-08-08 05:26

Someone at Google just claimed men and women may be somewhat different in nature and nurture. He speculated that this may be a factor in where both genders end up in life, and in the company. He conjectured that the slightly inferior position of women might not solely be a product of pure and extreme male bigotry. Of course, for his honesty, courage, integrity, virtue, insight, wisdom, decency, nobility, truth-seeking, truth-speaking, etc. he was fired on the spot.

That PC bullshit is

Richard Wiig's picture

That PC bullshit is everywhere, Andrew. Large and small companies alike.

Google are Fascists of the Left

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Paul Joseph Watson has had enough.

This situation points up the fallacy of thinking the fwee market self-selects for virtue. In a culture of depwavity and death-worship, filth like Cook and Zuckerberg and Sowos (and Bwook) will pwevail.

We must change the culture. Calling all life-worshiping geeks: new platform needed!!

Read that piece again ...

VSD's picture

... this time, instead of gist-reading and dismissing a good premise with a bad effort, I put my 'editor' cap on and tried to break down where I think his arguments went astray.
Let me state from the beginning (for the wolves out for filth) that I think he did have a good premise and made an honest effort to get it across. Cudos for taking the time to analyze and publish it - takes time and effort to do that, especially when you can be 99% certain you'll be shot down.

My first major 'critique' (to avoid 'microagression' with criticism ; ) is him missing his target:
Twice he states quite clearly that he favors individualism: half way down his text under Suggestions "I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism)." and in footnote [2] "In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason."
Sounds like music to my ears ... and yet these are the only two mentions of his purpose and his philosophy. He spends the rest of the 8-10 pages exploring why biological differences between men and women and the restrictive echo chamber of dissent are the root cause of the problem. It is understandable that you need to ground your arguments on premises but in this case I strongly suggest he checks his premises. Nowhere does he connect the premise of protect (male) and nurture (female) of early evolution to the freedom gained as individuals in modern society where raising offspring is (should ; ) no longer (be) the driving force of our evolution. Nowhere does he connect the premise of the echo chamber at Google to the freedom (not) gained as an individual to spread it's message through mass-communication as offered by Google itself. Wasted opportunity here to address the contradiction of a company pandering to the masses (can you imagine a Google built on individualism?) not championing free individual expression. This is contrary to their stated slogans of giving a voice to everyone - if everyone keeps screaming at top volume you have a cacophony of noise by masses where every individual voice will be lost!

My second middle 'critique' is the unfinished conclusions he keeps coming back to:
Though he makes good points (a few too many - see below) citing examples of female disadvantages linking them not to social discrimination but underlying biological differences, he does again fail to address the point how these evolutionary tactics of the stone age are still relevant in our days. Certainly many (most) of our species are still (unconsciously) governed by urges of survival and reproduction not longer relevant in our enlightened times, what this also highlights though is not the underlying disparity that "(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.” but the failure of homo sapiens to evolve with his newfound prosperity and egalitarianism to shed these old urges and become the individuals free of gender these times would permit. Become an individual free of gender which would also address his other complaint of 'male discrimination', as both would no longer exist in such cases.
Same goes for the echo chamber at Google that is (theoretically) aimed at reducing this discrimination. Instead of coming to the only correct conclusion that Google has implemented these measures solely to appease their customer base, he urges Google to focus on 'viability and profit' of these measures. Let me assure you: Google's shares will rise after this little hullaballoo - they very clearly have their profits in sight! How long those profits will be sustainable is of course another question worth answering, as 'mass movements' have a spectacular tendency for a spectacular 'grand finale' ; )

My last minor 'critique' is his unchallenged acceptance of differences in gender and in politics (echo chamber):
He spends several pages listing differences between men and women, listing programs of the echo chamber at Google, and instead of dismissing them summarily as 'old bogeys from the past' or at least addressing their (superfluous) relevance to our times he remains quiet on each of those statements. As he does not discredit them I have to assume he supports them, especially as I skipped most of them in gist reading and had to force myself reading so many false examples without screaming out loud at the second read.
Frankly it got quite boring at some point except maybe for someone at Google who has a daily acquaintance with these programs or is fully invested in gender disparity (yawn). Which probably were his audience if he was honest about why he wrote this letter.

Many of his 'Suggestions' again would be worth discussing if he had not forgotten his underlying premise of individuals working in a mass company. However that would preclude going through his suggestions piece-meal which I don't want to waste my effort on. Maybe someone else will ...

So in all I do admire his honest effort to address this 'issue', am not at all surprised by Google's reaction (what did he really expect?), deplore the sad summary his effort was reduced to by the press (what's new there) and yet my overall conclusion is missed opportunities with a rather bad taste in my mouth after lengthy wading through the mud.


Good post Kyrel.

Sam Pierson's picture

Good post Kyrel.

The chap gave an interview to Jordan Peterson on youtube -- his first interview. A genuine, enquiring engineering type, simply trying to figure things out & have a reasonable discussion with other sharp minds. Model employee. Google execs are going to regret the rush to fire him. They've handed their company culture over to SJW feelings. That'll consume alot of company time for little value, while sending the message that censorship is in.

(Stefan Molynuex also interviewed him. Jaysus, that guy talks too much. Oh for the skills of a Linz, to listen & draw the guy out.)

But this is a great little episode & hats off the Mr Damore for his courage & effort to think. He nailed his theses to the church door; now the chips fall.

I agree ...

VSD's picture

... that it's worth taking note of these patters and groups (how could you possibly ignore them if they are shouting them at you at top volume at every opportunity), I just choose not to acknowledge them, not be bound into one of them ... and if our society, our species, chooses (to an overwhelmingly large extent) to embrace them, what does that tell you about the state of this society / species? compound this 'defaulting' choice (simply following patterns and groups they don't even understand just because someone tells them it's the 'right' thing to do) by the random misapplication of these groups rampant in our daily lives and the best I can offer them is to ignore them, the worst contempt for the fools they are to lock themselves into these patterns and groups ... you want to actively take part in 'correcting' these patterns, 're-distributing' these vociferous groups? rediscovering the 'majority of the new minority of white males'? it would be laughable if it weren't so sad ...
I have better things to do with my life ... at least I do get a laugh out of the fuss being made about that 'manifest' (if you can call it that), everybody bending over backwards to defend or vilify it - what a joke : P
PS: political freedom is a contradiction in terms - there is not one political system that offers true freedom ... none that I heard of here or elsewhere ... only politics that minimize the tyranny of masses (at best) ...

Moral Individualism and Political Liberty

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

I basically agree with you, Vera! I think your dedication to individualism is admirable and intoxicating. But my love of individualism and human variety is at least equal to your own. This is why I treat and judge everyone I meet as an absolute individual, based entirely on truth and justice, without any hint of presuppositions or bigotry.

But even if everyone in society were an extreme bigot, life would still be virtually a utopia if only that society were wholly politically free. Merit would almost utterly prevail and bias would be almost 100% punished. But taking note of statistical patterns and social identity group archetypes, in a community or broad general population, is normal, logical, and useful -- not evil.

Just for the sake of argument ...

VSD's picture

... imagine a world not of 7.5 billion races, genders, religions, whatnot, but 7.5 thousand individuals. A world no longer dictated by stone age survival of the species mechanisms but innovation, reinvention, completely free and self-reliant evolution. All that nature and nurture, all those pesky 'predisposeds' would go right out of the window, as the margins of any group you could identify would be so slim to be inconclusive and could be just the opposite one day, week, year, later.
Alas we don't live in such a world and I even have this sneaking suspicion that each single manifestation of homo sapiens is incapable of being a single self-reliant individual ; ) Thus everyone is so eager to determine the 'right grouping' and propose their 'correct place and treatment' that every individualism, every thought out of that 'box' goes right over board.
That's what Ayn Rand has given me (who cares about the 3 Bs - that's 2 too many anyway), that being an individual, being selfish, thinking the unthinkable, is OK, as long as I think for myself and not for others.
If humanity as a species, or a single representation of that species, is only capable of surviving by those stone age mechanism of consumption and competition for the consumed resources, violence and suppression of each individual or idea that threatens that group, then that species / manifestation of species has already failed and what we're seeing today are it's inevitable deaththroes.
Aa long as each of us can only think 'I'm a woman as opposed to a man', 'I'm a warrior as opposed to a thinker', 'I want to kill others as opposed to myself', as long as we cannot think of ourselves freely without another, we'll keep reshaping these groups ad nauseam and I'm not even at liberty to leave that group or (horror of horrors) kill myself to escape it, though it's perfectly alright to kill others of differing groups. To lead this ad absurdum: I'm declared part of so many different (even opposing) groups, that Vera A would be entitled, even required, to kill Vera B from that other group : D
I know 'rampant individualism' is unpopular these days, as everybody seems to have forgotten that individualism also means self-reliant, which should go without saying, but as with all good ideas they are perverted when others only ride on their coattails instead of using them as stepping stones to form their own ideas and individuality for themselves. One woman standing up for her rights to live and act as a free individual becomes 'nazi-feminism' of millions who have no clue what to do with their lives. One individual glimpsing something higher, more evolved than humans, becomes a 'mass-murdering religion' exterminating everything they see as a threat to that 'path to salvation' that they cannot even see for themselves but follow blindly. And everyone questioning these 'groups' or their 'saviours' becomes the enemy, the filth to be trodden into the ground so we all have to wear shoes so as not to walk in all that filth we all (every single one) seem to keep spreading ; )
PS: as for 'mother natur's doing' - even if you could show me genetic markers for all your examples above, the evolutionary benefit for each and every one of those predispositions, who's to say there aren't better ways - or simply different ways - or we're even meant to find other ways and mother nature keeps kicking our lazy butts and we stoopid kidz just don't get it : D following a concept (we don't even fully understand yet) blindly leads to the same destruction we currently rain down on each other as no-one likes to admit that 'I don't know' - so what's wrong with single individuals trying to find out instead of masses of idiots protecting their ignorance ; )

Yes, But

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Vera -- That IT guy had no right to talk to you the way he did. I'm glad you put him in his place! That said, I still think there are biological and genetic reasons why men seem to make somewhat better computer programmers than women. It isn't just culture and bigotry that holds women back (altho' perhaps most of it is). Men seem to excel at various math skills, based on their nature, just as women seem to excel at various verbal skills, based on their nature. Similarly, artists are probably biologically superior at nurturing, whereas engineers are probably biologically superior at policing. This seems to be Mother Nature's doing -- not prejudicial man's.


Lindsay Perigo's picture

"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. "

Sounds like Obleftivist ARISIS!

The masses ...

VSD's picture

... that made them great in the first place ; )

Show me one gene ...

VSD's picture

... that predisposes you to be a good programmer and I'll show you a gene that makes you a good android : P
I'm working in IT for over 20 years now and these stories (I could tell you hundreds) are as old as my IT experience. One alpha guru programmer thought he was very clever when he did not challenge my nature (female) but my nurture (career jumper): I did not study programming at a university as he did but English Literature (another nature and nurture false choice). He claimed I had no 'business' being in his 'business', so I challenged him to a little contest. I write a program that he can then critique and he'll write a poem that I will critique. We'd both publish them on the companies public board, so he need not fear backstabbing and underhanded mobbing and others (mostly male - it was an IT company) could add to the critiquing. Needless to say he chickened out. Probably being such a generous alpha that he'd not want to embarrass an uneducated female in front of all his betas ; )
Just as an aside: spoken complex languages have been around for 6.000 years - programming languages for barely 100 years (if you're very generous with 'grunting programs'). A 12-line poem can tell an entire story with multiple variations implicit. Show me one program that can do that with 12 lines of code. Programming is still in it's infancy, primarily so because it's based on 'natural languages'. Hopefully some AI in the not too distant future will get rid of these cumbersome shackles of having to communicate to / via humans and implement a true programming language for machines. Then at least we'd be on even footing to start the challenge.
One good thing though about that Google Beta's public wanking: the girls' bathroom lines will remain rather short with such stories in circulation ; D

To say...

Andrew Atkin's picture

My niece just got some kind of major scholarship from Google. My sister (her mother) told me Google is "hungry" to employ women.

....what is driving this private company into pc bullshit? What are they afraid of?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.