6
   

White Women vs Free Speech: And Google is going to get sued.

 
 
maxdancona
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 13 Aug, 2017 05:15 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

Talent comes in many forms. One such talent is navigating the world in such a way as to get along with people.

Also, I have no evidence that this engineer, in particular, is talented.

Finally, I think I've made my view of "brilliant jerks" pretty clear. Being "brilliant" doesn't excuse one's other flaws. Excusing "brilliant jerks" from being jerks just leads to everyone claiming to be special and brilliant in order to justify their asshole behaviors.



You kind of answered my question DrewDad, and I kind of appreciate that. My question was whether the people who are "brilliant jerks" in your judgement should be allowed to work in engineering at all. You answered that you don't want to work with them, but you didn't exactly say what should happen to these poor souls. Fine.

However you are confusing software engineering with the boy scouts. In software not everyone is loyal, honest. respectful and true. In software there are teams filled with the very people you call "brilliant jerks" who work very well together and are developing successful technology that is making their companies money. That is what matters... if they reach their goal and get along with each other they will be successful.

Software engineers are not homogeneous... like any other group of highly skilled people, they are all different defined only by skill and vocation. The idea that every team will be the same is ridiculous.

The people you call "brilliant jerks" and refuse to work with probably don't want to work with you either. That doesn't mean that they aren't work. They will will find teams to work on that respect their skills and get work with their quirks.

I have worked on several successful teams that have brought new technology to market (and made a lot of money). I led one of these teams. To be honest, a team is usually successful because of the vision of the manager, and part of that vision is to be able to put a bunch of "brilliant jerks" (in truth every brilliant person is a jerk in one way or another) together and form a team that is all focused in the same direction.

Your Utopian view where only fine upstanding right thinking citizens are successful is really ridiculous. If you have worked at any time in technology, you know this is the case.
maxdancona
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 13 Aug, 2017 05:25 pm
@maxdancona,
Just to be clear, there is an ideological echo chamber here. There is one point of view being expressed here by everyone who is not named Max. No one has accepted that there is another side of the coin, particularly with freedom expression or that there are Google employees, including female Google employee who have another point of view.

I am not taking the opposite point of view here. I am pushing back on the ideological absolutism here... not with equal and opposite absolutism.

In my real world opinion... there are two sides of the coin here. Both sides are valid, and there is a tension between them that software teams in the real world need to reconcile. Each organization has a different way of reconciling them.

1) Yes, the issue of women in tech is important. There has been illegal behavior that me (and many of us brilliant asshole) agree should be shut out of any workplace. And, many if not most brilliant assholes, agree that women should be given an equal shot in technology.

So yes, there is a valid point that companies need to address about women in technology.

2) There is also the issue of freedom of expression. People are not homogeneous. We come to any job with opinions of our own, perspectives on issues and former experience.

On a team of brilliant assholes, an organization has to allow for the expression of different opinions. On many teams, people work it out... and the brilliant assholes I have worked with can give as well as they take. We learn to work together to put ou really cool stuff.

If you punish people for expressing an opinion, you are going to inevitably make your team less free to express opinions. I don't want to work on a team like that. Fortunately there are small companies for people like me to work on, and we can bring really cool innovative technology to the market (the thing that many brilliant assholes love to do).

Do people here know that women can also be brilliant assholes? I have worked with them... they are pretty awesome to have on a team.

maxdancona
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 13 Aug, 2017 05:39 pm
I am a little curious...

Has anyone here besides me actually worked on a successful software team?
ossobucotemp
 
  4  
Reply Sun 13 Aug, 2017 05:42 pm
@emmett grogan,
This is above my pay grade (aka, I need to get what you are saying.)







maxdancona
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 13 Aug, 2017 06:25 pm
@ossobucotemp,
I started a new thread about Ideological Echo Chambers which I think is relevant.

https://able2know.org/topic/405981-1#post-6483466

I think my point about being unwilling to consider both the pros and cons of an ideological conclusion is particularly germane to this conversation. But I will continue this discussion on the other thread for whoever feels it is of interest.
ossobucotemp
 
  5  
Reply Sun 13 Aug, 2017 06:37 pm
@maxdancona,
I am not interested.
I think you need some separation awareness from real people re the word idealog.
I may read it, or not.
maxdancona
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 13 Aug, 2017 07:53 pm
@ossobucotemp,
I think it would be an interesting discussion to have with you Osso. You have an intellectual curiosity that I respect... although I don't think you are letting yourself question your beliefs.

My point is that everyone has an ideology and that everyone comes with prejudice. That is why I don't see the word "ideology" as an insult. It simply means acknowledging that your point of view isn't the only point of view.

There is a difference between having an ideology and being an ideologue; it is being able to question your own point of view and see things from different perspectives.

You don't have to read, to discuss, or even to think about this. But I kind of hope you will. This would be an interesting discussion to have with you.

Either way, it is very clear that this thread has become a bunch of people tripping over each other to say how right they all are. To have an intelligent discussion about the pros and cons of a position... you have to accept that there are both pros and cons.

If there is anyone here who is willing to admit that there is more than one way to look at this issue... please speak up.

0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  6  
Reply Sun 13 Aug, 2017 08:06 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
The fact that Google is now pushed to fire people for expressing a rather mild opinion is a cause for concern.


Saying that females are biologically unsuited for tech work, based on their gender-linked personality traits, is hardly a "mild opinion"--it's a rather gross disparagement of a considerable segment of co-workers at Google. It's hard to see how that very demeaning comment would not create a hostile work environment.

Because a corporation strives for cultural diversity in its employee population does not mean it should also be mindlessly accepting of all employee-expressed opinions that convey and perpetuate negative stereotypes about certain other groups of employees. Since when does a private corporation have to forgo codes of conduct--or even dress codes--in order to promote "freedom of expression", particularly when doing so would foster a hostile work environment, and one that is at odds with the corporation's values? Or don't you believe that corporations are entitled to have, and promote, values, as long as they are consistent with existing laws?

I am also still waiting for an explanation of why you titled this topic "White Women vs Free Speech..." That does suggest that your own views of women--and race--have distorted your own perception of this topic since the title does not fit the facts of this situation.

You seem to be the only one posting here who is trapped inside some sort id an "ideological bubble"--in your case, a bubble filled with a lot of hot air and not much genuine intellectual substance or depth. It's your own one-man ideological echo chamber--you only pay attention to your own thinking and overly simplified views, compulsively repeating the few catch phrases you've latched onto.

maxdancona
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 13 Aug, 2017 08:21 pm
@firefly,
First of all, I have defined what is an "ideological bubble" in the thread to which I have list. The points are pretty specific. I would like to know if you agree with my criteria. But, you can challenge me based on these points.

1. You are making the point that his memo was a "gross disparagement" of co-workers. This is a valid point of view. I think think you are overselling the point a bit, and that your wording of what he said is not correct. But I accept your point of view.

2. The other point of view is that the fact Google values "freedom of expression" means that this memo should not lead to someone being fired. He was stating a troubling opinion, but not a "gross disparagement". He was not talking about individual women, but about scientific trends (he used the term "on average" repeatedly). It is a fact that many female engineers don't think he should have been fired. Whether this created a "hostile work environment" is a subjective matter. There were certainly ways for Google to address any disagreement without firing anyone.

Now you will notice, I am giving you two points of view, both of which make valid points. It is not just me expressing this second point of view, female engineers have also expressed this points of view (did you listen to the NPR On Point segment on this?)

I accept your criticism on what I chose for the title of this thread.

I believe the narrow minded, one-sided arguments on this thread that don't consider any other perspective, lapse into name-calling and personal attacks.... heck, you can read the point I make on the thread about Ideological Echo chambers on your own.
DrewDad
 
  5  
Reply Sun 13 Aug, 2017 08:46 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
My question was whether the people who are "brilliant jerks" in your judgement should be allowed to work in engineering at all. You answered that you don't want to work with them, but you didn't exactly say what should happen to these poor souls. Fine.


I don't think you understand. A great number of the folks who start out as jerks will amend their behavior if they are met with resistance.

As a business culture, I feel strongly that jerks, brilliant or otherwise, should not be tolerated. Some businesses do tolerate it, and that's their prerogative.

What should be done with the poor, persecuted souls who insist on being assholes? They can find a ******* job, or run their own business, just like everybody else.
DrewDad
 
  6  
Reply Sun 13 Aug, 2017 08:47 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
There is one point of view being expressed here by everyone who is not named Max.

That's because the point of view being expressed by Max isn't particularly compelling. Max consistently misrepresents everyone else as holding extreme positions, while attempting to represent himself as reasonable.
firefly
 
  5  
Reply Sun 13 Aug, 2017 08:53 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:

I accept your criticism on what I chose for the title of this thread.


I'd rather you just explained the reasons you chose the title "White Woman vs Free Speech"

I have no desire to look at that other thread you just started. The topic isn't of that much interest to compensate for all the pedantry and hot air that accompanies your thinking.

It's up to Google how they choose to handle employee matters. Some people will agree with their decision to fire this man, some won't. That's not really a big deal for me, nor is that aspect worthy of extended discussion.

On the other hand, this employee's public promotion and perpetuation of an extremely negative stereotype of women is a very big deal, particularly in a corporation that has ostensibly tried to attract more females, and a general tech field long saddled with various sexist issues. That's not the minor matter you seem to feel it is.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 13 Aug, 2017 09:00 pm
@DrewDad,
Quote:
I don't think you understand. A great number of the folks who start out as jerks will amend their behavior if they are met with resistance.


DrewDad,

The problem I have with what you are saying lies with how you define what it means to be a "jerk". Obviously, someone who cusses out fellow employees won't be welcome on any team. But many times, the person you consider a "jerk" will be someone other people appreciate. The word "jerk" is subjective.

We are talking about people who express opinions that some other people find troubling. If I understand you correctly, someone who talks about the scientific evidence for cognitive differences between men and women makes him or her a "jerk" that you don't want to work with.

On the other hand, I happen to like people who express opinions. I work with opinionated people... we have lunch time conversations that would probably offend you. But you aren't on our team, and everyone on the team works well together (currently 1/3 of the engineers on my team are female). If someone has a problem, we will work it out.

I don't want to amend anyone's behavior unless it is specifically hurting the team, and on our team everyone is OK.

Google has now made it very clear that they will tolerate no discussion that might suggest a biological reason for the number of female engineer they are. You better believe that engineers are going to publicly stop talking about anything related to gender, and maybe talking about other things as well. This might be OK for Google, or it is possible that this will help productivity. It is also possible that it might hurt Google's productivity... it is a documented fact that many Google employees are upset that this guy was fired. But who knows.

I like working for a small company on small fast teams. I like to work with people who are opinionated and have strong personalities. I don't care if they are upstanding right-thinking citizens.

This point is that different people will thrive on different teams. When you say these brilliant assholes "can find a ******* job"... you are right. And my company happens to be hiring, I hope to see their resume soon.


0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  4  
Reply Sun 13 Aug, 2017 09:00 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
Has anyone here besides me actually worked on a successful software team?

Yup.

And based on the level of logic you're demonstrating, I'm guessing you're either a project manager or in QA.
maxdancona
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 13 Aug, 2017 09:02 pm
@DrewDad,
Well DrewDad, I posted another thread to discuss what I mean by Ideological echo chamber. I would love to see your comments on the other thread.

I have been able to accept when people here have made good points, and I have explained two different perspectives and said that I think each of them have valid points.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 13 Aug, 2017 09:04 pm
@DrewDad,
Actually, does this matter?

I am a software engineer, currently a team lead, on a speech recognition project.

(I do appreciate the smooth ad hominem you slid in there... nicely done Wink )

0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  5  
Reply Mon 14 Aug, 2017 07:10 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

maxdancona wrote:
There is one point of view being expressed here by everyone who is not named Max.

That's because the point of view being expressed by Max isn't particularly compelling. Max consistently misrepresents everyone else as holding extreme positions, while attempting to represent himself as reasonable.

http://www.theonion.com/article/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c-2849
maxdancona
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 14 Aug, 2017 07:12 am
@DrewDad,
That's funny DrewDad, but you are being a little harsh on Emmett, don't you think?

He made one ridiculous claim about the Bill of Rights, but then he backed down pretty quickly.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 14 Aug, 2017 07:23 am
@DrewDad,
This is a key point from the Ideological Echo Chamber thread...

Facts should be more important than political beliefs or opinions. It would be a good thing if you can accept that your side is making an argument that is factually incorrect, don't you think DrewDad? Are you here for an interesting discussion where maybe you can change your mind a little or learn something new, or are you just here to score a victory for your side at all costs.

Emmet made a claim that the Google Memo violated the Bill of Rights.

Are you doubling down on this claim DrewDad? Or are you willing to give a little from your ideological fortress when the facts are clearly not on your side. If you can't accept that this is wrong, then we have no hope of having a fact based discussion.
DrewDad
 
  5  
Reply Mon 14 Aug, 2017 07:28 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
Emmet made a claim that the Google Memo violated the Bill or Rights.

Are you doubling down on this claim DrewDad?

Yeah, this is why I posted that. You have a very vivid imagination about how responsibility works.

I've never said anything in this thread about the Bill of Rights, so I have nothing to double down on.

If you have concerns about what Emmet posted... ask Emmet.

Contrary to your apparent belief, nobody has a conference call to discuss how to respond to your little threads. You're really not that important.
 

Related Topics

Tablet Wars: Google Strikes Back! - Discussion by tsarstepan
Who does Google think you are? - Discussion by hingehead
Google Street View! - Question by Victor Murphy
Google easter eggs & pranks!! - Discussion by Monger
Google and the ABC's of the Internet - Discussion by tsarstepan
Google Groups - Question by gollum
GOOGLE BANNER - Question by WendyLou
All in a name, Google recognises Palestine. - Discussion by izzythepush
Google = Untrusted connection? - Question by boomerang
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/18/2022 at 10:37:55