The Hurt Feelz Approach To Science: NLRB On Damore's Google Memo
Unbelievably, the US National Labor Relations Board has declared parts of fired Google employee James A. Damore's memo "discriminatory." From Ars Technica's Sam Machkovech:
In explaining the board's reasoning, NLRB member Jayme Sophir points to two specific parts of the controversial memo circulated by Damore in August: Damore's claim that women are "more prone to 'neuroticism,' resulting in women experiencing higher anxiety and exhibiting lower tolerance for stress" and that "men demonstrate greater variance in IQ than women."Sophir describes how these gender-specific claims resemble other cases decided by the NLRB that revolved around racist, sexist, and homophobic language in the workplace. She says that specific Damore statements were "discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, notwithstanding [his] effort to cloak [his] comments with 'scientific' references and analysis, and notwithstanding [his] 'not all women' disclaimers. Moreover, those statements were likely to cause serious dissension and disruption in the workplace."
This claim -- that women are more prone to "neuroticism," one of the five (or sometimes six) dimensions of personality, is not scientifically controversial. Nor, for example, is the observation that there's greater variance in male IQs. Men, more than women, fall at the far ends of the bell curve.
From the NLRB memo:
I want to make clear that our decision is based solely on the part of your post that generalizes and advances stereotypes about women versus men.
So, our government's body is actually making its finding on the potential for hurt feelz. Did the scientific findings disturb some simpering Sallies, or might they disturb them?
I'm embarrassed to be included simply by being a woman, lest somebody infantilize me accordingly.
Of course, there are individual differences in people; the memo Damore wrote talks about the ways, for example, that women generally are. This -- realizing how many women are -- is extremely helpful information. Why wouldn't it be, assuming you understand that there are individual differences?
Ultimately, from my read of Damore, he's a good-hearted dude who thought, "I'll just put out the science and make things better!"
He didn't realize how strongly ideology tops science in one of the top tech companies in the world.
Let's play a little game along the NLRB's decisional lines:
Here's a generalization: Men are vastly more likely to get prostate cancer than women.
Here's another: Women are vastly more likely to have ovaries.
Discriminatory! Constitutes sexual harassment! "Nothwithstanding" my effort to cloak my comments in "basic physiology."
Are we seeing how wildly ridiculous this is?
It seems like a bad decision for the reasons you give, and hell, I just dislike gov't lawyers with their BA in history and JD to be making decisions on what is a scientifically accurate and what is not.
https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/jayme-l-sophir-lead-division-advice
So all my sympathies are with James and I hope he prevails, it will be interesting as a layman to see how James and his lawyer deal with this.
jerry at February 16, 2018 11:08 PM
Since Danforth was neither a private sector employer nor a Union official and had no power to hire or fire anyone, how did his internal memo even fall under the puview of the NLRB?
Isab at February 17, 2018 4:39 AM
Let's pretend that we did not saw that would happen a mile away.
Sixclaws at February 17, 2018 6:51 AM
publicinfo@nlrb.gov if anyone wants clarification on specific statements probability of getting you fired
I wonder if mathematicians can now be fired for saying 2+2=4, if such a statement hurts a womans feelings?
lujlp at February 17, 2018 6:55 AM
@Lujlp,
When hurt feelz happen, anything can be used as a weapon.
Sixclaws at February 17, 2018 7:10 AM
"Here's another: Women are vastly more likely to have ovaries."
"I want to have babies."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R79yYo2aOZs
bkmale at February 17, 2018 7:54 AM
Funny, I heard back in the 1980s that psychologists had declared the whole idea of neuroses to be obsolete. What happened?
lenona at February 17, 2018 8:43 AM
Women are much more likely to get auto-immune disease. Men are much more prone to suicide. Women more prone to anxiety men more to depression (someone quipped anxiety is worry about the future, depression is worry about the past).
The idea that "making generalization" is a fireable offense is equivalent to saying that we believe men and women are identical. That does appear to be the prevailing dogma, though of course women are not identical when they need safe spaces etc etc.
cc at February 17, 2018 8:52 AM
Cuck sez chillax.
Crid at February 17, 2018 9:53 PM
That was supposed to be "Chuck." Unfamiliar keyboard... I got no problem with the guy.
Crid at February 17, 2018 9:54 PM
The NLRB, and the entire Labor Department, is a part of the federal government that simply does not need to exist.
Cousin Dave at February 19, 2018 8:23 AM
So would a memo that said "We have generally found Carnegie-Mellon graduates to be better programmers," or "We have generally found Harvard Business School graduates to be better at strategic marketing" be considered discriminatory by the NLRB?
Of course not. Universities have in effect a special license to have discrimination conducted on a school basis.
What about a memo that said "While there are some exceptions, extreme introverts do not generally make good sales reps," or "We have found a general correlation between musical appreciation and talent, on the one hand, and programming skill, on the other"?
David Foster at February 19, 2018 8:34 AM
It just hit me that what happened was that the memo-writer took a rule that was perfectly sensible in one context and tried to apply it in a completely different context. If Google had used those two observations to justify a policy of preferring men or refusing to hire/promote women, they'd absolutely be committing prohibited discrimination.
But that's because they'd be judging specific applicants based on generalizations about group averages, where the groups involved are protected. Damore was neither doing this or suggesting that it be done. Similarly, if Damore had actually claimed what the SJWs falsely claim that he did, namely that his female colleagues were underperforming his male colleagues because of the ddifferences he cited, it would be reasonable to say that he contributed to a hostile environment. But he did nothing of the sort.
ebohlman at February 25, 2018 6:31 PM
Leave a comment