James Damore, the fired Google employee, tries to identify biases by viewpoint in his email that led to his firing.
Sidebar: Part of the title of the cite above describe the email as “An Anti-Diversity Screed.” It is not Anti-Diversity as it tries to find ways to increase diversity. It is not a screed as in a ranting piece of writing. Since screed also includes a lengthy discourse and the email runs ten pages then it might sneak in as a screed but it is the opposite of a rant. It is a plea to be rational in augmenting diversity End Sidebar.
James tries to identify biases of the left and right. Below is his analysis of the biases of the left and right and the text that follows from the email.
- Compassion for the weak
- Disparities are due to injustices
- Humans are inherently cooperative
- Change is good (unstable)
- Respect for the strong/authority
- Disparities are natural and just
- Humans are inherently competitive
- Change is dangerous (stable)
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.
You can decide if James is a man of the left or just trying to curry favor with the left as almost all the biases on the left are positive and the majority of biases on the right are negative. Certainly compassion for the weak, change is good, open, and idealistic are positive attributes. Whereas alleged conservative biases: Authority, change is dangerous, and closed are certainly negative.
A great book would be (please cite us but no need to send a check) to examine postulates and biases of the left and right. We don’t have the time or inclination to write it. Metaphysics just doesn’t interest us that much.
In the two paragraphs below the lists, James tells us he is trying to reason with the authorities at Google using evidence. As we would expect, it didn’t work.
The nature of biases is that we don’t notice them. Thus, both the left and the right commonly accuse the other of being impervious to facts. The outcome with James would suggest that at least one of the groups is correct. [Yes we are scoring points. We agree that both sides can be guilty of ignoring the facts.] The larger point, however, is “You’re biased!” is a good way to start a fight but a bad way to start a discussion. Even though James said you’re biased in the kindest and gentlest way by giving the left nicer biases than the right he still started a fight that he could not win. It is unfortunate that James was figuratively burned as a heretic. We do need a discussion about how the means of genders and races can be different. Otherwise, the liberals in Silicon Valley and academia will continue to bang their heads against the walls of statistics and get nothing more than a headache while the liberals in government will give folks headaches.