YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → 2017/08/08: James Damore and his Google Memo on Diversity (complete)

2017/08/08: James Damore and his Google Memo on Diversity (complete) — Transcript

by Jordan B Peterson · 8,327 words · 1,273 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:01hello so some of you may have heard
0:05about the leaked Google memo that has
0:09been circulating virally around the
0:11internet for the last couple of days
0:13that was written by James deore who was
0:16fired for it last night and uh a
0:20colleague of his reached out to me and
0:22put us together and so I'm going to talk
0:24to James today about exactly what
0:26happened and why and perhaps what should
0:29be done about it so
0:34uh so that's what we're going to do and
0:37the interview I had with him which
0:38finished at about 3:00 on Tuesday August
0:428th follows immediately after this
0:46introduction hi everybody I'm speaking
0:49today with James
0:52deore and an unidentified Google
0:55employee who wishes to remain anonymous
0:59um for reasons that I think are obvious
1:02and James last week put his hand in a
1:06blender by circulating an internal memo
1:09that I would say has become somewhat
1:11Infamous so James let's start with let's
1:14start with a bit of discussion about you
1:16tell us who you are about your
1:18background and about what you were doing
1:20at
1:20Google I yes so I I was actually just
1:26you know I really interested in science
1:28and psychology and stuff Stu and then I
1:32really liked puzzles and that's how I
1:33got into Google actually I did one of
1:35their coding competitions they just
1:37recruited me out of that and so at
1:40Google I was mostly working on search
1:44and image and video search in
1:46particular and so what's tell us about
1:48your educational background a
1:51bit uh yes so I just did a random
1:56science and math and undergrad and I
1:59ended up with a I didn't really know
2:00what I was going to do so I I started
2:03doing research at MIT and then uh I went
2:07to uh systems biology at Harvard I
2:11initially wanted to work with Martin NOC
2:13he's really great in
2:15evolution and Game Theory but uh then I
2:18started working on other
2:20things so tell us a bit about systems
2:23biology what what is that exactly what
2:24kind of research were you doing at
2:27MIT I yes so systems biology has many
2:31different meanings but it's generally
2:34just mathematical
2:37biology and uh I guess seeing biological
2:41systems as a whole rather than just
2:43individual
2:44molecules and so I I like looking at
2:47populations and so my interest in
2:51evolution so why did that make you a
2:54viable candidate at Google do you
2:58think uh I think just saw a smart guy
3:01that could
3:03code fair enough now you've been there
3:06three years is that correct but also as
3:07an intern before that yeah so about four
3:10years total and so how would you say
3:13you've performed as an employee at
3:14Google have people been happy with you
3:16or have you been in trouble or no Ian I
3:20got promoted twice my last review was uh
3:23the highest possible superb which is the
3:26top few
3:27percentile so I definitely wasn't based
3:30on performance that they fired me and
3:33have you enjoyed working at Google has
3:35it been a good
3:36experience yeah I mean I love Google
3:39that's the horrible part like I've
3:41always been the biggest Google Fanboy
3:45all like I've never had an iPhone I've
3:48always tried to convince my friends to
3:49use Android and all these different
3:51things
3:53and yeah I mean this just puts a sour
3:57taste in my mouth okay so so you've got
3:59a good educational background you were
4:01interested in things that Google would
4:02be interested in you're good coder
4:05you've worked with them for a number of
4:06years and done an excellent job and
4:08you're pretty Pro Google that's
4:10basically the background yeah okay now
4:13last week you wrote a memo which has
4:16attracted a tremendous amount of
4:18attention and in that memo you you made
4:21a number of claims and the claims were
4:24and please correct me if I've got this
4:26if I'm not summarizing this properly you
4:28were attempting to to describe reasons
4:31why there might why a lack of gender
4:35parity might exist within Google for
4:37example and within engineering more
4:39broadly but also in occupations more
4:41broadly and you um you laid out a very
4:45elaborated document and I reviewed it
4:47and as far as I can tell your opinions
4:51are well supported by the relevant
4:54psychological science and I think what
4:55I'll do in the description of this video
4:58when I link it is
5:00putting the references so that people
5:02can decide for themselves I want to put
5:03up a web page about gender differences
5:05in general but I'll try to hit the
5:06highlights for this particular document
5:10so why did you do
5:13this uh yeah so about a month and a half
5:17ago I went to one of our diversity
5:20Summits all of it unrecorded and super
5:24secret and they told me a lot of things
5:27that I thought just we're not right okay
5:31what do you mean unrecorded in super
5:33secret well I mean they were telling us
5:36about a lot of these potentially illegal
5:39practices that they've been doing to try
5:42to increase
5:43diversity and what kind of
5:47practices uh well basically treating
5:49people differently based on what their
5:52race or gender
5:54racism yeah
5:56basically I see and so and it was Ultra
5:59secret and unrecorded in what
6:02Manner uh yeah so I mean most meetings
6:05at Google are recorded anyone Google can
6:08watch it we're trying to be really open
6:10about everything except for this you
6:13they don't want any paper trail for any
6:15of these things okay
6:18why because I think it's illegal and I
6:22mean as some of the internal polls
6:24showed there were a large percent of
6:26people that agreed with me on the
6:28document and so if everyone got to see
6:31this stuff then you know they would
6:35really bring up some criticism yeah well
6:38a large number of people in Google and a
6:40very large number of well-informed
6:42biological scientists we might also add
6:45so I mean I was quite I was quite um
6:47struck by your document given that you
6:51know it would have been a decent
6:52document for a well-informed
6:53psychologist research psychologist to
6:56write but you're somewhat of an outsider
6:58but you've got the you got the
7:00highlights accurate as far as I'm
7:02concerned so okay so you went to this
7:04diversity meeting and you weren't happy
7:07with the sorts of things that you were
7:08being told and with the practices is is
7:11that both correct yeah and what were you
7:13being
7:15told uh well so
7:18that I there's a lot of ways in which
7:21they pressure people to increase the
7:24diversity of their team and you know
7:27there's no way to do that besides
7:29actually choosing someone based on their
7:31race or gender right what do they mean
7:34by diversity
7:36precisely uh I me more women or
7:41underrepresented racial
7:44minorities no can I jump in yeah um I I
7:48would hesitate to say that that's 100%
7:51true across 100% of right so the
7:55organization that I'm in I have not
7:57personally seen anything that I would
7:59team cross the line um you know I
8:02personally believe that there are a good
8:04amount of synergies to be found if you
8:06can combine you know slightly different
8:10ideologies um into a room and that is
8:13the the thesis that some groups are
8:15working towards um obviously there's
8:18going to be a distribution of how people
8:21follow the rules um and you know it's
8:24unfortunate to hear that it's you know
8:28it could be that some people fall to the
8:30wrong side of that distribution but um
8:32that certainly wouldn't it would not
8:34apply to everybody well it certainly
8:36also it certainly also distressing to
8:38hear that there is acceptance of the
8:40idea that diversity can be mapped onto
8:44race and gender especially with regards
8:45to Performance because there's no
8:47evidence for that whatsoever so okay so
8:50you went to this meeting and then you
8:52you decided to write this document and
8:54um how long had you been working on it
8:57before you released it uh yes so I was
9:01doing it like throughout my free time I
9:05and I just wanted to clarify my thoughts
9:07on this and I really just wanted to be
9:08proven wrong because you know if what I
9:11was saying was right then something bad
9:12is happening and so yeah about a month
9:16ago I submitted to feedback to that
9:19program and you know I saw that people
9:21looked at it but no one actually said
9:23anything and what sort of feedback did
9:25you
9:27submit uh I mean I basically said what I
9:29said in the in the document and then I
9:31linked to the document
9:33itself and so I actually published this
9:36about a month
9:37ago and it was only after it got viral
9:41and then leaked to the news that Google
9:45started carrying okay so how did it go
9:47viral and and do you know and how was it
9:50leaked uh yeah
9:52so I there was a group at Google called
9:55Skeptics and so I was like okay maybe
9:58they'll be able to prove me wrong in
10:00some way like they're skeptical about
10:02things right I don't know I was naive I
10:05guess and so I sent them a message like
10:08okay what do you think about this is
10:10Google in some sort of echo chamber or
10:12am I in an echo
10:14chamber
10:16and you know then it just exploded after
10:19that and you know our
10:22internal yeah it was just spread
10:24throughout all of Google do you and do
10:27you know was it the was it was it the
10:29Skeptics group that started to spread it
10:32around yeah and then there were a lot of
10:35upper management that uh you know
10:39specifically called it out and started
10:41saying how harmful it is and how it's
10:44unacceptable this sort of viewpoint is
10:46not allowed at Google yeah what sort of
10:49viewpoint exactly the idea that there
10:52are differences between men and women
10:53that actually might play a role in in in
10:56in in the in the in the corporate world
10:59that that's an opinion that's not
11:01acceptable yeah it seems
11:04so well I mean you know understandably
11:07it is this these issues are tricky
11:10morally and politically but the thing
11:12that was disturbing to me about watching
11:15the response to you is that as far as I
11:17can tell there isn't anything that you
11:18said in that paper first of all that is
11:20in fact biased in a manner that should
11:23open you up to the sorts of charges that
11:25have been opened up against you or that
11:27violates the scientific liter as it
11:29currently stands so both of those are
11:33rather
11:34distressing yeah and there's a lot of
11:37misrepresentation by upper management
11:40just to silence me I think yes and why
11:43is that do you think like why why is it
11:45that Google couldn't have actually do
11:47you think that Google couldn't have come
11:48out and had an intelligent discussion
11:50about this instead of well first of all
11:52releasing like Dan I read Danielle
11:54Brown's response to you which I thought
11:56was absolutely appalling ill-informed
11:58and paing and then they fired you which
12:01seems to be like a really bad PR move
12:03but more importantly doesn't actually
12:05deal with the issues at hand you know
12:07they're basically saying something like
12:10well what was their rationale for firing
12:12you exactly what was the excuse that was
12:14given so the official excuse was that I
12:17was perpetuating gender stereotypes that
12:19you were perpetuating gender
12:22stereotypes yeah and did they say
12:24anything else about your performance or
12:26about anything else that you had done no
12:29it was that was the only reason and who
12:32who who fired you
12:34technically it was my HR representative
12:39and my
12:40director okay and do you and do do you
12:44have any idea on Whose orders they were
12:46acting or if this was something that
12:48they conjured up themselves or I I'm
12:51sure it probably went from higher up
12:53than
12:54that because I this is a huge PR move so
13:00they would need approval from right hup
13:02right and I think the CEO the CEO
13:05actually made some comments about the
13:06issue today which I'll probably cut into
13:09this video as we as I edit it so yeah
13:13okay all right so the first question is
13:17how are you
13:19doing I'm doing okay I there's a lot of
13:22messages that I'm trying to sort through
13:24and just trying to figure out what I
13:27should do now but
13:30yeah you've been given some interesting
13:31job offers as far as I can
13:34tell yeah I've gotten a surprising
13:36amount as a part yeah yeah well I
13:39suspect in fact I'm virtually certain
13:41that you have a majority Viewpoint it's
13:44just that the people who hold the
13:45alternative perspective which are the
13:48radical social constructionist types who
13:50insist that everything is a consequence
13:52of socialization they're a little bit
13:54more organized politically but they're
13:56clearly wrong scientifically they're
13:57wrong factually they're wrong ethically
14:00for that matter so so you you probably
14:04have more support than you think and
14:05it'll be very interesting to see how
14:06that turns out so so what do you think
14:10about having written this or I mean now
14:13your life is going to be turned upside
14:14down and for quite a while I suspect I
14:16mean so you put yourself out on the line
14:18doing this so what do you think about
14:24that
14:26I it definitely sucks but
14:30I mean at least I was proven right you
14:33know when what do you mean by proven
14:34right well just that the whole uh
14:40culture just tries to silence any
14:42dissenting
14:44View and that we really need
14:48some more objective way of looking at
14:50these things yeah well I felt the same
14:53way when the University of Toronto
14:55decided to you
14:57know attempt to shut me down down after
14:59I made my videos I thought well that
15:01just proves my point yeah cuz I mean I
15:03made the videos saying well I don't like
15:05the climate that's developing it it's
15:07making it very difficult to have
15:08conversations about certain things and
15:10your example is even more egregious I
15:13think because you know I at least
15:16objected to a piece of legislation that
15:19in principle would have been of benefit
15:21to an identifiable group let's say the
15:23transgender group I don't believe it is
15:25of any benefit to them but you could
15:26make a case that it was but you all you
15:29did as far as I can tell is review the
15:31modern personality literature and the
15:34literature on individual differences
15:36relating to men and women and and other
15:38groups and there's actually not very
15:40much opinion in your piece at all so
15:43what that means is that it is not
15:46possible to actually have a discussion
15:48about the scientific literature on these
15:51issues without putting yourself at risk
15:53and that's a hell of a thing for an
15:54engineer because I mean engineer isn't
15:58re rely on
15:59the facts as far as I can tell and one
16:02of the things I like about engineers is
16:03that they tend to stick fairly closely
16:05to the facts they're not a very
16:07political
16:08group you know generally speaking
16:10they're much more
16:14practical yeah I I don't know how they
16:17can expect to silence so many engineers
16:20and intelligent people and just deny
16:24science like this yeah well the question
16:27too is what are your supporters within
16:29Google going to do because you know I
16:31would say you're a great warning
16:34man
16:36because you you showed what happened to
16:38you showed exactly what happens if you
16:41have
16:43enough I don't know what you'd call it
16:46curiosity and courage I
16:49suppose but but mostly curiosity to lay
16:52out what you think for discussion I mean
16:55even when you opened this conversation
16:57you said that you know you weren't
17:00jumping up and down and insisting you
17:02were right you were trying to lay out
17:03what you understood from doing a fair
17:05bit of reading and and and make the case
17:08that the these facts the facts about the
17:12differences between men and women and
17:13employment choice and and payment and
17:15all that aren't being discussed and
17:17they're not being discussed I mean we
17:19know for example and I'll put this
17:20citation in the in the description it's
17:23been very difficult for the the swedes
17:26for example to flatten out the gender
17:29distribution for engineers in Sweden and
17:31in and in and in the Scandinavian
17:33countries in general despite their
17:36Advanced social engineering let's call
17:38it and they also can't get male nurses
17:40you know I think it's four out of five
17:42nurses in Scandinavia if I remember
17:44correctly are female and the reverse
17:47number are are Engineers are male and
17:52you know that seems to be associated
17:54with this quite
17:56well-founded um scientific observation
17:59that women tilt towards interest in
18:02people and Men tilt towards interest in
18:04things and that that's associated with
18:07testosterone exposure in utero this is
18:09solid science you know and it isn't
18:11anybody beating an ideological drum
18:13because most of the people I would say
18:15that most of the people who are
18:16publishing this would have been even
18:19happier had it turned out the other way
18:22you know the findings actually run
18:24contrary to their biases because
18:26Academia is generally full of people
18:28whose bias is our laugh and now and then
18:31you know scientific findings emerge to
18:34dispute um an ideological proposition
18:37that was certainly the case with the
18:39role of biology versus society in in
18:41establishing gender differences so the
18:43science is very credible it doesn't mean
18:45it's completely Beyond dispute but
18:49that's not the point either because your
18:50survey was actually pretty decent survey
18:52of the current state of affairs with
18:54regards to individual differences that
18:56doesn't mean it's right so
19:00okay so what what are your what are your
19:02what does your family think about all
19:05this yeah they definitely support me but
19:09they they don't really know what I
19:10should do from here they they don't want
19:12me to you know just go to a ton of news
19:15corporations and do all these interviews
19:17and stuff and because they just want to
19:19twist whatever I say towards their
19:21agenda too it's it's not really clear
19:24what I should be doing yeah well there's
19:26certainly no shortage of people that
19:28want to talk talk to you I mean I've
19:29been contacted by four or five
19:31journalists who would like to speak with
19:33you um we can talk about that afterwards
19:36I can let you know who they are but um
19:39yeah well you've got a you've got a
19:42conundrum on your hands you know I mean
19:45you're you're a you're a very
19:48straightforward person and you're
19:51obviously not grinding any acts at least
19:54not in any obvious way so my suspicions
19:56are that talking to the right people
19:59could be of substantial use to you but I
20:01guess it also depends on what it is that
20:04you want I mean and that's something we
20:06could talk about now you've
20:08you've you've rattled up the cages of a
20:11fair number of people and a fairly large
20:14organization interestingly enough just
20:16on the heels of Google and YouTube's
20:18announcement about their new free speech
20:19restrictions on on YouTube you know and
20:22and their incorporation of NOS into that
20:25censorship process so it's been quite a
20:27week for Google I would say
20:29so you've opened up this can of
20:32worms what is it so imagine if you're
20:35looking six months down the road saying
20:38things happened that were good because
20:40of what you did what is it that you
20:42would like to have
20:45happen uh at the very least I want
20:48because I I do still care about Google I
20:50want some conversation to be had and for
20:55the ideologues to not just have their
20:57way
21:00but yeah I I still don't have a Clear
21:03Vision on how
21:04exactly this will happen yeah well how
21:08how this can spread farther than just
21:10Google well I mean you'd spread it
21:13farther than just Google that's for sure
21:15you know um I mean I would say my
21:17experience is with the Press is that the
21:21first thing that happens that will
21:23happen is that you'll get jumped on by
21:26people who call you the sorts of
21:29epithets that would be appropriate if
21:31you were a bad guy and you should just
21:33shut up and go
21:35away okay that's already happened but I
21:37think you're going to get through that
21:39real quick because I went through your
21:42um your writings which are not a screed
21:44by the way and are certainly not an
21:46anti- diversity screed I went through
21:48your writings and and I can't see
21:50anything there that identifies you as
21:52the sort of person that can be easily
21:54and permanently tarred with a hateful
21:56epithet but you know it's log iCal for
22:00the public let's say including the media
22:02to jump on someone like you when they
22:04blow a whistle because the first thing
22:07that you might presume if someone's
22:09causing trouble is that there's
22:10something wrong with them and so then
22:12you have to sort of beat them a while
22:14with the idea that there's something
22:16wrong with them to see what happens and
22:18so the first thing is you have to
22:20withstand that but there don't seem to
22:21be any smoking pistols in your
22:23background so for example you were an
22:26ideal Google employee well that prot you
22:28a lot and and you don't have a history
22:31of this of any sort of troublemaking and
22:33you have a solid educational background
22:35and you're clearly a reasonable person
22:37and so the first thing is is just to
22:39steal yourself to get through
22:42that and then what will happen I think
22:45if you do talk to Media organizations
22:48and especially if you talk to them the
22:50way that you're talking to me which is
22:51extraordinarily calm and composed then
22:54you're going to reveal yourself even
22:56more as a reasonable person and the
22:59Press overall will start to shift behind
23:02you and I think the reason for that is
23:04one thing you got to remember about the
23:06Press is that when push comes to shove
23:09they're actually rather in favor of free
23:11speech yeah given that without it they
23:14would be
23:16dead so I don't think like I don't think
23:19that you have to worry about being
23:23exploited and Twisted by media sources I
23:27actually think that it might be to your
23:30advantage to talk to people you know you
23:32can figure out who those people are but
23:36you're just
23:37not the kind of person that can be
23:40easily transformed into a villain and
23:42the more that you can demonstrate that
23:44the better it might be you know for for
23:47the cause that you're engaged in but
23:49also for
23:51yourself
23:53yeah so what so like how are you feeling
23:56about this emotionally
23:59you must be in a bit of a State of Shock
24:00I would
24:01think yeah it's been a stressful week
24:05for
24:07sure uh
24:10but I I'm not feeling too negative about
24:14it yet I it hasn't fully hit me I don't
24:16think yeah well it won't because God
24:19only knows what's going to happen to you
24:20over the next few weeks right it's going
24:21to be a real roller
24:23coaster and you know you know the other
24:25thing that you might consider is that
24:27it's possible that this will turn out
24:29extraordinarily positive for you you
24:31know there's going to be it's going to
24:33be a rough ride but um to the degree
24:36that you are accurate in your
24:38observations then you know it's not that
24:40easy to it's not that easy for the
24:43opponents of Truth to have a battle with
24:45truth it's not easy to have a battle
24:48with reality you know you tend to
24:50lose so can I just go over some of the
24:53things that you said so that we can
24:55discuss yes sir okay so I'm gonna take a
24:57look here
24:59so you started with a pretty
25:01good solid statement I would say
25:05Google's political bias has equated the
25:07freedom from offense with psychological
25:09safety but shaming into silence is the
25:12antithesis of psychological safety well
25:14that seems even more relevant now in
25:16your situation the silencing has created
25:18an ideological Echo chamber where some
25:20ideas are too sacred to be honestly
25:22discussed well we can check that one off
25:25too right firing certainly seems to
25:27indicate that that was the case the lack
25:29of disc discussion Fosters the most
25:31extreme and authoritarian elements of
25:33this ideology some of the extreme the
25:36extreme is all disparities in
25:37representation are due to oppression
25:39that's a good one right that's a
25:41univariant hypothesis it's very very
25:44simple-minded and then the authoritarian
25:46element you defined as the idea we
25:49should discriminate to correct for this
25:51oppression great and then you make a
25:53claim difference and distributions of
25:55traits between men and women May imp
25:58heart explain why we don't have 50%
26:01representation of women in teeken
26:03leadership discrimination to reach equal
26:06representation is unfair divisive and
26:08bad for business okay so that's your
26:10thesis and then you go along and try to
26:14uh justify it so the first thing you do
26:16is talk about left-wing versus
26:19right-wing biases and I should point out
26:21that you don't concentrate on the left
26:24biases or on the right biases you're
26:26completely evenhanded with regards to
26:28laying out the pros and cons so the left
26:31is compassion for the weak disparities
26:33are due to injustices humans are
26:35inherently Cooperative change is good SL
26:38unstable open and idealistic fair enough
26:42man you're dead on with regards to the
26:44relevant psychological literature where
26:46we see that political correctness is
26:48motivated by agreeableness and that
26:50liberalism is fundamentally predicted by
26:53openness and the right biases respect
26:56for authority disparities are natural
26:58just humans are inherently competitive
27:00change is dangerous stable that would be
27:03high conscientiousness and low openness
27:05and they're closed rather than open and
27:07pragmatic rather than idealist yeah well
27:09I don't think any reasonable person
27:11could read that column and say that you
27:12were coming down hard on the side of
27:14either part of the political Spectrum
27:18yeah Dr Peterson can I jump in with a
27:20question um it appears from my
27:23interactions with many people that they
27:27are rejecting words that were not
27:30written onto the paper and would you be
27:33able to elaborate on the schemas that
27:36people develop and how they classify
27:39information um in their minds um because
27:41this is very much how stereotypes form I
27:44would think um is by kind of just
27:46grouping a bunch of disperate but semi-
27:49related people or things together and
27:51then projecting an idea that may or may
27:53not pertain to that yeah well it's a
27:55it's a low resolution thought is is I
27:58mean what what's happened to James is
28:00that he you know he he he put up his
28:03hand and said wait a second I don't
28:04agree with the diversity ideology and he
28:07was immediately classified essentially
28:10as a misogynist and bigot and that's the
28:13simplest thing to do right because
28:15misogynists and
28:17bigots will hold viewpoints that are
28:20anti-female and racist and so it's a lot
28:24easier just to paint someone with a
28:26broad brush especially especially if
28:28they're violating the tenants of your
28:30implicit um temperament let's say than
28:33it is to dive into the details where
28:37real thought occurs and I think one of
28:39the sins that James committed was that
28:42he actually dared to make this about
28:44details rather than about vague hand
28:47waving ideology that's very annoying to
28:49people who don't want to think because
28:52in order to analyze his claims you'd
28:54have to go through well let's say 20 or
28:5630 scientific papers and actually
28:58understand what they mean and that's
29:00very annoying especially if you're
29:02pursuing a given agenda so okay so then
29:06you say neither side is 100% correct and
29:09both viewpoints are necessary for a
29:11functioning Society or in this case
29:13company yeah well I think the data is
29:15solid there too I mean our research has
29:17indicated that open people who are
29:19primarily liberals start companies and
29:22the more closed people the conservatives
29:24the traditionalists are good at running
29:26them they're better at being managers
29:28and administrators and that's associated
29:30with high conscientiousness so you've
29:32got it right there a company too far to
29:34the right may be too slow to react over
29:36Hier hierarchical and untrusted and a
29:39company too far to the left will be will
29:42over diversify its interests overly
29:45trust its employees and competitors and
29:48change perhaps too rapidly yeah great
29:50fine perfect nicely balanced as far as I
29:52can tell only facts and reasons Can Shed
29:54light on these biases but when it comes
29:56to diversity and inclusion Google left
29:58by us has created a politically correct
30:00monoculture that maintains its holds by
30:02shaming descenders into silence well
30:05that certainly seems to be the case yeah
30:08okay this silence removes any checks
30:09against encroaching extremist and
30:11authoritarian policies all right at
30:14Google we're regularly told that
30:16implicit unconscious and explicit biases
30:18are holding women back in Tech and
30:20Leadership of course men and women
30:22experience bias Tech and the workplace
30:24differently and we should be cognizant
30:26of that but it's far from the whole
30:27story on average men and women
30:29biologically differ in many ways these
30:31aren't just socially constructed because
30:32they're Universal across cultures clear
30:35biological causes links to prenatal
30:37testosterone biological males castrated
30:40at Birth and raised as females often
30:41still identify and act like males DL
30:44traits are highly heritable and they're
30:46exactly what we would predict from an
30:47evolutionary psychology perspective note
30:49I'm not saying that all men differ from
30:51women in the following ways or that
30:53these differences are just and then you
30:55put in a nice chart indicating that the
30:58amount of overlap between men and women
31:00per trait is greater than the amount of
31:03difference right and so you state that
31:05directly that that's that's perfect
31:07that's a very good way of of Defending
31:09Your thesis and also of not overstating
31:12the case then you do a nice job of of
31:16also graphically indicating what happens
31:18if the distribution is ignored and
31:20people are just treated as if they're
31:21unipolar representatives of a given
31:24Group which is kind of what the D what
31:26the people who are predicating
31:28the push for diversity on gender and
31:30race are assuming right yeah which is
31:33imp which is really so funny because
31:35it's really a biologically essentialist
31:37argument much much greater than than
31:40than the argument that you're making
31:41which is that men and women and the
31:45members of different races are so
31:47different that in order for a full
31:50diversity of viewpoint to be achieved
31:52you have to pull in people by race and
31:55gender which which which implicitly
31:57States that the differences are so great
32:00that the distributions don't
32:02overlap yeah right you couldn't make a
32:04more racist and misogynous statement
32:07than that and and it's also technically
32:10wrong because men and women are more
32:11alike than they are different maybe if
32:13you summed up all the differences you
32:15could absolutely differentiate between
32:17them you know in in all likelihood you
32:19could but some of those differences are
32:21clearly irrelevant to the workplace yeah
32:23okay then you go through the personality
32:25difference literature and you're you're
32:28exactly right on that I see that the CEO
32:31took you to task for using the word
32:34neuroticism however that is the
32:36technical term in the personality
32:37literature and there are historical
32:38reasons for that a better word might be
32:41negative emotion but it's clearly the
32:43case that women are higher in negative
32:45emotion than men and that means that
32:47they are on average less tolerant of
32:50uncertainty and stress they suffer more
32:51psychologically for for the equivalent
32:54levels of of uncertainty and stress and
32:56that is also why why cross-culturally
32:59women have more depressive disorders and
33:01anxiety disorders and the research on
33:03that is Rock Solid Rock Solid men have
33:06their own problems right they're more
33:07likely to be antisocial they're much
33:09more likely to be imprisoned they're
33:11more likely to have learning
33:12disabilities so it's stating that there
33:15are differences in the rates of certain
33:17kinds of psychopathologies doesn't put
33:19any either gender into a position of
33:21relative
33:22inferiority so and then you quote re
33:27Arch that suggest that greater Nation
33:29level gender equality leads to
33:31psychological dissimilarity
33:33dissimilarity in men and women's
33:34personality traits absolutely that's
33:36what the Scandinavian studies indicate
33:38there's been a number of them and
33:40they're very large studies so you got
33:42that right what what this what the
33:44researchers demonstrated was that
33:47as
33:48comp
33:50as um countries move to flatten out the
33:54socioeconomic playing field and remove
33:57discrimination
33:58the differences between men and women or
34:00many of the differences between and
34:01women maximize instead of minimizing and
34:05in Scandinavia you really see
34:07maximization of the difference in men
34:09and women with regards to interest in
34:10people versus interest in things a major
34:13a major issue men's higher drive for
34:16status yeah well we know that women are
34:19hypergamous and that they choose men on
34:20the basis of their socioeconomic status
34:23right well documented cross-culturally
34:25and also just rational because
34:28uh women have to make themselves
34:30dependent when they are pregnant and
34:32when they have infants and it makes
34:33perfect sense for them to seek out the
34:35most competent person they can manage
34:38the most competent and generous person
34:40they can manage in order to help them
34:42bear the burden so so not no no dispute
34:46there at least no you're not um
34:52diverting from the central tenants of
34:54evolutionary psychology and biology
34:57people will dispute those findings but
35:00you're not Conjuring this out of thin
35:02air there's a nice solid scientific
35:04literature behind
35:06you so and you know it's it's also very
35:09interesting to look at the US Labor
35:13stats on gender differences in
35:15occupations you know because it's so
35:17funny to watch the radical feminists
35:19only go after the high status
35:20occupations it's like 100% of brick
35:23layers are
35:24men we don't hear that being being
35:28complained about and of course men
35:29occupy most of the outside jobs they
35:31move more and they do more of the
35:33dangerous jobs as well um so so these
35:37are all factors that are are relevant
35:39but completely undiscussed as far as I
35:43can tell by the sort of ideological
35:44types that have been going after you so
35:48women are on average more Cooperative
35:50yeah especially with members of their
35:52ingroup whether they're more Cooperative
35:55with members of their outg group is a
35:56different story right because agreeable
35:58people are in-group oriented and and
36:01very hard on outgroup members which I
36:03think is partly why the PC types are so
36:05hard on their enemies because you know
36:07they regard them as predators predators
36:10on infants essentially something like
36:12that women on average are more prone to
36:14anxiety yes that's
36:17true uh women on average look for more
36:19work life balance that seems to be the
36:22case I don't know if the literature on
36:24that is as tight you know but um it's
36:27certainly case that law firms for
36:29example have a hell of a time keeping
36:31their women in in in Partnership
36:33positions because most of them don't
36:35want to work the 60 hour work weeks 60
36:37to 80 hour work weeks that are necessary
36:39to performance at that extremely high
36:43level so Dr Peterson for for anybody who
36:46might be new listening in um you
36:48mentioned that a lot of women might not
36:50be um you know interested in working
36:54those you know 60 to 80 hour work weeks
36:56do you think it would make sense to
36:57stand upon that just a little bit I know
36:59you talk through hypergamy um but you've
37:02also mentioned the thing about why would
37:03anybody want to do that no matter what
37:06their gender is we got to get the
37:08mystery right here the mystery isn't why
37:11there are a bunch of people who are low
37:13status because almost everyone's low
37:16status comparatively speaking right men
37:18and women alike it's a small P minority
37:21of people who are high status on any
37:23Dimension and they tend to be hypers
37:25successful and they tend to be men so
37:27you see this in in in scientific
37:29publishing for example so the median
37:32Professor male publishes as much as the
37:35median Professor female but the vast
37:38majority of the high publishing people
37:40are males and that seems to be because
37:43there are a small percentage of males
37:45who are very status seeking very focused
37:47very energetic and and very much prone
37:49to put their career first and part of
37:52the theory for why that is is that some
37:55men are that that that the the U
38:00evolutionary and sexual tradeoff for men
38:03with regards to high status is much
38:05higher than it is for women so there's
38:07good documentation and I can find these
38:08references too that the number of sexual
38:12partners or opportunities that a man has
38:14in the previous year tightly associated
38:16with his socioeconomic status whereas
38:19the number of Partners or opportunities
38:21for partnering that a woman has is
38:23negatively correlated with her status
38:26and that might be partly because High
38:27status women who are looking for either
38:30even higher status men price themselves
38:32out of the mating market and there's
38:34actually pretty good documentation of
38:36that as well so so you're fine you're
38:39fine with all of
38:42that the harm of Google bu Google's
38:45biases to achieve a more equal gender
38:47and race representation Google has
38:49created several discriminatory proes
38:52programs mentoring in classes only for
38:54people with a certain gender or race a
38:56high priority Q INSP special treatment
38:58for diversity candidates hiring practice
39:00which can effectively lower the bar for
39:02diversity candidates by decreasing the
39:04false negative rate yeah that's a big
39:06problem you either have standards or you
39:08don't the problem is is that if the
39:11standards produce a non-e Equitable
39:13outcome then what happens is people
39:14criticize the standards and that would
39:17be fine if if the standards bore no
39:19relationship to the
39:21job but the problem is is that if you
39:24have your hiring practices set up
39:25halfway intelligently and and it's never
39:28perfect you're actually hiring for
39:30attributes that would make uh job
39:32Effectiveness much more
39:34likely yeah so how did you come across
39:38all this
39:39information uh part of it was through
39:41that diversity
39:43Summit and just looking through all the
39:46stuff that we have online or through our
39:49internal
39:50sites yeah so you've been doing a fair
39:52bit of literature review yeah yeah
39:58these practices are based on false
40:00assumptions generated by our biases and
40:02can actually increase race and gender
40:04tensions yeah well the whole unconscious
40:06bias thing is a great example of that is
40:08like first of all those tests the
40:10implicit association test are nowhere
40:13near reliable or valid enough so nowhere
40:16near the quality necessary to diagnose
40:18anyone as having a unconscious bias
40:23second second the data relating those
40:27so-called unconscious biases to actual
40:29behavior is weak third there's no
40:32evidence whatsoever that anti-
40:34unconscious bias training programs have
40:36any positive effect whatsoever and some
40:38that they have negative effect part
40:41because people don't like to be called
40:42racists yeah and marched off to Force
40:45re-education training so suggestions
40:48demoralized diversity yeah that would be
40:51good and start to Define it more
40:53appropriately right yeah and and to to
40:55start having a real conversation what
40:57proper hiring practices should be which
40:59should be objective standards
41:01universally applied without bias because
41:05that's the best we can do that's still
41:07going to introduce some non-equal
41:09outcomes but of course hiring practices
41:10are designed to do that for example
41:13they're clearly designed to reward more
41:14intelligent people given that IQ is
41:17highly
41:19heritable that's actually a real problem
41:22yeah definitely and we definitely set up
41:24hiring practices to reward conscientious
41:26people
41:28so and what
41:30are and what about propensity to
41:33negative emotion it seems to me that
41:35screening for stress tolerance is a
41:37reasonable thing to do in high stress
41:38jobs unless you want to put the person
41:40in a position where they're likely to
41:42collapse to be miserable I don't see any
41:45utility in that Dr Peterson I had a
41:48question actually relating to that um
41:51from an employment standpoint is there
41:53an
41:54Optimum um sensitivity to stress that
41:57you've seen from the most economically
42:00productive employees by that I mean I
42:02feel like there's a middle ground
42:04between people who are laidback versus
42:07people who are um probably um
42:12overstimulated by um external factors
42:15that make them self-conscious and these
42:17people I think at least at the lower mid
42:19levels of many companies actually have a
42:21little bit more anxiety that powers
42:23their Ascension through the dominance
42:25hierarchy yeah well it's a trick issue
42:27because you're probably the sort of
42:30negative emotion that might be useful in
42:33motivating you is probably more
42:34associated with conscientiousness than
42:36with neuroticism like neuroticism seems
42:39to be linked pretty tightly to anxiety
42:41and emotional pain frustration
42:43disappointment grief those all sort of
42:45fit into that those categories whereas
42:48the negative emotion perhaps that's
42:50associated with conscientiousness and
42:52and industriousness in particular seems
42:53to be more something like self-contempt
42:56and disgust and so conscientious people
42:59are made uncomfortable by their lack of
43:03productive effort but that doesn't seem
43:06to be associated with trait neuroticism
43:08it's a different
43:10thing so that's partly why it's so
43:12necessary to get the psychometrics right
43:14right and to get the to get the
43:15measurement right so the best hiring the
43:18best hiring screeners are like a Big
43:20Five personality test roughly speaking
43:23especially uh weighted towards
43:25conscientiousness and for complex Lex
43:27jobs a general cognitive ability test
43:30although there's some question about the
43:32legality of those in the current
43:34political situation
43:37so all alienating conservatives is both
43:40non-inclusive and generally bad business
43:42because conservatives tend to be higher
43:43in conscientiousness which is required
43:45for much of the drudgery and maintenance
43:46work characteristic of a mature company
43:49yes
43:50absolutely
43:53so now here's what you suggest confront
43:57Google's biases well you've done that
43:59we've seen how that went I would start
44:01by breaking down Google's scores by
44:03political orientation and personality to
44:05give a fuller picture into how our
44:07biases are affecting our culture that's
44:09a fine idea stop restricting programs
44:12and classes to certain genders or races
44:14yes well obviously have an open and
44:17honest discussion about the costs and
44:19benefits of our diversity programs well
44:21I guess that's what we're trying to do
44:23right now discriminating just to
44:25increase the representation of women in
44:27Tech is as misguided and biased as
44:29mandating increases for women's
44:31representation in homeless work rated
44:33and violent deaths prisons and school
44:35dropouts yes it's the same thing and
44:39it's the same issue as the brick layer
44:41issue as well and what are you going to
44:42do you're going to chase the nurses out
44:44of the women out of Nursing and medicine
44:46and psychology and social work and and
44:49University undergraduate programs where
44:51they're radically over represented so
44:53what about Jews you going to get rid of
44:55them too because they're over
44:57represented in most complex occupations
44:59and Asians as well so or you only you're
45:03only going to do this in very limited
45:05circumstance you're going to figure out
45:06some way to put a limit on that are you
45:08seems very
45:10unlikely I almost wonder what the ADL is
45:13you know will be thinking six six months
45:16from now or 12 months from now given the
45:19high number of you know at least in the
45:20United States um ashkanazi je in
45:23leadership positions at companies that
45:25are ADV advocating for less of
45:27themselves or less people who are in the
45:29bucket that they're in yeah well as long
45:31as the discussion centers on the over
45:33representation of white men people seem
45:35to have no problem but you start to
45:38break that down a little bit and because
45:41uh Jewish white men are particularly
45:43over represented is why they going to
45:44make an issue out of that really we're
45:46going to do that so and Asians are
45:50already having a harder time getting
45:51into universities so that's well
45:54documented so and that that's a terrible
45:57thing partly because of the cost to the
45:58individuals involved but also the cost
46:01to society because it means that we're
46:02not taking the people who are most
46:04competent and allowing them to expand
46:06their education to the greatest degree
46:09possible and because there aren't that
46:11like smart competent people are actually
46:13rather rare and it's to society's
46:15advantage to exploit the hell out of
46:16them and you know pay them well for that
46:19but it's not like they're of no benefit
46:22and everyone knows that when they try to
46:23hire someone competent deemphasize
46:26empathy yes empathy is a
46:30good um ethic for small family units and
46:34a terrible ethic to run a company by it
46:37looks like conscientiousness is the
46:39right ethic to run a company by and I
46:41think conscientiousness we don't have
46:42good animal models for conscientiousness
46:44hey but I think conscientiousness
46:46probably evolved so that human beings
46:48could could operate in groups that were
46:51larger than just kin sized you know
46:54because Equity makes sense at a kin
46:56level every mother wants her children to
46:59have a good outcome in life and wants
47:00resources distributed equally between
47:03them so it's not like it's something
47:05that doesn't have a
47:06niche micro prioritize intention our
47:10focus on microaggressions Etc and other
47:12unintentional transgressions increases
47:14our sensitivity you do a nice job of
47:16criticizing that I read darl Wing Sue's
47:19book on microaggression it's an
47:20appalling it's an appalling load of trip
47:23to put it Burly and I believe Scott
47:25lilenfeld who's a very good psychologist
47:27has recently published a paper um
47:30shredding the the construct validity of
47:32the concept of microaggression so it's a
47:35non-valid construct right from the
47:37bottom up it's purely ideological in
47:39nature and it's also one of those
47:40constructs that allows anyone who's
47:42offended to to weaponize their weaponize
47:46discourse around it so yeah reconsider
47:49making unconscious training bias
47:51training mandatory for promotion
47:52committees yeah that should be
47:54reconsidered it should be stopped
47:56there's no no scientific basis
47:58whatsoever for proceeding with that
48:01operation
48:03so great well you know it's a pretty
48:06straightforward document as far as I'm
48:08concerned and I've gone through it with
48:10a fairly fine tooth comb as a behavioral
48:13scientist and I would like to State for
48:15the record that I believe that what you
48:17said in there if not accurate was at
48:20least representative of the current
48:22state of art among well-trained
48:25psychometrically um
48:27uh informed psychologists who are
48:30experts in the field of individual
48:31difference so
48:35congratulations too bad you have to pay
48:37such a price for
48:40it all right well thank you very much
48:44for the conversation ah one other
48:46question why did you agree to talk to
48:49me I I'm a huge fan so and I know that
48:54you went through
48:55similar any uence on on this I mean
48:59you're going to pay a actually I'm not
49:02sorry I'd like to say I was sorry but
49:05I'm not I'm actually really
49:07pleased I I do think that you're going
49:09to be pay a big price for this but that
49:11the net consequence will be very
49:13positive and I'm I I think you did an
49:16excellent job on this document I think
49:18you were very careful I think the fact
49:20that you're being labeled with epithets
49:23and that you were fired is absolutely
49:25reprehensible
49:27you know it's clear to me that you're
49:29just trying to figure out what the
49:31hell's going on and that you know you're
49:34not you're not any of the things that
49:36people would like to think you are so
49:38that they don't have to bloody well
49:40think about what it is that you said and
49:41did so like congratulations to you man
49:44courageous people are rare and you put
49:46yourself on the line and I've really
49:47learned that in the last year so I would
49:51say Keep Your Head Up assume that this
49:53is going to work out it I wouldn't hide
49:55from the Press
49:57because I think the Press is actually
49:59you're the right kind of person for the
50:02press to be a something for you to use
50:06you know you're well spoken you're quiet
50:09you're you're you're convincing you're
50:11rational um you're obviously at least
50:15you come across as a decent guy very
50:17very rapidly um there's no reason I
50:21would say there's no reason not to let
50:23people see who you are because I think
50:25that would improve your credibility and
50:28make your message even more powerful so
50:30you think about that I mean you're you
50:32are have every right to defend your
50:34privacy you know but and and that's fine
50:38but I don't think that you have any
50:40reason to be afraid of the press I would
50:42say a couple of things when you're
50:44talking to the
50:45Press don't
50:48apologize don't tell people what you're
50:50not don't tell them that you're not aot
50:53and that you're not a misogynist that's
50:55a technical error um and stick to your
50:57damn guns you know as as as quietly and
51:02forthrightly as you can and man you're
51:04going to come out on top of this because
51:06you're you're on the side of the right
51:08as far as I'm concerned

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of 2017/08/08: James Damore and his Google Memo on Diversity (complete) by Jordan B Peterson, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 8,327 words across 1,273 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to choose a caption track available on the video.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, caption language selection, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.