1. 10

Please do contribute to the survey and politely discuss here.

Please don’t write vitriol and be uncivil and downvote people you disagree with.

Let’s see if we’re adult enough to interact with this sort of content.

  1.  

  2. 7

    The survey doesn’t have much substance, unfortunately. It asks people to identify themselves using a single term (“conservative”, “liberal”, “libertarian”, with a few shades in between). These terms have relative meanings and this seems like a faulty foundation for this kind of work. It would be better to ask for participant’s views on specific issues.

    This survey answers the question “do people who identify with a particluar ideological label or a particular religion feel as though their views aren’t welcomed?” What it will not show is if this feeling accurately reflects reality, and, perhaps more importantly, it will not determine if those views are worth being shared in a group setting.

    1. 3

      “ It would be better to ask for participant’s views on specific issues.”

      Totally agree. The times I got downvoted into near oblivion on SV forums or had political problems at work in person are always on specific issues. There’s whatever is the dominant group(s) there. There’s beliefs they find acceptable (or dogma), neutral, or offensive. Too much neutral leaves person out of in-crowd. Even one offensive can redefine the dominant group’s perception of them into an opponent. Some groups forgive an infraction or two but respond negatively to consistent use of other side’s views.

      This is consistent everywhere Ive spent significant time in all groups. A few seemed to mostly kick it since that was a constant goal of theirs: true inclusion by tolerating even opinions they dont feel good about. Quite an experience. Even they develop a culture within their groups that has some positive and negative bias. I have doubts Ive met a group truly immune to discrimination over politics or culture.

      Always on specific issues or response patterns when it comes out though.

    2. 6

      I feel like the article and the survey themselves are somewhat biased. There appears to be a desire to paint Silicon Valley as absurdly leftist and thought-policey (the evidence here is that the only concrete event mentioned by the survey is the Google “diversity memo” in which a person with no training in psychology, sociology, or biology claimed certain things as fact while the respective scientific communities still treat them as open questions, and claimed that any attempt to disagree with this was the product of an “ideological echo chamber,” which is more combative than it is conversational).

      The survey didn’t mention, for example, Peter Thiel, Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman, or other major conservatives heavily involved in Silicon Valley.

      It also kind of ignores the obvious thing: a lot of the issues that people complain they can’t talk about revolve around essentially private things: marriage, private sex lives, abortion, pregnancy, gender, etc…These things aren’t appropriate to talk about in a workplace, regardless of how you feel about them. They never were, in Silicon Valley or elsewhere. If you feel upset that people don’t like you talking about other people’s private business, that’s not evidence that those people are actively biased, it’s that they’re actively professional.

      1. 3

        “The survey didn’t mention, for example, Peter Thiel, Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman, or other major conservatives heavily involved in Silicon Valley.”

        Billiomaires and executives are an entirely different class of workers than average employee. They can ignore, side step, or run through problems that low-level folks often cant. People with unpopular views wanting big money might be trying to get through recruiters or HR to a small number of companies. Whereas a much larger number will take one of the people you mentioned or try to get an investment from them.

        1. 2

          …or try to get an investment from them.

          Right. If I want to do well in Silicon Valley, I might be forced to think twice about espousing liberal left views if I’m talking to one of the VCs or strategy firms that one of those big names is involved with.

          1. 1

            That’s a good point. It could come into play there. Double true if you’re pro-Union. ;)

        2. 4

          the Google “diversity memo” in which a person with no training in psychology, sociology, or biology claimed certain things as fact

          You appeal to his purported lack of authority, but in fact, he had a master’s degree in biology from Harvard: http://www.businessinsider.com/james-damore-removes-phd-studies-linkedin-2017-8

          Obviously you didn’t even read what he actually wrote.

          1. 3

            You’re right; I’d forgotten he had a biology degree (the Diversity Memo isn’t something I think about often). I still argue he made a mistake by claiming things as true, or likely so, when the scientific community as a whole still treats it as an open question. He also ascribed any disagreement as an “ideological echo chamber”…which is not inviting discussion, but denigrating disagreement: the very thing he accused Google of doing.

            I likewise think my other point still stands as well: sexual orientation, gender, marriage, and so on, are private matters. It’s not appropriate to talk about someone else’s private life, neither in Silicon Valley nor elsewhere.

        3. 3

          I can’t comment on Silicon Valley, but I am quite aware that I have certain political opinions that are not safe to express in my (fairly typical) work environment.

          My politics are a mix of strongly “liberal” and strongly “conservative,” with few positions in the middle. For example, I favor a robust government healthcare guarantee, and also oppose abortion. I can mention these in passing to coworkers. But there are others I can’t. They happen to be “conservative” positions, but I don’t see it as a bias against conservative ideas in general. It’s more those specific issues.

          1. 3

            To be fair, abortion really isn’t a topic for work conversation anywhere outside of a medical setting, policy institute, or the like.

            1. 1

              I don’t disagree. I was using that as an example of something where merely noting one’s position in passing would be considered acceptable, while there are other topics (which I won’t list here) where even mentioning a difference from prevailing opinions would be ‭crossing a line.

              1. 4

                Big PHP fan, huh?

            2. [Comment from banned user removed]

              1. 2

                How far does it go? Roads? Police? Military? Air traffic control? Food safety? Education? What things are valid use for tax dollars?

                And every Western nation (and Japan) except the US has some form of universal healthcare and spends less per capita. If you’re worried too much of your money might go to helping others, you should be all in favor of systems that have dozens of examples of spending less of it to get more.

                As for “being productive”, I can at least provide my anecdotal experience from helping found three startups now: getting competitive, or even decent, healthcare coverage for our employees was by far our biggest challenge on the recruiting side. How many companies have not been founded because someone couldn’t risk losing their healthcare?

                1. 1

                  “Eventually” has (frequently) been hundreds of years. I’m not expecting to outlive the state where I am (Australia) although the situation elsewhere seems more precarious.

                  Here people have remained productive despite taxes close to 50%. I’m philosophically pretty libertarian, but specific implementations of states differ and my local one has worked well for some time in spite of some of the corruption being a bit obvious.

                  1. 0

                    Governments that control their own currency (e.g. the US) can create more of it, which is what the Fed does. That money hasn’t been taken from anybody else; it’s literally been created out of thin air. [Mind you, doing this too much can trigger runaway inflation, which would reduce the value of everybody else’s money.]

                2. 3

                  Seems this survey showed two things. 1 is that the Valley leans to the right. 2. The right thinks they are a minority when it is the other way around.

                  1. 0

                    I don’t want to work with bigots. Sorry not sorry.

                    1. 2

                      I find your first sentence funny because of the irony, but your second sentence suggests it may not be meant as a joke?

                      1. 2

                        It’s weird that saying “I don’t want to work with racists” is acceptable but “I don’t want to work with homophobes” means you’re somehow just as bigoted as the homophobes. I’m sorry, I don’t want to work with someone who thinks my sister’s marriage should be illegal and that her worth as a person is less than theirs because of something that will never affect them.

                        If someone said in a meeting to a black coworker “I’m sure glad you’re not dating my daughter” there would be an uproar, but we’re supposed to be fine with someone saying “I just don’t think you should be allowed to get married because of who you are.”

                        More accurately, you’re free to think that sort of thing all you want, but don’t play the victim if you bring it up at work and people get upset that you’re denigrating their private lives (which, by definition, is completely separate from work and is thus not an appropriate workplace discussion).

                        This is true regardless of what the topic is. If a Catholic employee thinks all Protestants are going to Hell, great…don’t point that out to them when you’re all just trying to get work done. It’s irrelevant.

                        I know I’ve worked with homophobes before. I’ve worked with sexists before. I’ve worked with people who knew I was going to burn for all eternity. Even if (and the science is open) women are somehow less mathematically inclined than men on average, stating something like that at work is implying something about your specific co-workers who are women. If I pointed out at a meeting that I think men are less suited to UI design because statistically they’re less empathetic than women, I’m implying any male co-workers on my project are possibly inherently less fit than the women…without judging their work on its merits. I don’t get to play the victim when people are upset that I did something like that.

                        1. 2

                          I can emphasize with your comment, but it is beside my point. There is no irony in “I don’t want to work with racists” and “I don’t want to work with homophobes”.

                          “I don’t want to work with bigots” is ironic, because it means ianloic is intolerant towards “bigots” because they have different opinions and a bigot is (literally according to Google) “a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions”. Thus ianloic does no want to work with himself.

                    2. 1

                      It is not clear to me if they’re only interested in people who physically live in the Valley or also remote workers.

                      1. 1

                        I’d say count both if the business and/or deliverable is in the Valley.