Some personal advice: stop viewing your interactions in this transactional way and just be yourself. Stop giving a shit who reveals what and the perceived balance or imbalance of the same. Be kind and be generous.
If I were to "just be myself" at work, I would be fired very quickly -- because my self is outside the narrow little band of what is "approved of" in my workplace.
Every conversation of a sensitive nature is an opportunity for disaster if not treated with the utmost care not to be "found out"
I don't know why you assume being an asshole is the trait your GP doesn't want to reveal. Any number of innocuous interests could hurt your reputation in different circles: hunting, being gay, watching anime, practicing (a different/any/no) religion.
"What did you do this weekend" is a loaded question if you're a cultural outlier at your workplace. Even decent people often have personal biases that lead to awkwardness and friction.
Sure, readers don't have to interpret what you said as "being himself must mean being an asshole," but when you say that being yourself would get you fired, some flavor of "asshole" is probably high any anyone's list for the type of attitude/personality that would cause such an extreme reaction. Can you expand on what sort of being-your-self attributes are not professionally disruptive, but would still get you fired?
I mean, I can think of plenty of hobbies/cultural differences/etc., that could make things awkward between colleagues, but not much that would get you fired. "Wow, Bob likes to go Skiing in a Furry costume while voting Republican and being an Atheist. We can't have that, let's fire Bob." doesn't seem all that likely of a reaction.
He's Republican / Libertarian and his worldview is grounded in economic and biological realities, which will absolutely get you run out of many (perhaps most) SV tech companies... for example, James Damore.
Again, you describe things that might be awkward, and even then it's only awkward if the people make them so. It's not at all fraught with "you're fired" potential if everyone remains calm and professional about such differences. Not only that, but you're think it ng entirely too narrow if "being yourself" only means expressing political and cultural beliefs.
Otherwise, I work in an environment in an industry that is much further "to the left" than SV Tech: academe. You may not believe it, but despite the cliche ostracism of "OMG that's a ::hushed tones:: conservative", it is quite easy to be one without self censoring. You simply refrain from injecting situations with those views when they're not called for, and if they are or you decide to do so during non-work times (breaks or side conversations) you be respectful of the other opinion. In short, don't be an asshole.
I get along with plenty of people all along the political spectrum at work, because we have an environment of respect and professionalism.
That isn't "not being yourself" unless you refrain from discussing those topics even when it might be called for. In my roughly two decades of experience working in academe, I have not suffered negative consequences for speaking unpopular opinions when they are relevant, nor have I ever seen someone suffer the same.
But, if in every meeting I attended I went on a rant about how 4-year colleges inflate student debt for marginal gain and future earning potential (yes, the issue is more complex than that) then I would be labelled some flavor of asshole, unprofessional, etc.
However, consider the context of admissions standards and policy for the institution. It would not be inappropriate to discuss aspects of that idea. How some segment of our population may not be good fits for the institution or 4 year college in general, that they would be better served by some other path of advanced education and job training, and how it is part of our job to set students on a good path rather than chase tuition dollars that put the student in debt for no likely tangible benefit. That would be appropriate to do, and in fact I do this on a somewhat regular basis, backed up by rigorous data analysis (my own area of work) from both my own institution and national data, when we are setting enrollment goals and other related benchmarks.
It's also been perfectly fine for me to discuss other controversial/unpopular opinions with colleagues outside of meetings during non-work related breaks or side conversations so long as I do so respectfully. Roughly two decades of steady career advancement would indicate that none of this has hurt me professionally: I have literally never failed to be awarded a promotion I was seeking, and quite contrary to negative consequences I have developed a reputation of speaking honest, unvarnished opinion backed by solid evidence.
The whole thing was unnecessary and not part of his job AFAIK. It was also a giant, dressed up, thinly veiled "fuck you" to any of his female colleagues even if he didn't have proper social awareness to realize it. The scientific claims on gender differences were exaggerated and aloof, in part because even if you believe such a claim in terms of averages, making social determinations based on them ranges from flatly idiotic to against the law (for good reasons).
He should have stopped himself when he needed to add a disclaimer that he doesn't believe in prejudices and stereotypes. The need for such a statement is a giant red flag at which point one can ask themselves some critical questions.
When he is fired for this, a lot of conspiracy theories abound, up to and including in this thread. But he should work on the awareness to know what he was saying is a fireable offense by reasonable people. Apparently NLRB concluded the same.
This is all not the same as him being unforgivable or a bad person. In googling after this thread I noted an interview about him and autism. So he may very well deserve our sympathy and have an alternate explanation. The way people on forums like this one use him to allege a massive conspiracy at Google remains unwarranted despite this.
I think the problem is that people feel like they meet a lot of assholes, or more assholes than other types, and it puts them in a sour mood. They are predisposed to read your comment as such.
Oh, wow. Thank you for revealing my insensitivity to me. I could really have sworn that's how they presented it themselves, but I see now that's far from the truth.
I was rather shooting for most people being decent, when you get to know them better, if given any chance of that of course.
As for actual assholes, one shouldn't assume they want best for the team, or anyone else for that matter. Some people shine best when slinging turds making everyone else look bad. They are usually minority though and managable.
I think people conflate "decency" with "don't ruffle any feathers", and that led to some uniformity of thought. But in my experience, when done tactfully, feathers can be ruffled in a way that breaks that uniformity. It just takes a bit more tact and thoughtfulness than blurting out, "That's an awful idea" etc.
I know I don't sound like it, but I completely get where you're coming from. It's weird and rather sketchy to find out that someone you're talking to is just following rules in their head. It's just that for people like me, conversations are not primitive actions. We need an explicit mental model to anchor ourselves, and while that doesn't excuse predatory behaviour, models are still just tools at the end of the day and some people need them to be seen as "normal".
Some people's brains are wired differently and they are not able to approach relationships in the way that you consider normal. I would submit that usually there is no malice in their analysis and in fact it's very hard to be one of those people because most "normies" will never get you.
"Just be yourself" is terrible advice to people to whom this stuff does not come naturally. Especially at work, hardly anyone brings their "true self" to work and it was very apparent in the threads on Google that a lot of people thought that those bringing their whole selves to work were idiots who should be fired.
This advice is, in my experience, a low quality action item. I saw incredible progress in my life when I modeled the interactions. You can model interactions as information exchange, etc. and you can also model out the increased value of maintaining repeated interactions. It’s just another way of learning a skill: good human interactions.
Be yourself / don’t model / etc. works for those who are able to take this analogy to children learning language (in a natural way) vs. learning language by studying grammar and vocabulary systematically. The former is desirable because it’s speedy, you grow the skills you use most (so it reinforces the right things) but sometimes it’s just not available. That can happen just because you suck at it.
There are very limited ways other people’s lives are better than mine (as an existence proof) and I used to model interactions. I stopped when my skill reached unconscious competence.
And the thing about "children learning language" is that all sorts of bad habits are often picked up that don't conform to standard grammar, not to mention following rules without really understanding why they're there or what they do.
Social rules are even less concrete, meaning that learning the amorphous set of unwritten rules, guidelines, best practices, etc.,through analysis more than osmosis may let you know when it's okay to bend or break one.
Not quite "full stop", no. That is a utilitarian view of language that does not take into account the social side of speaking a certain way.
There is an abundance of social stratification in language, and the ability to code switch in different social environments is an important skill. It doesn't matter that you would still be understood if you did not do so, what matters are the pragmatics and social labeling attached to speaking in/out of the current group's mode of speaking.
It is true that the formal study of linguistics (which was my own area of advanced degree) does not consider there to be an absolute correct way of speaking, that "grammar" is not some unchanging and inherently correct set of rules. They are, instead, a social convention. And like many other social conventions, breaking their rules has consequences, and understanding those rules and consequences is important to navigating in social environments.
The problem is that the over-analysis is a form of stress. As is worrying about your own poor skills. In the ideal case, you don't care about either thing. I know sometimes it's easier said than done. But I've definitely found stress reduction in the past when I stop caring about some of this.
I think you may underestimate how much human nature is more towards kindness and generosity. I think a lot of us have negative experiences in childhood and similar younger stages, and it causes us to be less kind, less generous as a sort of defense mechanism. When you realize that the defense mechanism isn't actually necessary, you realize there is more space for kindness, and maybe that is actually your authentic self beneath.
