4 ms·

Since you more or less pasted your comment from the other thread, I'll TLDR my same reply: The claims in this document are FAR from "widely-believed" or "scien

Since you more or less pasted your comment from the other thread, I'll TLDR my same reply: The claims in this document are FAR from "widely-believed" or "scientifically established". By count, most of his claims are just asserted. But even most of the claims with a link are highly debatable. This is NOT a particularly good advocacy document on the core scientific questions surrounding inequality. It may have some points in the cultural commentary bits, but stop presenting this as good work (on diversity). It's shoddy and amateur.

orangecat 9y ago
By count, most of his claims are just asserted. Most of the links in the original document were removed, either by Gizmodo or the leaker. But even most of the claims with a link are highly debatable. Although apparently you are in fact not allowed to debate them...
- elefanten 9y ago
  Motherboard has a link to a version with all sources, that's the one I evaluated. I can't comment on how Google arrived at the decision or what their line is. Personally, I think these things should be debatable. But the author didn't do a lot to help himself dull the predictable outcry. He hedged with some comments about his intentions, but a lot of the claims are pretty anachronistic. Given how controversial some of the claims (especially the biologically essentialist ones) were bound to be, I think he could've used a different tone and some better faith representation of the other side.
  - orangecat 9y ago
    Motherboard has a link to a version with all sources, that's the one I evaluated. So it does, thank you. Yes, I agree that several of his claims could have used links to supporting evidence, in particular the bullet points under "These differences aren't just socially constructed". Not that the outcome would be any different.
    - jfnixon 9y ago
      https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-...
      - orangecat 9y ago
        Yes, that would have been a good source, in particular for Dr. Halpern's comment that she believed all psychological differences were due to societal influence but changed her mind based on the strength of the evidence. But it's too late now. I don't know if there's any way he could have expressed his views without being crucified. But he definitely should have done a better job of reviewing it with the mindset of an ideological opponent determined to interpret everything in the worst possible light. (As another example, phrases like "PC authoritarians" and the bit about coal miner deaths are applause lights to the right, but aren't relevant to the core arguments and just serve to alienate the actual audience).
  - ethbro 9y ago
    "I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it." He didn't yell fire in a crowded movie theater. As the Supreme Court decided applies to the government, so should private industry use as their guideposts. Google just took a public step forward in becoming an arbiter of morals. Which is frightening given how much of the de facto internet they control.
    - crucifiction 9y ago
      This is a ridiculous standard for an employer. He has at will employment, they can fire him and he can also leave if he dislikes their diversity programs. Regardless of his thesis, a private employer has no duty to support any/all speech from their employees to other employees during business hours and using their business resources (which all of this was). It is perfectly legitimate, 100% protected first amendment speech to tell your boss to go f-ck themselves at work, or to call a customer a piece of sh-t to their face, but don't expect your employer to support you for it.
      - throw_away_777 9y ago
        It may have been illegal to fire him, see this article: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/07/it-may-be-illegal-for-google-to-punish-engineer-over-anti-diversity-memo-commentary.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/07/it-may-be-illegal-for-google...
      - ethbro 9y ago
        Google encourages "free" speech between employees on the same topics as long as it tracks with their moral narrative. This is the largest point for me and what distinguishes them from "Know and repeat the company value statement." If they take an organizational position in promoting certain values past a certain degree, then they absolutely have a social responsibility to make space for those who would discuss counter-values. At will employment has historically been a smokescreen for companies to fire people for all sorts of abusive / illegal / poorly intentioned reasons. The fact that they can fire people for saying anything doesn't mean they should. Is this really the path we want to go down?
    - 9y ago
dropstickle 9y ago
Here you have four scientists with a "review" of the manifesto: http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/ http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-... They seem not to agree with you.
- elefanten 9y ago
  All four state that there is strong evidence for of biological differences based on sex, though they all seem to come at it from different disciplines and support different claims. That's not, however, the same as saying that all four of them side with the author on his specific scientific claims. In fact, all four of them conclude explicitly in favor of diversity initiatives.
  - remarkEon 9y ago
    Well, I think that's what the author concluded too is it not? He has a problem with the underlying principles, the process, and the endstate...not the goal.
  - dropstickle 9y ago
    My point is that not one of them described it in terms such as "shoddy" or "amateur", such as you did. None of them refutes any of the empirical claims he made. This stands in stark contrast to your interpretation of the memo.
remarkEon 9y ago
Far from "widely-believed"? "Highly doubtable"? Are you sure about that? http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/ http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-...

orangecat 9y ago

By count, most of his claims are just asserted. Most of the links in the original document were removed, either by Gizmodo or the leaker. But even most of the claims with a link are highly debatable. Although apparently you are in fact not allowed to debate them...

elefanten 9y ago
Motherboard has a link to a version with all sources, that's the one I evaluated. I can't comment on how Google arrived at the decision or what their line is. Personally, I think these things should be debatable. But the author didn't do a lot to help himself dull the predictable outcry. He hedged with some comments about his intentions, but a lot of the claims are pretty anachronistic. Given how controversial some of the claims (especially the biologically essentialist ones) were bound to be, I think he could've used a different tone and some better faith representation of the other side.
- orangecat 9y ago
  Motherboard has a link to a version with all sources, that's the one I evaluated. So it does, thank you. Yes, I agree that several of his claims could have used links to supporting evidence, in particular the bullet points under "These differences aren't just socially constructed". Not that the outcome would be any different.
  - jfnixon 9y ago
    https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-...
    - orangecat 9y ago
      Yes, that would have been a good source, in particular for Dr. Halpern's comment that she believed all psychological differences were due to societal influence but changed her mind based on the strength of the evidence. But it's too late now. I don't know if there's any way he could have expressed his views without being crucified. But he definitely should have done a better job of reviewing it with the mindset of an ideological opponent determined to interpret everything in the worst possible light. (As another example, phrases like "PC authoritarians" and the bit about coal miner deaths are applause lights to the right, but aren't relevant to the core arguments and just serve to alienate the actual audience).
- ethbro 9y ago
  "I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it." He didn't yell fire in a crowded movie theater. As the Supreme Court decided applies to the government, so should private industry use as their guideposts. Google just took a public step forward in becoming an arbiter of morals. Which is frightening given how much of the de facto internet they control.
  - crucifiction 9y ago
    This is a ridiculous standard for an employer. He has at will employment, they can fire him and he can also leave if he dislikes their diversity programs. Regardless of his thesis, a private employer has no duty to support any/all speech from their employees to other employees during business hours and using their business resources (which all of this was). It is perfectly legitimate, 100% protected first amendment speech to tell your boss to go f-ck themselves at work, or to call a customer a piece of sh-t to their face, but don't expect your employer to support you for it.
    - throw_away_777 9y ago
      It may have been illegal to fire him, see this article: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/07/it-may-be-illegal-for-google-to-punish-engineer-over-anti-diversity-memo-commentary.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/07/it-may-be-illegal-for-google...
    - ethbro 9y ago
      Google encourages "free" speech between employees on the same topics as long as it tracks with their moral narrative. This is the largest point for me and what distinguishes them from "Know and repeat the company value statement." If they take an organizational position in promoting certain values past a certain degree, then they absolutely have a social responsibility to make space for those who would discuss counter-values. At will employment has historically been a smokescreen for companies to fire people for all sorts of abusive / illegal / poorly intentioned reasons. The fact that they can fire people for saying anything doesn't mean they should. Is this really the path we want to go down?
  - 9y ago

dropstickle 9y ago

Here you have four scientists with a "review" of the manifesto: http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/ http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-... They seem not to agree with you.

elefanten 9y ago
All four state that there is strong evidence for of biological differences based on sex, though they all seem to come at it from different disciplines and support different claims. That's not, however, the same as saying that all four of them side with the author on his specific scientific claims. In fact, all four of them conclude explicitly in favor of diversity initiatives.
- remarkEon 9y ago
  Well, I think that's what the author concluded too is it not? He has a problem with the underlying principles, the process, and the endstate...not the goal.
- dropstickle 9y ago
  My point is that not one of them described it in terms such as "shoddy" or "amateur", such as you did. None of them refutes any of the empirical claims he made. This stands in stark contrast to your interpretation of the memo.

remarkEon 9y ago

Far from "widely-believed"? "Highly doubtable"? Are you sure about that? http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/ http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-...