4 ms·

There is just no winning in the following chain of arguments: - We can debate anything - However, some views are too harmful to be debated - Whoever is most

There is just no winning in the following chain of arguments: - We can debate anything - However, some views are too harmful to be debated - Whoever is most vocally outraged decides the boundary between open to debate/too harmful

doubleshame 9y ago
You missed the conclusion - you can say absolutely anything you want, as long as it's not something we say is harmful of course So much back and forth
oddlyaromatic 9y ago
The memo itself was incoherent. Many of its statements made sense for debate, and the author himself pointed out that you can't tell much about any individual from the general data, which I think has not been focused on enough. He seemed to think he was doing everybody a service and that his views were not detrimental to anybody. But the actual choices in how to express the generalities showed really bad judgement and overall apparently ran afoul of the code of conduct. People are definitely putting words in his mouth, but at the same time: An incoherent companywide memo is not the best way to start a debate on a sensitive topic. You might not instantly fire this person if he had chosen a way to express his ideas that didn't burn bridges with half the people who work there, if not more. This was not just "debate", it was maybe 80% debate and 20% attack on the credibility of all women in traditionally male professions. If he did not mean it come across that way, which I believe might be the case, then I feel sorry for him. And maybe he should have the opportunity to edit the memo to better reflect the debate he intended. But that's on him. He chose how to do this and what words to use.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > An incoherent companywide memo is not the best way to start a debate on a sensitive topic. What is the best way?
  - oddlyaromatic 9y ago
    Perhaps get a little feedback from somebody likely to be affected by it, or HR, before blasting it to the whole company? That's a better way. Separating out the legitimate issues from the speculation about potential reasons (which to me is where most of the nonsense lies) would have been a better way. And unless the internal memo system is the only way to communicate within Google, he probably had other options to pilot this piece without burning bridges. Like to his supervisor say "hey, I want to send out this memo, do you think I'll catch some flak or is it fine?" I'm not, by the way, actually saying I know the best way. Just that, to me, there seem to be many obvious better ways.
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      None of those outcomes sound like a company-wide discussion or healthy debate though.
      - oddlyaromatic 9y ago
        We were talking about a starting point. I'm saying maybe the edges could be knocked off in some kind of orderly way so that the company-wide message he ultimate sent might not have blown up in his face so badly. He clearly thought he was doing fine, but now he's getting all his feedback all at once and has lost his job. So just maybe a little pre-consultation about how to approach this topic (without accidentally implying things that lead to headlines and firings) would have benefited the actual goal of moving debate forward.
- Pyxl101 9y ago
  Have you read the memo? It's coherent. People just don't like what it says. Please read this article which includes responses to the memo from four scientists who study the subject matter: http://archive.is/z6xxP http://archive.is/z6xxP > The author of the Google essay on issues related to diversity gets nearly all of the science and its implications exactly right. [...] This essay may not get everything 100% right, but it is certainly not a rant. And it stands in sharp contrast to most of the comments, which are little more than snarky modern slurs. The arrogance of most of the comments reflects exactly the type of smug self-appointed superiority that has led to widespread resentment of the left among reasonable people. To the extent that such views correspond to those at Google, they vindicate the essayist’s claims about the authoritarian and repressive atmosphere there. Even the response by Google’s new VP in charge of diversity simply ignores all of the author’s arguments, and vacuously affirms Google’s commitment to diversity. The essay is vastly more thoughtful, linked to the science, and well-reasoned than nearly all of the comments. (Lee Jussim, professor of social psychology at Rutgers University) > For what it’s worth, I think that almost all of the Google memo’s empirical claims are scientifically accurate. Moreover, they are stated quite carefully and dispassionately. Its key claims about sex differences are especially well-supported by large volumes of research across species, cultures, and history. I know a little about sex differences research. On the topic of evolution and human sexuality, I’ve taught for 28 years, written 4 books and over 100 academic publications, given 190 talks, reviewed papers for over 50 journals, and mentored 11 Ph.D. students. Whoever the memo’s author is, he has obviously read a fair amount about these topics. Graded fairly, his memo would get at least an A- in any masters’ level psychology course. It is consistent with the scientific state of the art on sex differences. (Blank slate gender feminism is advocacy rather than science: no gender feminist I’ve met has ever been able to give a coherent answer to the question ‘What empirical findings would convince you that psychological sex differences evolved?’) (Geoffrey Miller, evolutionary psychology professor at University of New Mexico) If you have read the memo and found it incoherent, then please explain what part of it is incoherent. Here are some of the points made in its summary: > [S]ilencing [people who disagree] has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed. > Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business. Do you find those points incoherent? I find them to be clear. ("incoherent: expressed in an incomprehensible or confusing way; unclear.")
- sergiotapia 9y ago
  Funny lots of people found it very coherent. https://archive.is/VlNfl https://archive.is/VlNfl
  - oddlyaromatic 9y ago
    I have a more detailed response about lack of coherence here:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14957553 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14957553
- josteink 9y ago
  > The memo itself was incoherent. That's funny. Compared to the response I've seen against it, it seems extremely coherent, tactfully presented and scientifically sourced. It's an internal memo for crying out loud. Compared to anything I've seen in any company I've worked with, this sets the bar for extreme professionalism.
  - oddlyaromatic 9y ago
    I have a more detailed comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14957553 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14957553 but basically since he gives no sense of how much he thinks the biological stuff actually matters, he has made the range of possible interpretations very wide. This carelessness (or intentional vagueness?) is anything but tactful. Tactful is controlling your message to not be so easily misunderstood. The science is not really in doubt, surely, but the magnitude of the effects in the full context of our lives and history and cultural norms is complicated. And figuring out how to use experimental data to improve policy is hard. The backlash is not surprising because, though he tried, he failed to be clear about what he means.

doubleshame 9y ago

You missed the conclusion - you can say absolutely anything you want, as long as it's not something we say is harmful of course So much back and forth

oddlyaromatic 9y ago

The memo itself was incoherent. Many of its statements made sense for debate, and the author himself pointed out that you can't tell much about any individual from the general data, which I think has not been focused on enough. He seemed to think he was doing everybody a service and that his views were not detrimental to anybody. But the actual choices in how to express the generalities showed really bad judgement and overall apparently ran afoul of the code of conduct. People are definitely putting words in his mouth, but at the same time: An incoherent companywide memo is not the best way to start a debate on a sensitive topic. You might not instantly fire this person if he had chosen a way to express his ideas that didn't burn bridges with half the people who work there, if not more. This was not just "debate", it was maybe 80% debate and 20% attack on the credibility of all women in traditionally male professions. If he did not mean it come across that way, which I believe might be the case, then I feel sorry for him. And maybe he should have the opportunity to edit the memo to better reflect the debate he intended. But that's on him. He chose how to do this and what words to use.

humanrebar 9y ago
> An incoherent companywide memo is not the best way to start a debate on a sensitive topic. What is the best way?
- oddlyaromatic 9y ago
  Perhaps get a little feedback from somebody likely to be affected by it, or HR, before blasting it to the whole company? That's a better way. Separating out the legitimate issues from the speculation about potential reasons (which to me is where most of the nonsense lies) would have been a better way. And unless the internal memo system is the only way to communicate within Google, he probably had other options to pilot this piece without burning bridges. Like to his supervisor say "hey, I want to send out this memo, do you think I'll catch some flak or is it fine?" I'm not, by the way, actually saying I know the best way. Just that, to me, there seem to be many obvious better ways.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    None of those outcomes sound like a company-wide discussion or healthy debate though.
    - oddlyaromatic 9y ago
      We were talking about a starting point. I'm saying maybe the edges could be knocked off in some kind of orderly way so that the company-wide message he ultimate sent might not have blown up in his face so badly. He clearly thought he was doing fine, but now he's getting all his feedback all at once and has lost his job. So just maybe a little pre-consultation about how to approach this topic (without accidentally implying things that lead to headlines and firings) would have benefited the actual goal of moving debate forward.
Pyxl101 9y ago
Have you read the memo? It's coherent. People just don't like what it says. Please read this article which includes responses to the memo from four scientists who study the subject matter: http://archive.is/z6xxP http://archive.is/z6xxP > The author of the Google essay on issues related to diversity gets nearly all of the science and its implications exactly right. [...] This essay may not get everything 100% right, but it is certainly not a rant. And it stands in sharp contrast to most of the comments, which are little more than snarky modern slurs. The arrogance of most of the comments reflects exactly the type of smug self-appointed superiority that has led to widespread resentment of the left among reasonable people. To the extent that such views correspond to those at Google, they vindicate the essayist’s claims about the authoritarian and repressive atmosphere there. Even the response by Google’s new VP in charge of diversity simply ignores all of the author’s arguments, and vacuously affirms Google’s commitment to diversity. The essay is vastly more thoughtful, linked to the science, and well-reasoned than nearly all of the comments. (Lee Jussim, professor of social psychology at Rutgers University) > For what it’s worth, I think that almost all of the Google memo’s empirical claims are scientifically accurate. Moreover, they are stated quite carefully and dispassionately. Its key claims about sex differences are especially well-supported by large volumes of research across species, cultures, and history. I know a little about sex differences research. On the topic of evolution and human sexuality, I’ve taught for 28 years, written 4 books and over 100 academic publications, given 190 talks, reviewed papers for over 50 journals, and mentored 11 Ph.D. students. Whoever the memo’s author is, he has obviously read a fair amount about these topics. Graded fairly, his memo would get at least an A- in any masters’ level psychology course. It is consistent with the scientific state of the art on sex differences. (Blank slate gender feminism is advocacy rather than science: no gender feminist I’ve met has ever been able to give a coherent answer to the question ‘What empirical findings would convince you that psychological sex differences evolved?’) (Geoffrey Miller, evolutionary psychology professor at University of New Mexico) If you have read the memo and found it incoherent, then please explain what part of it is incoherent. Here are some of the points made in its summary: > [S]ilencing [people who disagree] has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed. > Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business. Do you find those points incoherent? I find them to be clear. ("incoherent: expressed in an incomprehensible or confusing way; unclear.")
sergiotapia 9y ago
Funny lots of people found it very coherent. https://archive.is/VlNfl https://archive.is/VlNfl
- oddlyaromatic 9y ago
  I have a more detailed response about lack of coherence here:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14957553 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14957553
josteink 9y ago
> The memo itself was incoherent. That's funny. Compared to the response I've seen against it, it seems extremely coherent, tactfully presented and scientifically sourced. It's an internal memo for crying out loud. Compared to anything I've seen in any company I've worked with, this sets the bar for extreme professionalism.
- oddlyaromatic 9y ago
  I have a more detailed comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14957553 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14957553 but basically since he gives no sense of how much he thinks the biological stuff actually matters, he has made the range of possible interpretations very wide. This carelessness (or intentional vagueness?) is anything but tactful. Tactful is controlling your message to not be so easily misunderstood. The science is not really in doubt, surely, but the magnitude of the effects in the full context of our lives and history and cultural norms is complicated. And figuring out how to use experimental data to improve policy is hard. The backlash is not surprising because, though he tried, he failed to be clear about what he means.