5 ms·

It's important to distinguish between what the memo's author says, and what effect his words actually have. It is an anti-diversity memo, even if it isn't inten

by matchu 9y ago

It's important to distinguish between what the memo's author says, and what effect his words actually have. It is an anti-diversity memo, even if it isn't intended as one. The author makes shaky statements about gender, reinforcing sexist stereotypes. The author applies rationalist disclaimers, which enables already-sexist readers to feel that their sexism is rational. And, most distressingly, the author asserts that Google made a mistake hiring many of the women who work there. Actively making your minority coworkers feel unwelcome is an anti-diversity behavior, and it was an obvious and predictable consequence of how he chose to communicate. I don't claim to know the author's intent, or how he truly feels about the women he works with. But, regardless of whether he's actually opposed to diversity, we judge words by their consequences. These words are thoroughly anti-diversity in consequence, and judging them in a vacuum is dangerously naive.

pdkl95 9y ago
> I don't claim to know the author's intent What so many comments about this memo don't seem to understand is that it it isn't possible to derive the author's intent from the text of their work. The intent of the author isn't included when the reader interprets their work, because the author isn't there[1] to explain their intent. The reader only sees the work. As you said, intent doesn't matter. When authoring a work, it's important to consider how the work might be interpreted. [1] http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeathOfTheAuthor http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeathOfTheAuthor (apologies for using a tvtropes link. It was better than Google's other suggestions)
- zbyte64 9y ago
  One of his recommendations was to emphasize intent over unintended offenses.
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    >> The intent of the author isn't included when the reader interprets their work, because the author isn't there[1] to explain their intent This is not a recommendation, and it is not a value judgement. It's just a reality.
    - wry_discontent 9y ago
      This could be overcome by and large with a modicum of research and critical thinking.
      - pdkl95 9y ago
        No, it can't. This is a fundamental limit of language, because language itself - which you're using to accomplish your research - requires using imperfect symbols. If you don't mind 100% spoilers for Davey Wreden's game "The Beginner's Guide", I highly recommend watching "The Artist is Absent"[1]. It's a surprisingly good introduction to semiotics, death of the author, and enunciation theory, which together explain why you can interpret the narrator of a work, which should never be confused with the author. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N6y6LEwsKc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N6y6LEwsKc
      - throwawayjava 9y ago
        > ...a modicum of research and critical thinking. You're assuming that each piece of text has only a single possible interpretation when "research and critical thinking" are applied to its interpretation. This is so far from the truth I'm not really sure what to say. For the current topic, see e.g., https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-biological-claims-made-in-the-document-about-diversity-written-by-a-Google-employee-in-August-2017 https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-bio... You'd be hard pressed -- or perhaps simply obstinate -- to claim this piece is devoid of "research" or "critical thinking". Beyond the current topic, your opinion becomes so obviously false I really don't know what to even say. As a base-line example, let's take any pair of 5-4 SCOTUS opinions on a constitutional matter. I suppose it's possible that half of the supreme court justices (and often slightly different halves) are routinely incapable of critical thinking of research to the text of laws and of the consitution. But that seems like an exceptionally arrogant explanation. Believing "only my reading of the text is possible if you're remotely capable of research and critical thinking" is, for an author, an extraordinarily enormous mistake.
Danihan 9y ago
Define sexism... Is believing men and women on average have different hormone levels and generally speaking, this leads to different behaviors and proclivities, sexist? Is admitting there is any difference between the two sexes, sexist? Is using different pronouns for men and women sexist? I honestly don't know where someone draws the line who finds this memo "sexist."
- matchu 9y ago
  I haven't decided yet whether I think the memo is sexist. But I'm confident that, because of how it's written, sexist people who read it will feel validated in their sexism. It uses the same core argument as sexism: women are less suited to certain tasks, perhaps biologically. And it reaches the same conclusion: we should roll back our pro-diversity and pro-empathy programs. A sexist person who reads this will therefore feel that it supports their views, and, because the argument seems rationalist, they'll conclude that their poor treatment of women is rationalist. That might not be the intent of the document, but it is a predictable outcome. Words that validate sexist behavior, intentionally or unintentionally, contribute to the problem. Regardless of the merit of the underlying idea, or the valuable conversations it inspired, it's important to remember that the memo itself did harm. It's appropriate that some people are focusing on that.
  - imminentviolet 9y ago
    Grow up. That telling the truth may help your enemies means that there is something wrong with your position, not that you should eliminate the messenger. This is a basic life lesson you should've learned in grade school.
  - slavak 9y ago
    This idea of avoiding saying something because of how horrible people might choose to interpret it is something I find, frankly, terrifying. This is going beyond just censorship and going into the realm of trying to censor reality. Where do you draw the line on something like this? Are we allowed to publish statistics that show black people are proportionally more involved in crimes, or is this taboo because a white supremacist might use it to claim blacks are inherently criminal? What if you write something apparently neutral but some terrible person somehow finds a way to twist it to their ends? Do we get to condemn you ex-post-facto over this?
malandrew 9y ago
https://status451.com/2017/08/06/judging-things-by-their-side-effects/ https://status451.com/2017/08/06/judging-things-by-their-sid...
- matchu 9y ago
  Yeah, that's a good point! It's important to consider the truth of the underlying idea, as well as the consequences of how it was expressed—though I don't like that the blog post seems to give up on the latter problem just because it's less objective. Discussions about social values and social consequences are worth having, despite not being subject to pure rationalism. Still, while both lenses are valid, I'm focusing on the consequences lens, because we're discussing an Atlantic article that tries to invalidate it. It's not misleading to call the memo "anti-diversity", if you're focusing on the memo's role as a social artifact rather than as a dissertation, and that's a valid perspective. Words often serve both roles, and it's important to consider both. (Incidentally, I don't find the memo's argument to be especially sound, either, so it's not just that it was expressed carelessly—but that's sorta beyond the scope of this thread.)
  - ChemicalWarfare 9y ago
    >>It's not misleading to call the memo "anti-diversity" if I had to summarize the memo with an "anti-..." prefix then I would say it's against artificially skewing the gender makeup of the workforce via preferential treatment of female applicants/employees over the discriminated male applicants/employees. if that's what "diversity" means then I don't know on what logical basis you would be defending the "let's make sure we have a 50/50 gender makeup of the workforce even though the proportion in the applicant's pool is nowhere near that" position. I myself (and from what I've read in that "manifesto" I believe this is author's position as well) welcome diversity - the 'IT sausage fest' is totally a downside - but not at the expense of ppl getting gender-discriminated.

by matchu 9y ago

pdkl95 9y ago

> I don't claim to know the author's intent What so many comments about this memo don't seem to understand is that it it isn't possible to derive the author's intent from the text of their work. The intent of the author isn't included when the reader interprets their work, because the author isn't there[1] to explain their intent. The reader only sees the work. As you said, intent doesn't matter. When authoring a work, it's important to consider how the work might be interpreted. [1] http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeathOfTheAuthor http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeathOfTheAuthor (apologies for using a tvtropes link. It was better than Google's other suggestions)

zbyte64 9y ago
One of his recommendations was to emphasize intent over unintended offenses.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  >> The intent of the author isn't included when the reader interprets their work, because the author isn't there[1] to explain their intent This is not a recommendation, and it is not a value judgement. It's just a reality.
  - wry_discontent 9y ago
    This could be overcome by and large with a modicum of research and critical thinking.
    - pdkl95 9y ago
      No, it can't. This is a fundamental limit of language, because language itself - which you're using to accomplish your research - requires using imperfect symbols. If you don't mind 100% spoilers for Davey Wreden's game "The Beginner's Guide", I highly recommend watching "The Artist is Absent"[1]. It's a surprisingly good introduction to semiotics, death of the author, and enunciation theory, which together explain why you can interpret the narrator of a work, which should never be confused with the author. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N6y6LEwsKc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N6y6LEwsKc
    - throwawayjava 9y ago
      > ...a modicum of research and critical thinking. You're assuming that each piece of text has only a single possible interpretation when "research and critical thinking" are applied to its interpretation. This is so far from the truth I'm not really sure what to say. For the current topic, see e.g., https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-biological-claims-made-in-the-document-about-diversity-written-by-a-Google-employee-in-August-2017 https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-bio... You'd be hard pressed -- or perhaps simply obstinate -- to claim this piece is devoid of "research" or "critical thinking". Beyond the current topic, your opinion becomes so obviously false I really don't know what to even say. As a base-line example, let's take any pair of 5-4 SCOTUS opinions on a constitutional matter. I suppose it's possible that half of the supreme court justices (and often slightly different halves) are routinely incapable of critical thinking of research to the text of laws and of the consitution. But that seems like an exceptionally arrogant explanation. Believing "only my reading of the text is possible if you're remotely capable of research and critical thinking" is, for an author, an extraordinarily enormous mistake.

Danihan 9y ago

Define sexism... Is believing men and women on average have different hormone levels and generally speaking, this leads to different behaviors and proclivities, sexist? Is admitting there is any difference between the two sexes, sexist? Is using different pronouns for men and women sexist? I honestly don't know where someone draws the line who finds this memo "sexist."

matchu 9y ago
I haven't decided yet whether I think the memo is sexist. But I'm confident that, because of how it's written, sexist people who read it will feel validated in their sexism. It uses the same core argument as sexism: women are less suited to certain tasks, perhaps biologically. And it reaches the same conclusion: we should roll back our pro-diversity and pro-empathy programs. A sexist person who reads this will therefore feel that it supports their views, and, because the argument seems rationalist, they'll conclude that their poor treatment of women is rationalist. That might not be the intent of the document, but it is a predictable outcome. Words that validate sexist behavior, intentionally or unintentionally, contribute to the problem. Regardless of the merit of the underlying idea, or the valuable conversations it inspired, it's important to remember that the memo itself did harm. It's appropriate that some people are focusing on that.
- imminentviolet 9y ago
  Grow up. That telling the truth may help your enemies means that there is something wrong with your position, not that you should eliminate the messenger. This is a basic life lesson you should've learned in grade school.
- slavak 9y ago
  This idea of avoiding saying something because of how horrible people might choose to interpret it is something I find, frankly, terrifying. This is going beyond just censorship and going into the realm of trying to censor reality. Where do you draw the line on something like this? Are we allowed to publish statistics that show black people are proportionally more involved in crimes, or is this taboo because a white supremacist might use it to claim blacks are inherently criminal? What if you write something apparently neutral but some terrible person somehow finds a way to twist it to their ends? Do we get to condemn you ex-post-facto over this?

malandrew 9y ago

https://status451.com/2017/08/06/judging-things-by-their-side-effects/ https://status451.com/2017/08/06/judging-things-by-their-sid...

matchu 9y ago
Yeah, that's a good point! It's important to consider the truth of the underlying idea, as well as the consequences of how it was expressed—though I don't like that the blog post seems to give up on the latter problem just because it's less objective. Discussions about social values and social consequences are worth having, despite not being subject to pure rationalism. Still, while both lenses are valid, I'm focusing on the consequences lens, because we're discussing an Atlantic article that tries to invalidate it. It's not misleading to call the memo "anti-diversity", if you're focusing on the memo's role as a social artifact rather than as a dissertation, and that's a valid perspective. Words often serve both roles, and it's important to consider both. (Incidentally, I don't find the memo's argument to be especially sound, either, so it's not just that it was expressed carelessly—but that's sorta beyond the scope of this thread.)
- ChemicalWarfare 9y ago
  >>It's not misleading to call the memo "anti-diversity" if I had to summarize the memo with an "anti-..." prefix then I would say it's against artificially skewing the gender makeup of the workforce via preferential treatment of female applicants/employees over the discriminated male applicants/employees. if that's what "diversity" means then I don't know on what logical basis you would be defending the "let's make sure we have a 50/50 gender makeup of the workforce even though the proportion in the applicant's pool is nowhere near that" position. I myself (and from what I've read in that "manifesto" I believe this is author's position as well) welcome diversity - the 'IT sausage fest' is totally a downside - but not at the expense of ppl getting gender-discriminated.