4 ms·

>but considering the immediate response it had, I'd argue it's not worth defending That is only a valid stance assuming immediate responses are rational. When

>but considering the immediate response it had, I'd argue it's not worth defending That is only a valid stance assuming immediate responses are rational. When anything gets anywhere near a topic like this, the immediate responses that are shouted out will almost never be rational.

smallnamespace 9y ago
This is well supported by research [1]. System 1 is based on quick, emotionally based assessments. It's where your flight-or-flight response lies. Only once System 1 has sufficiently engaged, can System 2 take over and slowly chew on it. Apparently, the best way to change someone's mind is if you engage them in a way that doesn't (apparently) activate their threat system. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_process_theory#System_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_process_theory#System_1
- tome 9y ago
  > Apparently, the best way to change someone's mind is if you engage them in a way that doesn't (apparently) activate their threat system. This is one of the best takeaways from this whole sorry saga.
icebraining 9y ago
I disagree; a text that agreed with the overall company position on the topic would not get shouted at. I may be wrong, but I think one could take that and push a bit in any direction without arousing intellectual antibodies. I personally know people who got quite a few "dangerous" ideas past the censors of a fascist dictatorship, where the stakes were incomparably higher than writing a memo at Google. It's a skill, though.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  It's a skill, that's right. The article actually alluded to it by mentioning Kolmogorov's approach to criticising Lysenkoism. The author of the Google memo obviously didn't have that skill. He approached it in exactly the wrong way - by writing a solid, coherent piece, full of links to actual research, which politely but assertively argued that current Google policies around diversity are wrong and harmful. That's direct disobedience, and direct disobedience gets you a hammer.

smallnamespace 9y ago

This is well supported by research [1]. System 1 is based on quick, emotionally based assessments. It's where your flight-or-flight response lies. Only once System 1 has sufficiently engaged, can System 2 take over and slowly chew on it. Apparently, the best way to change someone's mind is if you engage them in a way that doesn't (apparently) activate their threat system. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_process_theory#System_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_process_theory#System_1

tome 9y ago
> Apparently, the best way to change someone's mind is if you engage them in a way that doesn't (apparently) activate their threat system. This is one of the best takeaways from this whole sorry saga.

icebraining 9y ago

I disagree; a text that agreed with the overall company position on the topic would not get shouted at. I may be wrong, but I think one could take that and push a bit in any direction without arousing intellectual antibodies. I personally know people who got quite a few "dangerous" ideas past the censors of a fascist dictatorship, where the stakes were incomparably higher than writing a memo at Google. It's a skill, though.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
It's a skill, that's right. The article actually alluded to it by mentioning Kolmogorov's approach to criticising Lysenkoism. The author of the Google memo obviously didn't have that skill. He approached it in exactly the wrong way - by writing a solid, coherent piece, full of links to actual research, which politely but assertively argued that current Google policies around diversity are wrong and harmful. That's direct disobedience, and direct disobedience gets you a hammer.