3 ms·
> His lack of political savyness is mind-boggling but then he was hired not for that. No... I can see something of me (from 20 years ago) in him. Engineer (or
by dfraser992 9y ago
> His lack of political savyness is mind-boggling but then he was hired not for that.
No... I can see something of me (from 20 years ago) in him. Engineer (or is he even a 'real' one given his degree?), male, mid-20s... I don't find his lack of understanding exactly how "political" people and society actually are (and predominantly so, to the detriment of capital T-truth) to be unexpected. People can be, and tend to be, willfully manipulative, and it takes some life experience to get a handle on that knowledge.
In my mid-20s, I was a government contractor working on a large DoD project. Some impromptu hallway meeting with the bigwig PM running the whole thing led me to going blahblah with him explaining how easy it might be to do something he'd dreamt up the day before. I was just being an engineer who didn't understand social systems very well. So a few hours later, I get sort of chewed out by various PMs on our side as this 'idea' which was not in the contract and not in scope was now in scope... Part of the learning experience of how business actually works, and building things (hell, everything) is secondary to profit. The actual engineering part is secondary to organizational related bullshit - always.
Basically, I think engineers need more exposure to the humanities and stuff like this might not happen. That is another essay entirely, explaining how STEM subjects became excessively important since the 60s, to the detriment of society. The stereotypical engineer does not understand social systems very well, I certainly didn't. But at this point in my life, I think understanding them is far more important than knowing a bunch of tech that will generally be obsolete in a few years; understanding how insane Western society is in some respects has become easy.
I didn't read all of his manifesto, it was tedious and I understand enough social psych et al already... There is a balance that needs to struck and all the ideologues on both sides don't care for things to be in balance.
Everything else in the parent comment, I agree with. Now I read that female Google employees may be suing re: the wage gap etc. Hmmm... I actually blew off two attempts from Google years ago to interview me :) I didn't want to go through their stupid interview process and had already had enough of large badly managed orgs (i.e. the DoD). The pay would have been nice though (a joke!)
- zo1 9y agoI agree with the sentiment here entirely. As an engineer, our instinct is to evaluate things based on facts and empirical measurements. Societal ills are then simply problems to be solved without emotion. And us being squishy "meat-bags", we get emotional and don't fit that model then at all.
- 127 9y agoSo how would such an engineer get the social experience needed to navigate this environment? Is the only alternative to just step in and figure it out while you go?
- dfraser992 9y agoWhat environment? The social side of IT? I guess I'd say my perspective is based upon all the reading on many subjects, not just technical ones, I've done in the past 45 years. I'm not an expert in anything but I can follow a line of reasoning and get an idea where it is going off the rails. And 45 years of life and thinking too much is also a factor. An essential point made in some answer by a real scientist on Quora on how wrong Damore was in so many things was Damore's reliance on "biology" being at the heart of his argument/worldview/etc. It was the way Damore phrased some sentence that made me realize it shouldn't be a surprise he is now 'out' as an alt-righter. I have realized this obsession with biology is the mark of a large portion of conservatives who seem incapable of grasping the complexities of modern day society. Actual science that muddies this view w/ facts gets ignored... The reasons for this are complex and tie back to how conservatives' brains are different in some respects to liberals and how that affects psychological operations. Biology is certainly important, but to boil down higher level things like society and psychological stuff to only that and then base your philosophy / world view on such reduces humans to little more than talking animals, which is at the heart of conservative thought. By "animal", I mean to imply all the connotations of that word. 'Biology' is a the primary filter they view the world through, and other filters lie on top of that. Instead of a multiplicity of filters, all at the same level, that when integrated, show a more holistic view of things. So to cut this short, .... get a handle on dealing with complexity, I guess. Aspire to be a philosopher-king. Understand how your personal issues color your interpretation of things and affect your values (e.g. go to therapy or drop some acid). And take some acting classes to get a handle on a completely different way of interpreting the world. And lastly, realize you are just a cog whose sole purpose is to provide surplus labor to the owners of a company. Embarrass the company and you will get fired. Google has strict clauses about not doing things that might result in public blowback (i.e. that don't write a book about a large software company clause in the employment contract). I can't imagine Damore didn't violate something like that and they should have fired him on that basis, not the more politically advantageous one of 'gender issues, diversity', etc. But Google is getting in legal hot water because of their pay imbalance from what I hear, so they used this whole thing to their advantage because now they seem like they aren't evil and do pay women (or try to) at equitable rates. See how an understanding of humans' hidden motives works? That's why you should take acting classes.