8 ms·

Google's "pro-diversity" hiring policies also have the unavoidable implication that some of Damore's colleagues actually shouldn't be with the company. The bro

Google's "pro-diversity" hiring policies also have the unavoidable implication that some of Damore's colleagues actually shouldn't be with the company. The broader patriarchy/privilege theory behind those "pro-diversity" policies has the unavoidable implication that many of those white male colleagues really shouldn't have their careers (and many other rewarding parts of their lives) at all, because they are based on 'oppressing' others. There are poison grenades being thrown constantly by every side; only a severe double standard would allow someone to ignore this. The real solution is to realize that any criticism of hiring policies (including criticism by 'diversity' advocates) means someone shouldn't have been hired. And then, to act like an adult and deal with it rationally anyways. >unsupported biological claims The claims are very well-supported by decades of research. Some journalistic outlets removed the links to Damore's sources from the copies of the memo they redistributed, to make the claims look unsupported. Don't fall into that trap. If you want to see some of the research, Pinker has your back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mYeZ9by-eM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mYeZ9by-eM Damore was very clear, neutral, and professional. But, there is no way in any universe Damore could have delivered that message where you would not criticize it like this. No matter how careful he was, you'd simply set the bar further out, increase the emotional sensitivity even more, engage in even more aggressive mind-reading and hostile misinterpretation. His writing could never, ever, in any form, never meet your ever-shifting standard because your standard is designed to be impossible to meet. The reality is that you want him to be silent and you'll seek any excuse for him to suffer for questioning beliefs you see as morally obligated. Saying, "He can of course question, but he has to do it better," while actually having impossible standard, is just a way to look/feel like you're being open when you're not. It actually resembles behaviors you see in abusive relationships - the impossible standard that shifts every time it's met.

pavlov 9y ago
Damore was very clear, neutral, and professional. He wasn't professional because it is not his job to debate this at work! I don't understand how this very simple point gets lost. A public corporation is not a democracy.
- falcolas 9y ago
  His (and all Googlers) opinion was solicited. His mistake was accepting that solicitation and having a politically unacceptable position.
- jlborxes 9y ago
  The context of his memo is an internal gender studies mailing list, which is supposed to serve exactly these kinds of discussions. It's not like he sent this document to unsuspecting employees.
  - xgk 9y ago
    It's hard not to be reminded of Mao's Hundred Flowers Campaign (百花运动) [1] and Anti-Rightist Movement (反右运动) [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Flowers_Campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Flowers_Campaign [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Rightist_Movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Rightist_Movement
geofft 9y ago
> The claims are very well-supported by decades of research. Some journalistic outlets removed the links to Damore's sources from the copies of the memo they redistributed, to make the claims look unsupported. Don't fall into that trap. I have previously refuted the idea that the claims are supported by research. See the first part of this comment, which is based on reading the version of the document that does have the sources: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14956998 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14956998 It's true that there's decades of research cited. It's true that he makes claims. It's not true that the research supports the claims he's making.
- brighteyes 9y ago
  It's not possible to "refute" or "prove" his claims. There were many specific claims, and scientists still debate many of them. The bigger point is anyone that thinks his claims are 100% true or 100% false is definitely wrong.
  - geofft 9y ago
    I have not attempted to refute his claims; they're too messy to make it a coherent task. I have refuted the idea put forth by other people that his claims are supported by the scientific research he links to. (My position, upthread of that comment, is that the document itself doesn't so much make claims that are wrong as display the deficiency of the author's critical-thinking skills to such an extent that Google should not have hired him. Imagine trying to read a design document or an outage postmortem written to the same level of coherence and with the same level of intellectual honesty.)
    - brighteyes 9y ago
      Some of his claims are supported by the linked documents, some are not. Again, there are so many, any conclusion of "100% are supported" or "100% are not" is going to be false.
      - geofft 9y ago

pavlov 9y ago

Damore was very clear, neutral, and professional. He wasn't professional because it is not his job to debate this at work! I don't understand how this very simple point gets lost. A public corporation is not a democracy.

falcolas 9y ago
His (and all Googlers) opinion was solicited. His mistake was accepting that solicitation and having a politically unacceptable position.
jlborxes 9y ago
The context of his memo is an internal gender studies mailing list, which is supposed to serve exactly these kinds of discussions. It's not like he sent this document to unsuspecting employees.
- xgk 9y ago
  It's hard not to be reminded of Mao's Hundred Flowers Campaign (百花运动) [1] and Anti-Rightist Movement (反右运动) [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Flowers_Campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Flowers_Campaign [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Rightist_Movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Rightist_Movement

geofft 9y ago

> The claims are very well-supported by decades of research. Some journalistic outlets removed the links to Damore's sources from the copies of the memo they redistributed, to make the claims look unsupported. Don't fall into that trap. I have previously refuted the idea that the claims are supported by research. See the first part of this comment, which is based on reading the version of the document that does have the sources: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14956998 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14956998 It's true that there's decades of research cited. It's true that he makes claims. It's not true that the research supports the claims he's making.

brighteyes 9y ago
It's not possible to "refute" or "prove" his claims. There were many specific claims, and scientists still debate many of them. The bigger point is anyone that thinks his claims are 100% true or 100% false is definitely wrong.
- geofft 9y ago
  I have not attempted to refute his claims; they're too messy to make it a coherent task. I have refuted the idea put forth by other people that his claims are supported by the scientific research he links to. (My position, upthread of that comment, is that the document itself doesn't so much make claims that are wrong as display the deficiency of the author's critical-thinking skills to such an extent that Google should not have hired him. Imagine trying to read a design document or an outage postmortem written to the same level of coherence and with the same level of intellectual honesty.)
  - brighteyes 9y ago
    Some of his claims are supported by the linked documents, some are not. Again, there are so many, any conclusion of "100% are supported" or "100% are not" is going to be false.
    - geofft 9y ago