5 ms·

It's a "wonderful example of trolling", not because of the presentation, but because the content is controversial? To me it seems the man is trying to change t

It's a "wonderful example of trolling", not because of the presentation, but because the content is controversial? To me it seems the man is trying to change the accepted political view rather than to spark controversy for the sake of it. Both approaches spark controversy, only the latter is trolling.

mikeash 9y ago
I disagree. I think he's trying to spark controversy. For example, here's a part that really stood out for me: "Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths." Superficially, this is a perfectly reasonable thing to say. The quoted statistic is true, and the proposed causal relationship between a drive for status and more male presence in these jobs is at least a believable reason for why there are so many more men in these jobs. But taking a step back, it's a complete troll. The manifesto is supposedly about gender and diversity at Google, where there are very few coal mining, garbage collection, or firefighting jobs, and very few work-related deaths. So why is this even in here? It's not related to the topic at hand, it doesn't give us any useful information, and it's not going to help persuade anyone of anything. The only answer I can come up with is: it's there to provoke. It's practically begging for ladies to thank men for doing important, dangerous jobs that women won't do, and using an emotional argument in the form of dead people to push it. It's a faux-dispassionate way to say "we're dying for your sins, ladies." This is a big part of the art of the troll: you stick in little irrelevant asides that are built to provoke. When done well, these asides are factual and appear relevant.
- nicolashahn 9y ago
  I think the reason Damore mentioned those jobs is because they, like software engineering (can be), are high pay/high stress BUT are considered undesirable, UNLIKE software engineering, because you die a lot less on the job as a software engineer. In Google's ideal world where ideal means all jobs are distributed evenly matching the population of men and women, there would be an equal push for women taking those undesirable jobs. However, there isn't, and everyone is fine with that (I personally haven't heard any rallying cries to get more women into garbage collection, at least). What this translates to (in my interpretation of what I believe Damore's point was, as a disclaimer) is "men take dangerous, stressful jobs because women don't want them, even when they are high paying, due to differing pressures on the sexes." The problem is when you remove the "dangerous" part (and software engineering one could argue is also not as stressful as these other jobs, if only for its lack of danger. The worst thing that can happen to you on the job is to be fired), women supposedly want the jobs, and so there's an artificial push for them to be employed by employers like Google. So now the market is smaller for qualified men to take these jobs, and theoretically they are more incentivized to take lower paying/more stressful/more dangerous (worse) jobs that may also be male dominated, but where there are no pushes for artificially increased diversity. The result is a net loss for men overall, and not necessarily a net gain for women, when you consider his other point that most women may not actually want software engineering jobs (this is a more controversial statement in my opinion, but not the one you chose, and I still believe it deserves to be responded to respectfully instead of with ridicule and outrage). Additionally, this could also lead to a reduced average level of talent if less qualified women were being hired over qualified men, but I won't argue that and Google is an elite enough company that everyone they hire is likely supremely qualified. So to me it seems like a reasonable (or at least not inflammatory for the sake of being inflammatory) assertion to make. I don't think that specific passage was there to provoke (although his original intent with the entire memo was to spark dialogue, which I suppose you could call 'sparking controversy' but I wouldn't). I believe you missed the point.
- unityByFreedom 9y ago
  He's looking for a big debate. I don't know if it's fair to call it trolling. That implies his primary goal is to make other people upset. I think he actually wants to change people's minds. I think he cited dangerous jobs like coal mining because he is trying to build a case that certain personalities lead genders, on average, to different professions. He does not support this opinion with any research, and that's where his argument falls apart. He ignores societal factors and assumes biological factors explain gender employment gaps.

mikeash 9y ago

I disagree. I think he's trying to spark controversy. For example, here's a part that really stood out for me: "Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths." Superficially, this is a perfectly reasonable thing to say. The quoted statistic is true, and the proposed causal relationship between a drive for status and more male presence in these jobs is at least a believable reason for why there are so many more men in these jobs. But taking a step back, it's a complete troll. The manifesto is supposedly about gender and diversity at Google, where there are very few coal mining, garbage collection, or firefighting jobs, and very few work-related deaths. So why is this even in here? It's not related to the topic at hand, it doesn't give us any useful information, and it's not going to help persuade anyone of anything. The only answer I can come up with is: it's there to provoke. It's practically begging for ladies to thank men for doing important, dangerous jobs that women won't do, and using an emotional argument in the form of dead people to push it. It's a faux-dispassionate way to say "we're dying for your sins, ladies." This is a big part of the art of the troll: you stick in little irrelevant asides that are built to provoke. When done well, these asides are factual and appear relevant.

nicolashahn 9y ago
I think the reason Damore mentioned those jobs is because they, like software engineering (can be), are high pay/high stress BUT are considered undesirable, UNLIKE software engineering, because you die a lot less on the job as a software engineer. In Google's ideal world where ideal means all jobs are distributed evenly matching the population of men and women, there would be an equal push for women taking those undesirable jobs. However, there isn't, and everyone is fine with that (I personally haven't heard any rallying cries to get more women into garbage collection, at least). What this translates to (in my interpretation of what I believe Damore's point was, as a disclaimer) is "men take dangerous, stressful jobs because women don't want them, even when they are high paying, due to differing pressures on the sexes." The problem is when you remove the "dangerous" part (and software engineering one could argue is also not as stressful as these other jobs, if only for its lack of danger. The worst thing that can happen to you on the job is to be fired), women supposedly want the jobs, and so there's an artificial push for them to be employed by employers like Google. So now the market is smaller for qualified men to take these jobs, and theoretically they are more incentivized to take lower paying/more stressful/more dangerous (worse) jobs that may also be male dominated, but where there are no pushes for artificially increased diversity. The result is a net loss for men overall, and not necessarily a net gain for women, when you consider his other point that most women may not actually want software engineering jobs (this is a more controversial statement in my opinion, but not the one you chose, and I still believe it deserves to be responded to respectfully instead of with ridicule and outrage). Additionally, this could also lead to a reduced average level of talent if less qualified women were being hired over qualified men, but I won't argue that and Google is an elite enough company that everyone they hire is likely supremely qualified. So to me it seems like a reasonable (or at least not inflammatory for the sake of being inflammatory) assertion to make. I don't think that specific passage was there to provoke (although his original intent with the entire memo was to spark dialogue, which I suppose you could call 'sparking controversy' but I wouldn't). I believe you missed the point.
unityByFreedom 9y ago
He's looking for a big debate. I don't know if it's fair to call it trolling. That implies his primary goal is to make other people upset. I think he actually wants to change people's minds. I think he cited dangerous jobs like coal mining because he is trying to build a case that certain personalities lead genders, on average, to different professions. He does not support this opinion with any research, and that's where his argument falls apart. He ignores societal factors and assumes biological factors explain gender employment gaps.