3 ms·

I don't understand that statement.. or why you would agree with it. The auther of the memo was attempting to present facts. Why wouldn't I completely agree wi

I don't understand that statement.. or why you would agree with it. The auther of the memo was attempting to present facts. Why wouldn't I completely agree with facts that are true? Especially in this case, when most cognitive scientists seem to agree upon the facts as presented? [1] It really doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with facts... they are still reality, regardless. And I see very, very few people arguing against the facts that Damore presented in any sort of cogent manner. Damore's only real policy suggestion was to (gasp) treat everyone as individuals, rather than as stereotypical tribal members. And I'm personally very confused as to how anyone isn't wholly in favor of that. We are all more than our skin color or gender. [1] https://archive.is/VlNfl https://archive.is/VlNfl

bjl 9y ago
The papers he cited are still extremely controversial, they aren't settled science at all. The rest of his sources were Wikipedia links.
- bllguo 9y ago
  Really? Interested in hearing more. To me a big point of his is that on average, there are innate differences between the sexes, which policy should acknowledge. Which, afaik, is scientific consensus. Yet not a single person I've read that criticizes the memo will acknowledge this.
  - bjl 9y ago
    Its simply not scientific consensus that the kind of differences he was positing actually exist. A handful of studies with tiny sample sizes and questionable statistical techniques does not a consensus make.
anonymouskimmer 9y ago
"Damore's only real policy suggestion was to (gasp) treat everyone as individuals" Unforunately it takes years for a person to really known another person as an individual. And even then the preferences inherent in the first person will bias what they do with the knowledge they have of the other individual. Thus this isn't a solution.
- Danihan 9y ago
  I believe that treating everyone as individuals, rather than as tribal groups, is the only way forward. You don't have to get to know someone at a deep level to make a hiring decision. What ever happened to the notion of being color-blind when it comes to policy enforcement? AKA, actually treating people equally, based on merit? What exactly is wrong with "blind-hiring," rather than "diversity-conscious" hiring? It worked to remove the gender gap in orchestras. Why wouldn't it be good to use in tech? http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/orchestrating-impartiality-impact-%E2%80%9Cblind%E2%80%9D-auditions-female-musicians http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/orchestrating-impartiality-impact...
  - anonymouskimmer 9y ago
    It's a great idea, but more difficult to do for most jobs than for an orchestra.
chubot 9y ago
First, you have to accept that the debate isn't about all about scientific facts; it's about their implication in workplace policies. Reducing workplace interaction to science is a fallacy. When deciding how to act in the world, you have to use your judgement. When planning your diet, do you read a bunch of nutrition papers and decide what to eat 100% on what they say, or did you apply some cultural knowledge? Second, "facts that are completely true" does not gibe with most cognitive scientists seem to agree. Which is it? Did you check every fact yourself, or did you just accept what he had to say uncritically? From the article: Similarly, if you can read this guy's entire memo and find yourself blindly nodding, then you probably aren't using your brain either. The phrase facts that are completely true sounds young and naive. Just like the left can cite studies about unconscious bias, the right can cite studies about biological differences. That doesn't mean they're all true. Even if you accept that "scientific facts" are the way to decide the workplace policy, his article isn't complete. Where is the scientific fact that says how much discrimination against women there is? He said "I'm not denying discrimination exists" but didn't address it further. BTW I largely defended Damore, because many people I talked with have extreme "left wing" views. His points were completely mischaracterized in the media. It became a political circus. But I will also argue against extreme "right wing" views. That was the point of the quote. FWIW I worked at Google for 11 years, and both my parents and sister have Ph.D.'s and are in the sciences, two in biological sciences. I know how "studies" work. Both people on the left and right (at least in this debate) have a naive view of science.
- Danihan 9y ago
  Obviously I have my own worldview and biases. That being said, I've tried painstakingly to develop a worldview that is accurate and not based on wishful thinking. Yes, I do base what I eat on nutritional facts, rather than just cultural norms. For instance, I don't eat vegetable oils hardly at all. I do periods of water fasting to initiate autophagy in my body. Neither of those things is culturally common in my circles, in fact, the vast majority of people around me are fairly unhealthy. "Everyone is equal" is absurd, fantastical thinking. A criminal serial killer with a 70 IQ is not equal to Einstein by any metric. Whereas, the precept of, "Everyone should be given equal opportunity under the ruleset," is a noble ideal worth pursuing at nearly any level of policy. When I read Damore's memo, I was nodding, not because I was being uncritical, but because he's right, as far as I can tell. He's saying Google is chasing a fantasy of equal outcomes, rather than providing equal opportunities. That's correct, they are. His suggestions were to treat people more as individuals, rather than ham-fisting treatment based on perceived group identity. I think that's very obviously a better approach. And like most responses to his memo, you can't say (or haven't said) a single thing you think he is wrong about. You can't, or won't, dispute a single line he said. Just because you come from a good family, and believe that centrism is always the way to go, doesn't mean you're automatically right.
j45 9y ago
It's less about facts, and more about presenting facts without the context of what is personal interpretation vs broader group interpretations. Some have argued that treating others as individuals is what's already happening, resulting in people hiring people like them? Damore spoke more about gender, than skin color as well. This part of the conversation isn't getting enough review too. Diversity isn't just gender diversity. Gender diversity may just be the diversity that the majority can relate to. With that being said, Many types of diversity require many types of approaches. The lean startup conference has some laudable dialogue and track record hurling themselves into all sorts of diversity innovation discomfort: https://hbr.org/2014/01/theres-no-excuse-for-all-white-male-panels https://hbr.org/2014/01/theres-no-excuse-for-all-white-male-...

bjl 9y ago

The papers he cited are still extremely controversial, they aren't settled science at all. The rest of his sources were Wikipedia links.

bllguo 9y ago
Really? Interested in hearing more. To me a big point of his is that on average, there are innate differences between the sexes, which policy should acknowledge. Which, afaik, is scientific consensus. Yet not a single person I've read that criticizes the memo will acknowledge this.
- bjl 9y ago
  Its simply not scientific consensus that the kind of differences he was positing actually exist. A handful of studies with tiny sample sizes and questionable statistical techniques does not a consensus make.

anonymouskimmer 9y ago

"Damore's only real policy suggestion was to (gasp) treat everyone as individuals" Unforunately it takes years for a person to really known another person as an individual. And even then the preferences inherent in the first person will bias what they do with the knowledge they have of the other individual. Thus this isn't a solution.

Danihan 9y ago
I believe that treating everyone as individuals, rather than as tribal groups, is the only way forward. You don't have to get to know someone at a deep level to make a hiring decision. What ever happened to the notion of being color-blind when it comes to policy enforcement? AKA, actually treating people equally, based on merit? What exactly is wrong with "blind-hiring," rather than "diversity-conscious" hiring? It worked to remove the gender gap in orchestras. Why wouldn't it be good to use in tech? http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/orchestrating-impartiality-impact-%E2%80%9Cblind%E2%80%9D-auditions-female-musicians http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/orchestrating-impartiality-impact...
- anonymouskimmer 9y ago
  It's a great idea, but more difficult to do for most jobs than for an orchestra.

chubot 9y ago

First, you have to accept that the debate isn't about all about scientific facts; it's about their implication in workplace policies. Reducing workplace interaction to science is a fallacy. When deciding how to act in the world, you have to use your judgement. When planning your diet, do you read a bunch of nutrition papers and decide what to eat 100% on what they say, or did you apply some cultural knowledge? Second, "facts that are completely true" does not gibe with most cognitive scientists seem to agree. Which is it? Did you check every fact yourself, or did you just accept what he had to say uncritically? From the article: Similarly, if you can read this guy's entire memo and find yourself blindly nodding, then you probably aren't using your brain either. The phrase facts that are completely true sounds young and naive. Just like the left can cite studies about unconscious bias, the right can cite studies about biological differences. That doesn't mean they're all true. Even if you accept that "scientific facts" are the way to decide the workplace policy, his article isn't complete. Where is the scientific fact that says how much discrimination against women there is? He said "I'm not denying discrimination exists" but didn't address it further. BTW I largely defended Damore, because many people I talked with have extreme "left wing" views. His points were completely mischaracterized in the media. It became a political circus. But I will also argue against extreme "right wing" views. That was the point of the quote. FWIW I worked at Google for 11 years, and both my parents and sister have Ph.D.'s and are in the sciences, two in biological sciences. I know how "studies" work. Both people on the left and right (at least in this debate) have a naive view of science.

Danihan 9y ago
Obviously I have my own worldview and biases. That being said, I've tried painstakingly to develop a worldview that is accurate and not based on wishful thinking. Yes, I do base what I eat on nutritional facts, rather than just cultural norms. For instance, I don't eat vegetable oils hardly at all. I do periods of water fasting to initiate autophagy in my body. Neither of those things is culturally common in my circles, in fact, the vast majority of people around me are fairly unhealthy. "Everyone is equal" is absurd, fantastical thinking. A criminal serial killer with a 70 IQ is not equal to Einstein by any metric. Whereas, the precept of, "Everyone should be given equal opportunity under the ruleset," is a noble ideal worth pursuing at nearly any level of policy. When I read Damore's memo, I was nodding, not because I was being uncritical, but because he's right, as far as I can tell. He's saying Google is chasing a fantasy of equal outcomes, rather than providing equal opportunities. That's correct, they are. His suggestions were to treat people more as individuals, rather than ham-fisting treatment based on perceived group identity. I think that's very obviously a better approach. And like most responses to his memo, you can't say (or haven't said) a single thing you think he is wrong about. You can't, or won't, dispute a single line he said. Just because you come from a good family, and believe that centrism is always the way to go, doesn't mean you're automatically right.

j45 9y ago

It's less about facts, and more about presenting facts without the context of what is personal interpretation vs broader group interpretations. Some have argued that treating others as individuals is what's already happening, resulting in people hiring people like them? Damore spoke more about gender, than skin color as well. This part of the conversation isn't getting enough review too. Diversity isn't just gender diversity. Gender diversity may just be the diversity that the majority can relate to. With that being said, Many types of diversity require many types of approaches. The lean startup conference has some laudable dialogue and track record hurling themselves into all sorts of diversity innovation discomfort: https://hbr.org/2014/01/theres-no-excuse-for-all-white-male-panels https://hbr.org/2014/01/theres-no-excuse-for-all-white-male-...