4 ms·

> He was not saying that women who work at Google are at a biological disadvantage, in any way, and that is a perverse misreading. Quite frankly: many people d

> He was not saying that women who work at Google are at a biological disadvantage, in any way, and that is a perverse misreading. Quite frankly: many people do. Some of them are at Google. James chose to run headlong into this discussion without any practical knowledge of the discourse. His point was poorly delivered precisely because it leaves open such radical room for misrepresenting it. Discussions of social issues MUST be informed by the social discourse they enter, even if armed with science and evidence. To suggest otherwise is obviously wrong. No one owes James a charitable reading. And if you think the "mobs" of liberals are misrepresenting his point, you should see where MRA/goreans are going with it.

pharrington 9y ago
Yes, James isn't owed a charitable reading. He is owed a rational reading. addendum: Irrational people misinterpreting a text is precisely that. Surely you can't be saying that a text having a fairly high bar for intelligent interpretation and discussion is reason for that text to not exist?
- KirinDave 9y ago
  It is not irrational to misinterpret poorly written, poorly worded, and inconclusive text. Reading a text is a dialogue. If the writer did not appropriately express the intent, then they invite the reader to finish the thought. And this even rational people can arrive at different conclusions. To suggest every reading you don't approve of as "irrational" is a predictable, even classical tactic. Many words exist for it, but in the end the notion of blaming the reader for finishing an incomplete thought is an exercise in futility. The reader has no choice.
  - pharrington 9y ago
    You said "his point was poorly delivered precisely because it leaves open such radical room for misrepresenting it," and then contrasted how "mobs of liberals" are reading it with "MRA/goreans." Maybe I'm misinterpreting you, but your original post was explicitly about irrational misinterpretations. If you want to talk about how the memo was poorly written, talk about how the memo was poorly written. The readings of others certainly can supplement your analysis, but you haven't provided that analysis. The memo begins with it's intent, and even has a TLDR after the opening three paragraphs. Also, while the memo was mostly trying to assess the current state and factors of the gender imbalance in tech and Google particularly, it does provide several, literal, conclusions. Here are just a few: >We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. >Women on average are more cooperative [...] Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there's more we can do. >Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits. If you actually read the memo, and have actual problems with what was actually written, then talk about that. There's certainly plenty to discuss and to rationally disagree about, but you have yet to say anything substantial about the thing you're criticizing.
    - KirinDave 9y ago
      > The memo begins with it's intent, and even has a TLDR after the opening three paragraphs. Which does little to excuse the subsequent content. Why would it? Impact matters far more than intent. Asking for someone to read a paragraph in a light quite opposed to it's content in this era of Poe Principle Supremacy is essentially asking for an act of faith. I possess no such faith. And why should I? The implicit suggestion here is that James's memo had value or novel input. Even if I fastidiously follow his intent statement, it appears misinformed and to misinterpret some findings, offering a solution I have discussed as inadequate and insulting many times on this website. > If you actually read the memo, and have actual problems with what was actually written, then talk about that. I have at length. I am now talking about the discourse at hand. Please find someone else to make demands of. I'm not your conversational sparring partner and even this reply is only a courtesy. Please do not exhaust my good will.
      - pharrington 9y ago
        Since you haven't done it in this thread, I checked your comment history to see what you have said about the memo itself. The only thing I could find that begins to be a direct reference is "In this memo's case, perhaps you're mad at someone for saying you're genetically predisposed to be less capable of individual action (e.g., don't worry I am sure if we set up pair programming that will make it fair for you social women types)." The only thing I found in the memo that could be interpreted as women being less capable in something regarding tech work was, "This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading." Granted, I did not interpret "having a harder time" as meaning "is less capable of," but I do see how you could think that. However, that statement is analogous to something like "black Americans in the 50s generally had a harder time running businesses, getting quality education, and finding quality housing." Empirically true, and has nothing to do with capability. Another point of confusion I can understand is while it mentions the fact that men and women have biological differences, it never says anything at all about what those differences are. Further, he goes on to say "many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions." Now I certainly agree that raising the topic of potential biological differences, only to instantly drop it, is poor writing, and if you justly continue reading the memo expecting more references to that topic, you could be left with a certain level of confusion. It's fine to not agree with something or someone. It's also OK to be wrong about something, or misunderstand a given piece of material. It is not OK to dismiss out of hand perceived others or to take an emotionally vested interest in your misunderstanding when it's been pointed out. This is a discussion board. pharrington literally and solely exists to discuss things with KirinDave (and any other accounts posting on this site).
imh 9y ago
>No one owes James a charitable reading. A charitable reading isn't something that's owed. It's something that almost universally helps discourse. Communication is hard. We're always willing to give Us a charitable reading, and it's a damned shame people are so unwilling to afford that to Them, regardless which side of anything you're on.
- KirinDave 9y ago
  Right, but anyone familiar with this larger discussion read James's memo and knew, immediately, that he simply failed to do any research or contribute anything meaningful. I certainly did my best to ignore it. It was poorly informed, poorly considered. His firing was inevitable and possibly even what he wanted. Certainly I can't imagine a more effective way to get fired at Google. Since James didn't do the courtesy of being informed, it seems odd to demand that everyone offer him the courtesy of finishing his argument for him
  - stagbeetle 9y ago
    To be frank, it's called being the better man. Progress isn't made when both parties refuse to cooperate. And one side isn't absolved of responsibility just because they believe the other side to be not worth their effort. This is petty.
    - KirinDave 9y ago
      What do you think I am doing engaging this topic even though it's obviously time consuming and costly to me? I'm not here dropping links about stereotypes and pointing out trivial logical errors in the discourse because it's good for my heart or my psyche. I'm on Twitter hiatus, but I still end up wrapped in these fruitless conflicts. But please, continue arguing that what I'm doing is deleterious. I'm not friendly on this subject, but you can hardly accuse me of not engaging openly and being responsive to the dialogue.
      - pharrington 9y ago
joshmarlow 9y ago
"MRA/goreans" - Wait... is there actually a subset of MRA which literally want to bring back slavery, or are you being hyperbolic?
- KirinDave 9y ago
  There are numerous groups of unsavory folks who have reached this conclusion, and raft in ways to form a motley political crew we call the "alt right".
  - joshmarlow 9y ago
    I'm done. Shut it down, Elon - we don't deserve to go to Mars. Shut it down!

pharrington 9y ago

Yes, James isn't owed a charitable reading. He is owed a rational reading. addendum: Irrational people misinterpreting a text is precisely that. Surely you can't be saying that a text having a fairly high bar for intelligent interpretation and discussion is reason for that text to not exist?

KirinDave 9y ago
It is not irrational to misinterpret poorly written, poorly worded, and inconclusive text. Reading a text is a dialogue. If the writer did not appropriately express the intent, then they invite the reader to finish the thought. And this even rational people can arrive at different conclusions. To suggest every reading you don't approve of as "irrational" is a predictable, even classical tactic. Many words exist for it, but in the end the notion of blaming the reader for finishing an incomplete thought is an exercise in futility. The reader has no choice.
- pharrington 9y ago
  You said "his point was poorly delivered precisely because it leaves open such radical room for misrepresenting it," and then contrasted how "mobs of liberals" are reading it with "MRA/goreans." Maybe I'm misinterpreting you, but your original post was explicitly about irrational misinterpretations. If you want to talk about how the memo was poorly written, talk about how the memo was poorly written. The readings of others certainly can supplement your analysis, but you haven't provided that analysis. The memo begins with it's intent, and even has a TLDR after the opening three paragraphs. Also, while the memo was mostly trying to assess the current state and factors of the gender imbalance in tech and Google particularly, it does provide several, literal, conclusions. Here are just a few: >We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. >Women on average are more cooperative [...] Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there's more we can do. >Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits. If you actually read the memo, and have actual problems with what was actually written, then talk about that. There's certainly plenty to discuss and to rationally disagree about, but you have yet to say anything substantial about the thing you're criticizing.
  - KirinDave 9y ago
    > The memo begins with it's intent, and even has a TLDR after the opening three paragraphs. Which does little to excuse the subsequent content. Why would it? Impact matters far more than intent. Asking for someone to read a paragraph in a light quite opposed to it's content in this era of Poe Principle Supremacy is essentially asking for an act of faith. I possess no such faith. And why should I? The implicit suggestion here is that James's memo had value or novel input. Even if I fastidiously follow his intent statement, it appears misinformed and to misinterpret some findings, offering a solution I have discussed as inadequate and insulting many times on this website. > If you actually read the memo, and have actual problems with what was actually written, then talk about that. I have at length. I am now talking about the discourse at hand. Please find someone else to make demands of. I'm not your conversational sparring partner and even this reply is only a courtesy. Please do not exhaust my good will.
    - pharrington 9y ago
      Since you haven't done it in this thread, I checked your comment history to see what you have said about the memo itself. The only thing I could find that begins to be a direct reference is "In this memo's case, perhaps you're mad at someone for saying you're genetically predisposed to be less capable of individual action (e.g., don't worry I am sure if we set up pair programming that will make it fair for you social women types)." The only thing I found in the memo that could be interpreted as women being less capable in something regarding tech work was, "This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading." Granted, I did not interpret "having a harder time" as meaning "is less capable of," but I do see how you could think that. However, that statement is analogous to something like "black Americans in the 50s generally had a harder time running businesses, getting quality education, and finding quality housing." Empirically true, and has nothing to do with capability. Another point of confusion I can understand is while it mentions the fact that men and women have biological differences, it never says anything at all about what those differences are. Further, he goes on to say "many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions." Now I certainly agree that raising the topic of potential biological differences, only to instantly drop it, is poor writing, and if you justly continue reading the memo expecting more references to that topic, you could be left with a certain level of confusion. It's fine to not agree with something or someone. It's also OK to be wrong about something, or misunderstand a given piece of material. It is not OK to dismiss out of hand perceived others or to take an emotionally vested interest in your misunderstanding when it's been pointed out. This is a discussion board. pharrington literally and solely exists to discuss things with KirinDave (and any other accounts posting on this site).

imh 9y ago

>No one owes James a charitable reading. A charitable reading isn't something that's owed. It's something that almost universally helps discourse. Communication is hard. We're always willing to give Us a charitable reading, and it's a damned shame people are so unwilling to afford that to Them, regardless which side of anything you're on.

KirinDave 9y ago
Right, but anyone familiar with this larger discussion read James's memo and knew, immediately, that he simply failed to do any research or contribute anything meaningful. I certainly did my best to ignore it. It was poorly informed, poorly considered. His firing was inevitable and possibly even what he wanted. Certainly I can't imagine a more effective way to get fired at Google. Since James didn't do the courtesy of being informed, it seems odd to demand that everyone offer him the courtesy of finishing his argument for him
- stagbeetle 9y ago
  To be frank, it's called being the better man. Progress isn't made when both parties refuse to cooperate. And one side isn't absolved of responsibility just because they believe the other side to be not worth their effort. This is petty.
  - KirinDave 9y ago
    What do you think I am doing engaging this topic even though it's obviously time consuming and costly to me? I'm not here dropping links about stereotypes and pointing out trivial logical errors in the discourse because it's good for my heart or my psyche. I'm on Twitter hiatus, but I still end up wrapped in these fruitless conflicts. But please, continue arguing that what I'm doing is deleterious. I'm not friendly on this subject, but you can hardly accuse me of not engaging openly and being responsive to the dialogue.
    - pharrington 9y ago

joshmarlow 9y ago

"MRA/goreans" - Wait... is there actually a subset of MRA which literally want to bring back slavery, or are you being hyperbolic?

KirinDave 9y ago
There are numerous groups of unsavory folks who have reached this conclusion, and raft in ways to form a motley political crew we call the "alt right".
- joshmarlow 9y ago
  I'm done. Shut it down, Elon - we don't deserve to go to Mars. Shut it down!