5 ms·

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 intera

by 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.
- chubot 9y ago
  By "you are part of the problem", and the article and I are saying the debate is too extreme. I'm not saying he's "wrong"; I'm saying the "because science" people are just as naively contributing to the debate as the "James Damore says women are inferior" people. As I mentioned (and you didn't address), the argument that there shouldn't be any training programs directed toward women leaves out any science about discrimination against women. It's possible that everything he said is 100% true, but that there should still be programs at Google directed toward women (as he argued against). That's what I meant by "reducing workplace policy to science is a fallacy". The problem is the "100%, facts that are completely true" mindset. Certainly you may use nutritional science to guide what you eat, but it's not 100%. Nutritional science is a great example because many of those studies have been overturned -- some would argue MOST such studies are false. You should read a little about the philosophy of science. I think what he said should have been said, although he could have done it in a more constructive way. And I think it's likely that someone on the opposing side leaked the memo on purpose, to get him fired. I saw a lot of these types of internal manifestos in my time at Google. Usually they don't leak, and a logical motive here would have been to force Google's hand and get him fired.

by chubot 9y ago

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.

chubot 9y ago
By "you are part of the problem", and the article and I are saying the debate is too extreme. I'm not saying he's "wrong"; I'm saying the "because science" people are just as naively contributing to the debate as the "James Damore says women are inferior" people. As I mentioned (and you didn't address), the argument that there shouldn't be any training programs directed toward women leaves out any science about discrimination against women. It's possible that everything he said is 100% true, but that there should still be programs at Google directed toward women (as he argued against). That's what I meant by "reducing workplace policy to science is a fallacy". The problem is the "100%, facts that are completely true" mindset. Certainly you may use nutritional science to guide what you eat, but it's not 100%. Nutritional science is a great example because many of those studies have been overturned -- some would argue MOST such studies are false. You should read a little about the philosophy of science. I think what he said should have been said, although he could have done it in a more constructive way. And I think it's likely that someone on the opposing side leaked the memo on purpose, to get him fired. I saw a lot of these types of internal manifestos in my time at Google. Usually they don't leak, and a logical motive here would have been to force Google's hand and get him fired.