8 ms·

It doesnt sound like he regretted what he wrote or wished he had a "do over"

by losteverything 9y ago

Chris2048 9y ago
Why would he?
- losteverything 9y ago
  Cause (im making this up) he never thought he would no longer work ot Google
- s_kilk 9y ago
  Because his piece is filled with logical errors, makes a big noise about reason and logic while citing evopsych nonsense which isn't regarded as actual science? I mean, beyond any discussion of his ideology, the memo is laughable trash.
  - kevinsundar 9y ago
    I have read the memo the entire way through. Can you explain these logical errors that it is filled with?
    - dguaraglia 9y ago
      OK, I'll bite. The whole argument is weak simply based on his relative dismissal of societal factors because, he argues, there's proven biological differences. So, he just concludes that "meh, we shouldn't try to change the status quo, because that'd be discrimination." He built the straw-man ("politics based discrimination"), he gave it a name ("left-wing ideals") and then proceeds to beat it. The problem is the straw-man has little merit: there's no known quantifier of how much 'lack of interest' in the field is caused by societal factors, and how much might be caused by biological factors. Without that, isn't it a bit premature to conclude that it is discrimination against men to have outreach programs for females? The point that bothers me the most about this memo is that Damore is intelligent enough to know exactly what kind of reaction he would elicit. I'm not buying for a minute his claim that he just wanted "a healthy discussion." You don't put everything in terms of "left and right" and then say "and the left is repressive and authoritarian, and what's more, wants to discriminate against people like me" and then get to pretend you are not biased.
      - Chris2048 9y ago
        you'll bite?! you are the one being asked to back up your assertions. You think you don't need to? It's your reasoning people would be incredulous to swallow..
        dguaraglia 9y ago
        Huh? The fact that the majority of people dismissed this memo, and is actually a small amount of the usual suspects getting "offended" about Damore getting fired, tells me that people are more "incredulous" about his argument. The funny bit about "my assertions" as you call them, is that actually the only "assertion" I make is: this is not settled science; trying to build an argument around it is as useless as us trying to decide policy by speculating on whether Bitcoin will destroy fiat money or not. It's people like Damore (and you, apparently) who are trying to make this a "settled matter". Please, back your assertions. Please tell me in concrete numbers what percentage of women are not interested in STEM because of biological factors? I mean, if it's settled science, you surely know the answer, right?
        Chris2048 9y ago
        > The fact that the majority Where are these "facts"? I was talking about the credulity of your comments, not the memo. But in fact I'll admit I made an error here - I misread, you aren't OP. > trying to build an argument around it is as useless He tried to begin a discussion. His memo was based mostly on feedback he'd received in doing so. Please quote Damore (or me) otherwise; I can't find reference to "settled matter" you put in quotation marks.
        dguaraglia 9y ago
        > Please quote Damore (or me) otherwise; I can't find reference to "settled matter" you put in quotation marks. Let me break it down for you, because it seems like the inference chain is escaping you: - The moment he starts suggesting "things we can do to fix this", it's clear that there's a problem. I mean, why suggest fixes if nothing's broken? (Engineering 101) - What's the problem? Apparently, trying to reach a 50/50 gender parity is discriminatory. But wait a minute, that's about the split in population, so how can that be discriminatory? - There has to be something that Damore knows that we don't know that explains why 50/50 is wrong. Turns out, Damore has solid evidence that women are not willing to participate in engineering at the same rate as men are. Never mind that only 70 years ago women couldn't even participate in the workforce, or that all the way until double-income families became necessary they were actively discouraged to participate in the workforce. Never mind that only about 30 years ago the US started programs to encourage women to participate in STEM careers. I mean, all those things wouldn't explain the disparity, so there has to be something else. - Well, of course! It's the genes! I mean, we know (from his memo) that women are just not interested in "things" but "people" (conclusion derived by a study that has been debunked and even the author couldn't replicate) and that they "get more anxious". You know girls, they freak out and stuff! Of course that'd explain why they feel anxious in a job where they are literally surrounded by males. Nothing to do with things like "beer thirty" being the norm, but rather it's their genes. D'oh! So that's the crux of it: Damore admits that there's social issues, but rather than addressing them and seeing if the disparity fixes itself, he'd rather call the efforts "discrimination" without any proof that actually they are affecting males. He could've made a solid argument (and one that wouldn't have gotten him fired) if he had asked, honestly, whether creating different queues for minority candidates isn't in itself a form of discrimination. Laying out his theory about women being "different" is where he went against Google's Code of Conduct. That kind of shit is better left for r/theredpill, not your work environment where you have to interact with women. I hate reminding you, but this kind of "biological arguments" were made about black people until very recently. Going back to your "metaphor" about segregation: Damore is not Rosa Parks, he's the driver trying to tell us that "why should we let black people sit at the front of the bus, when they seem pretty happy in the backseats."

It doesnt sound like he regretted what he wrote or wished he had a "do over"

Chris2048 9y ago

Why would he?

losteverything 9y ago
Cause (im making this up) he never thought he would no longer work ot Google
s_kilk 9y ago
Because his piece is filled with logical errors, makes a big noise about reason and logic while citing evopsych nonsense which isn't regarded as actual science? I mean, beyond any discussion of his ideology, the memo is laughable trash.
- kevinsundar 9y ago
  I have read the memo the entire way through. Can you explain these logical errors that it is filled with?
  - dguaraglia 9y ago
    OK, I'll bite. The whole argument is weak simply based on his relative dismissal of societal factors because, he argues, there's proven biological differences. So, he just concludes that "meh, we shouldn't try to change the status quo, because that'd be discrimination." He built the straw-man ("politics based discrimination"), he gave it a name ("left-wing ideals") and then proceeds to beat it. The problem is the straw-man has little merit: there's no known quantifier of how much 'lack of interest' in the field is caused by societal factors, and how much might be caused by biological factors. Without that, isn't it a bit premature to conclude that it is discrimination against men to have outreach programs for females? The point that bothers me the most about this memo is that Damore is intelligent enough to know exactly what kind of reaction he would elicit. I'm not buying for a minute his claim that he just wanted "a healthy discussion." You don't put everything in terms of "left and right" and then say "and the left is repressive and authoritarian, and what's more, wants to discriminate against people like me" and then get to pretend you are not biased.
    - Chris2048 9y ago
      you'll bite?! you are the one being asked to back up your assertions. You think you don't need to? It's your reasoning people would be incredulous to swallow..
      - dguaraglia 9y ago
        Huh? The fact that the majority of people dismissed this memo, and is actually a small amount of the usual suspects getting "offended" about Damore getting fired, tells me that people are more "incredulous" about his argument. The funny bit about "my assertions" as you call them, is that actually the only "assertion" I make is: this is not settled science; trying to build an argument around it is as useless as us trying to decide policy by speculating on whether Bitcoin will destroy fiat money or not. It's people like Damore (and you, apparently) who are trying to make this a "settled matter". Please, back your assertions. Please tell me in concrete numbers what percentage of women are not interested in STEM because of biological factors? I mean, if it's settled science, you surely know the answer, right?
        Chris2048 9y ago
        > The fact that the majority Where are these "facts"? I was talking about the credulity of your comments, not the memo. But in fact I'll admit I made an error here - I misread, you aren't OP. > trying to build an argument around it is as useless He tried to begin a discussion. His memo was based mostly on feedback he'd received in doing so. Please quote Damore (or me) otherwise; I can't find reference to "settled matter" you put in quotation marks.
        dguaraglia 9y ago
        > Please quote Damore (or me) otherwise; I can't find reference to "settled matter" you put in quotation marks. Let me break it down for you, because it seems like the inference chain is escaping you: - The moment he starts suggesting "things we can do to fix this", it's clear that there's a problem. I mean, why suggest fixes if nothing's broken? (Engineering 101) - What's the problem? Apparently, trying to reach a 50/50 gender parity is discriminatory. But wait a minute, that's about the split in population, so how can that be discriminatory? - There has to be something that Damore knows that we don't know that explains why 50/50 is wrong. Turns out, Damore has solid evidence that women are not willing to participate in engineering at the same rate as men are. Never mind that only 70 years ago women couldn't even participate in the workforce, or that all the way until double-income families became necessary they were actively discouraged to participate in the workforce. Never mind that only about 30 years ago the US started programs to encourage women to participate in STEM careers. I mean, all those things wouldn't explain the disparity, so there has to be something else. - Well, of course! It's the genes! I mean, we know (from his memo) that women are just not interested in "things" but "people" (conclusion derived by a study that has been debunked and even the author couldn't replicate) and that they "get more anxious". You know girls, they freak out and stuff! Of course that'd explain why they feel anxious in a job where they are literally surrounded by males. Nothing to do with things like "beer thirty" being the norm, but rather it's their genes. D'oh! So that's the crux of it: Damore admits that there's social issues, but rather than addressing them and seeing if the disparity fixes itself, he'd rather call the efforts "discrimination" without any proof that actually they are affecting males. He could've made a solid argument (and one that wouldn't have gotten him fired) if he had asked, honestly, whether creating different queues for minority candidates isn't in itself a form of discrimination. Laying out his theory about women being "different" is where he went against Google's Code of Conduct. That kind of shit is better left for r/theredpill, not your work environment where you have to interact with women. I hate reminding you, but this kind of "biological arguments" were made about black people until very recently. Going back to your "metaphor" about segregation: Damore is not Rosa Parks, he's the driver trying to tell us that "why should we let black people sit at the front of the bus, when they seem pretty happy in the backseats."