4 ms·

Except, as has been pretty well documented elsewhere, it was not intelligent discourse. Whatever productive content may have been present, it was overwhelmed b

Except, as has been pretty well documented elsewhere, it was not intelligent discourse. Whatever productive content may have been present, it was overwhelmed by the senseless repetition of long-debunked stereotypical nonsense. Endlessly, emphatically parroting what is ultimately discriminatory nonsense is an aggressive action against others, not "just an opinion". E.g. [1], and numerous other examples. My favorite, which I'm having trouble digging up the citation for, is a recent-ish study that compared test performance of various minority/gender groups based on social anxiety measures (e.g. "girls aren't good at math")... and found that it was literally possible to turn this difference on and off like a switch based on triggering vs disarming these anxieties as part of the test setup. This literally flies the in face of the schoolyard "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" mantra so ingrained in US culture. It turns out, we have increasingly good scientific evidence that humans just don't work that way. Let's be clear about that: being a toxic jerk to {insert out-group here} actively harms those people, and can directly harm their performance orthogonally to their actual potential capabilities. "Yeah, I'm meritocratic in footraces, but only when I can stick thorns in my competitors' shoes." [1] https://psychcentral.com/news/2010/03/19/negative-effects-of-sexism/12252.html https://psychcentral.com/news/2010/03/19/negative-effects-of...

dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
> senseless repetition of long-debunked stereotypical nonsense Could you provide some references for this claim? Because Damore did.
strgrd 9y ago
You know what is not intelligent discourse? Equating what was said in the memo as harassment by citing this: > They asked 114 undergraduate female students to watch a video and imagine themselves as bystanders to a situation where a man made either a sexist catcall remark (“Hey Kelly, your boobs look great in that shirt!”) at another woman or simply greeted her (“Hey Kelly, what’s up?”). Maybe you could provide a citation instead for this? > the senseless repetition of long-debunked stereotypical nonsense.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  Especially that few scientists are on record saying that the memo is solid on science, and the quoted research is not only not debunked, but also not even controversial in sociological circles.
submersiveblue 9y ago
> it was overwhelmed by the senseless repetition of long-debunked stereotypical nonsense. This is why what Damore did is important and why having the discussion is important. People like you either mistakenly believe this or are being deliberately manipulative and misleading by claiming the science is settled. In fact, the science is not settled, and if anything it is leaning in Damore's favor. That you and people like you want to believe one thing very much is not a substitute for the actual truth to the rest of us, and never will be.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  >if anything it is leaning in Damore's favor. This isn't true.
  - submersiveblue 9y ago
    Sure it is, and a number of scientists in the relevant fields have spoken up and said so. Here's a start for you: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manifesto-isnt-sexist-or-anti-diversity-its-science/article35903359/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manife...
    - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
      No it's not. Here's a start: https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-biological-claims-made-in-the-anti-diversity-document-written-by-a-Google-employee-in-August-2017/answer/Suzanne-Sadedin?share=13d40fd1&srid=Q https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-bio...
      - submersiveblue 9y ago
        What's funny about that link is that when she refers to the scientific claims she mostly seems to agree that they are well founded. Apart from that she seems to reading a lot of stuff into the memo that Damore probably wouldn't agree is there, and getting offended. I.e. he is a racist/sexist/alt-right bigot.
sremani 9y ago
The willful misrepresentation of the memo is one of the reasons he got more support than usual. Most people who argued on the scientific basis mostly concurred and a few disagreed. There is nothing "overly debunked".
glenra 9y ago
> a recent-ish study that compared test performance of various minority/gender groups... You are referring to the idea of "stereotype threat" which, alas, did not survive the replication crisis. Quote "After correcting for publication bias, this literature shows very little evidence that stereotype threat has a notable and practically significant effect on women’s math performance (Flore & Wicherts, 2014)." Some analysis: https://replicationindex.wordpress.com/2017/04/07/hidden-figures-replication-failures-in-the-stereotype-threat-literature/ https://replicationindex.wordpress.com/2017/04/07/hidden-fig... Direct study link: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022440514000831 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022440514...
Chris2048 9y ago
> pretty well documented elsewhere In a strange place no one can seem to name.. funny how the existence of this "documentation" is so often assumed, but not so often referenced..
yellowapple 9y ago
Even if what Damore wrote was "long-debunked", it's the sort of thing that a pretty big chunk of the U.S. population believes to be more-or-less accurate. Lots of people are wrong about things and don't know it. Them being wrong does not justify an attempt to burn them at the stake; it justifies an attempt to calmly yet firmly explain the errors in the subjects' beliefs (and then maybe burn them at the stake - figuratively, plesse, not literally - if they choose to ignore the counterevidence). Having read the memo, I rather strongly disagree with the "toxic jerk" characterization you've given. Yammering fool, sure, but not (deliberately) malicious.

dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago

> senseless repetition of long-debunked stereotypical nonsense Could you provide some references for this claim? Because Damore did.

strgrd 9y ago

You know what is not intelligent discourse? Equating what was said in the memo as harassment by citing this: > They asked 114 undergraduate female students to watch a video and imagine themselves as bystanders to a situation where a man made either a sexist catcall remark (“Hey Kelly, your boobs look great in that shirt!”) at another woman or simply greeted her (“Hey Kelly, what’s up?”). Maybe you could provide a citation instead for this? > the senseless repetition of long-debunked stereotypical nonsense.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
Especially that few scientists are on record saying that the memo is solid on science, and the quoted research is not only not debunked, but also not even controversial in sociological circles.

submersiveblue 9y ago

> it was overwhelmed by the senseless repetition of long-debunked stereotypical nonsense. This is why what Damore did is important and why having the discussion is important. People like you either mistakenly believe this or are being deliberately manipulative and misleading by claiming the science is settled. In fact, the science is not settled, and if anything it is leaning in Damore's favor. That you and people like you want to believe one thing very much is not a substitute for the actual truth to the rest of us, and never will be.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
>if anything it is leaning in Damore's favor. This isn't true.
- submersiveblue 9y ago
  Sure it is, and a number of scientists in the relevant fields have spoken up and said so. Here's a start for you: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manifesto-isnt-sexist-or-anti-diversity-its-science/article35903359/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manife...
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    No it's not. Here's a start: https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-biological-claims-made-in-the-anti-diversity-document-written-by-a-Google-employee-in-August-2017/answer/Suzanne-Sadedin?share=13d40fd1&srid=Q https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-bio...
    - submersiveblue 9y ago
      What's funny about that link is that when she refers to the scientific claims she mostly seems to agree that they are well founded. Apart from that she seems to reading a lot of stuff into the memo that Damore probably wouldn't agree is there, and getting offended. I.e. he is a racist/sexist/alt-right bigot.

sremani 9y ago

The willful misrepresentation of the memo is one of the reasons he got more support than usual. Most people who argued on the scientific basis mostly concurred and a few disagreed. There is nothing "overly debunked".

glenra 9y ago

> a recent-ish study that compared test performance of various minority/gender groups... You are referring to the idea of "stereotype threat" which, alas, did not survive the replication crisis. Quote "After correcting for publication bias, this literature shows very little evidence that stereotype threat has a notable and practically significant effect on women’s math performance (Flore & Wicherts, 2014)." Some analysis: https://replicationindex.wordpress.com/2017/04/07/hidden-figures-replication-failures-in-the-stereotype-threat-literature/ https://replicationindex.wordpress.com/2017/04/07/hidden-fig... Direct study link: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022440514000831 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022440514...

Chris2048 9y ago

> pretty well documented elsewhere In a strange place no one can seem to name.. funny how the existence of this "documentation" is so often assumed, but not so often referenced..

yellowapple 9y ago

Even if what Damore wrote was "long-debunked", it's the sort of thing that a pretty big chunk of the U.S. population believes to be more-or-less accurate. Lots of people are wrong about things and don't know it. Them being wrong does not justify an attempt to burn them at the stake; it justifies an attempt to calmly yet firmly explain the errors in the subjects' beliefs (and then maybe burn them at the stake - figuratively, plesse, not literally - if they choose to ignore the counterevidence). Having read the memo, I rather strongly disagree with the "toxic jerk" characterization you've given. Yammering fool, sure, but not (deliberately) malicious.