4 ms·

I think this is one of the better responses I've seen This line really struck me as being spot on: >There’s a difference between “let’s have a discussion” and

I think this is one of the better responses I've seen This line really struck me as being spot on: >There’s a difference between “let’s have a discussion” and “let me tell you what’s up, all you wrong people.”

Will_Parker 9y ago
On the other hand, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law Emphatically defending the wrong ideas in a debate forum, and seeing what points do and do not withstand scrutiny, is a very traditional and pure form of discourse. I claim that this process is even at the heart of scientific progress.
- lutorm 9y ago
  I disagree. Making arguments by selectively withholding counter-evidence you are aware of to see if those arguments "withstand scrutiny" is not scientific process. Certainly, arguing about which evidence is more important, or how to resolve apparent conflicts between various data, is perfectly fine. But if you are making arguments that you know don't hold up to evidence, you are not arguing in good faith. For that to be a legit argument, you have to motivate why that evidence should be discounted.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    > ...is not scientific process. Of course it isn't. When establishing narratives and complex causalities, you don't use scientific (inductive) reasoning, you use abductive reasoning. You use inductive and deductive reasoning to fill in points, but you have to use abductive reasoning to reach a broader conclusion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning
  - Will_Parker 9y ago
    > Making arguments by selectively withholding counter-evidence you are aware of to see if those arguments "withstand scrutiny" is not scientific process. Indeed, but I didn't read Damore's memo as being intellectually dishonest in this way. He presented (with citations) some views that are held by most psychology researchers. And then he drew a few of his own (possibly flagrant) conclusions and speculations. This sparked debate, and it is getting us talking. Damore wrote some great points (especially on free speech and intellectual diversity) and some terrible ones. This is the kind of free exchange of ideas that a successful and vibrant tech company should encourage.
epberry 9y ago
Absolutely. This and the suggestion that he phrase his ideas as questions and more openly invite discussion helped me put into words my own discomfort with the memo. Of course the conclusion he draws that because of biological differences women are less suited to software engineering work remains the biggest problem.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  I've tried asking evenhanded questions in the past (on other topics). They usually get corporate-speak responses that don't really say anything. Pointed questions provide more information at the expense of goodwill. What I'm saying is that I think people ask these kinds of questions and don't get honest answers. At least the firing of Damore was a concrete answer, though it was a partial one.
tinalumfoil 9y ago
Having read and just reread the memo, I don't think a better starting point for this discussion could've come from somebody on his side if Google had specifically asked for it. Maybe a professional journalist or someone with too much time could've spent some time dancing around the issues to make it less offensive, but I don't think that would've been productive. EDIT: Apologies for answering a question before it's been asked, but to clarify my point I don't think the quality of writing is that amazing (or relevant). I'm more speaking towards the general tone and content of the memo, which is far more polite and open than most editorials I read by professionals.
mundo 9y ago
Agreed, this nuanced and honest discussion is more worth reading than all the Medium "He's a hero / He's a demon" pieces put together.
gmarx 9y ago
This is literally what almost all persuasive writing is about. I cannot recall the last time I saw someone write or heard someone speak the words "let's have a discussion" to people who didn't already agree without really meaning "you people need to shut up and listen". I actually find it refreshing when people say that instead. But seriously who is writing to this standard we seem to have suddenly adopted for this one thing?
- humanrebar 9y ago
  Likewise: > I’m also disappointed that the men I know, including most of my male colleagues, remained silent on the topic. And the ones that did participate, either seemed to support Damore or demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding for the issues women engineers are faced with and care about. ...means she's frustrated that more men weren't saying what she was thinking. So "speak up" also means agreement. And, as an aside, I've seen lots of men criticizing Damore. I don't know what more needed to happen. Maybe she has particular people in mind.
throwawaygmemo 9y ago
The author opens the memo explaining that google needs to have a discussion and subsequently starts the discussion. again critics of the author actually agree with him. anyone who supports "let's have a discussion" can not support google who the author believes (and seems to have been proven right) does not want a discussion.

Will_Parker 9y ago

On the other hand, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law Emphatically defending the wrong ideas in a debate forum, and seeing what points do and do not withstand scrutiny, is a very traditional and pure form of discourse. I claim that this process is even at the heart of scientific progress.

lutorm 9y ago
I disagree. Making arguments by selectively withholding counter-evidence you are aware of to see if those arguments "withstand scrutiny" is not scientific process. Certainly, arguing about which evidence is more important, or how to resolve apparent conflicts between various data, is perfectly fine. But if you are making arguments that you know don't hold up to evidence, you are not arguing in good faith. For that to be a legit argument, you have to motivate why that evidence should be discounted.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > ...is not scientific process. Of course it isn't. When establishing narratives and complex causalities, you don't use scientific (inductive) reasoning, you use abductive reasoning. You use inductive and deductive reasoning to fill in points, but you have to use abductive reasoning to reach a broader conclusion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning
- Will_Parker 9y ago
  > Making arguments by selectively withholding counter-evidence you are aware of to see if those arguments "withstand scrutiny" is not scientific process. Indeed, but I didn't read Damore's memo as being intellectually dishonest in this way. He presented (with citations) some views that are held by most psychology researchers. And then he drew a few of his own (possibly flagrant) conclusions and speculations. This sparked debate, and it is getting us talking. Damore wrote some great points (especially on free speech and intellectual diversity) and some terrible ones. This is the kind of free exchange of ideas that a successful and vibrant tech company should encourage.

epberry 9y ago

Absolutely. This and the suggestion that he phrase his ideas as questions and more openly invite discussion helped me put into words my own discomfort with the memo. Of course the conclusion he draws that because of biological differences women are less suited to software engineering work remains the biggest problem.

humanrebar 9y ago
I've tried asking evenhanded questions in the past (on other topics). They usually get corporate-speak responses that don't really say anything. Pointed questions provide more information at the expense of goodwill. What I'm saying is that I think people ask these kinds of questions and don't get honest answers. At least the firing of Damore was a concrete answer, though it was a partial one.

tinalumfoil 9y ago

Having read and just reread the memo, I don't think a better starting point for this discussion could've come from somebody on his side if Google had specifically asked for it. Maybe a professional journalist or someone with too much time could've spent some time dancing around the issues to make it less offensive, but I don't think that would've been productive. EDIT: Apologies for answering a question before it's been asked, but to clarify my point I don't think the quality of writing is that amazing (or relevant). I'm more speaking towards the general tone and content of the memo, which is far more polite and open than most editorials I read by professionals.

mundo 9y ago

Agreed, this nuanced and honest discussion is more worth reading than all the Medium "He's a hero / He's a demon" pieces put together.

gmarx 9y ago

This is literally what almost all persuasive writing is about. I cannot recall the last time I saw someone write or heard someone speak the words "let's have a discussion" to people who didn't already agree without really meaning "you people need to shut up and listen". I actually find it refreshing when people say that instead. But seriously who is writing to this standard we seem to have suddenly adopted for this one thing?

humanrebar 9y ago
Likewise: > I’m also disappointed that the men I know, including most of my male colleagues, remained silent on the topic. And the ones that did participate, either seemed to support Damore or demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding for the issues women engineers are faced with and care about. ...means she's frustrated that more men weren't saying what she was thinking. So "speak up" also means agreement. And, as an aside, I've seen lots of men criticizing Damore. I don't know what more needed to happen. Maybe she has particular people in mind.

throwawaygmemo 9y ago

The author opens the memo explaining that google needs to have a discussion and subsequently starts the discussion. again critics of the author actually agree with him. anyone who supports "let's have a discussion" can not support google who the author believes (and seems to have been proven right) does not want a discussion.