4 ms·

Are you arguing we should spare factual discourse for the sake of someones subjective feelings?

by bufbupa 9y ago

wcummings 9y ago
Not much about that memo was "factual", whatever that means.
- ahugebeach 9y ago
  Some scientists did agree, even said he wrote an A worthy paper. Others disagreed. Even slatestarcodex argued a little for both sides. Its clear scientific consensus has not been reached, and people need to discuss this openly with out censors.
  - sjg007 9y ago
    It's pseudoscience at best.
adbachman 9y ago
In this case, it's not about "should factual discourse be allowed or not," that's a false dichotomy. It's whether the author of the memo knowingly took an approach to interpretation of the "facts" he selected that was actively harmful to his co-workers by creating a toxic and hostile work environment. I believe he did, and the parent you're responding to seems to as well, but they didn't say anything about "spar[ing] factual discourse." You seem to be reading that into their comment. And I would definitely say there are factual discussions that can be had privately between individuals who already trust each other that are better kept private in order to spare the feelings of non-participants. Other humans have feelings, taking them into consideration is not weakness.
- bufbupa 9y ago
  "by creating a toxic and hostile work environment" can only be defined as such by those within it. I could say anything was toxic and hostile for any subjective reasoning. And it becomes "true" by your definition if enough people agree with me? I'm arguing that line of reasoning is not constructive, and the collective's agreed upon opinions should not act as a barrier for scientific discourse. (which is what the memo was asking for)
Delmania 9y ago
Why don't you go ahead and read this: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2017/08/sloppy-science.html http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2017/08/sloppy-scien... Simply put, unless you are mindful of someone's "subjective feelings" you will never be able to have a "factual discourse" with them. People are individuals and not statistics. You can quote statistics and average all day long, but if you offend, anger, or harm someone with your words, that person will not listen to you.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > Simply put, unless you are mindful of someone's "subjective feelings" you will never be able to have a "factual discourse" with them. Isn't that a catch 22? How do we know their subjective feelings if we can't discuss contested issues?
  - Delmania 9y ago
    No, not really. For this specific example, Damore knew the issue is a divisive one. If he didn't, then he does need to have some basic sensitivity training. From what I remember reading, he did acknowledge the issue was contentious. In that respect, there are ways and techniques to have that conversation. What Damore did was not that way. He should have consulted a resource like Crucial Conversations (https://www.amazon.com/Crucial-Conversations-Talking-Stakes-Second/dp/1469266822 https://www.amazon.com/Crucial-Conversations-Talking-Stakes-...) first.
    - rpiguy 9y ago
      Sensitivity training would not have helped and is not required here. He went out of his way to praise women engineers and to emphasize he supports diversity. There are just certain that intolerant people cannot discuss rationally, like biological gender differences. The fault lies with the intolerant minds, not Damore's approach.
      - Delmania 9y ago
        That's victim blaming. His claims that he supports diversity are nothing more than false virtue-signaling. I have yet to find a person who would say there are no biological gender differences. The problem is assuming those differences are the underlying cause for why women and minorities are under represented in technology. Were you aware the first programmers were females? There are -many- reasons why women and minorities are underrepresented. The biological differences are not a significant one.

Are you arguing we should spare factual discourse for the sake of someones subjective feelings?

wcummings 9y ago

Not much about that memo was "factual", whatever that means.

ahugebeach 9y ago
Some scientists did agree, even said he wrote an A worthy paper. Others disagreed. Even slatestarcodex argued a little for both sides. Its clear scientific consensus has not been reached, and people need to discuss this openly with out censors.
- sjg007 9y ago
  It's pseudoscience at best.

adbachman 9y ago

In this case, it's not about "should factual discourse be allowed or not," that's a false dichotomy. It's whether the author of the memo knowingly took an approach to interpretation of the "facts" he selected that was actively harmful to his co-workers by creating a toxic and hostile work environment. I believe he did, and the parent you're responding to seems to as well, but they didn't say anything about "spar[ing] factual discourse." You seem to be reading that into their comment. And I would definitely say there are factual discussions that can be had privately between individuals who already trust each other that are better kept private in order to spare the feelings of non-participants. Other humans have feelings, taking them into consideration is not weakness.

bufbupa 9y ago
"by creating a toxic and hostile work environment" can only be defined as such by those within it. I could say anything was toxic and hostile for any subjective reasoning. And it becomes "true" by your definition if enough people agree with me? I'm arguing that line of reasoning is not constructive, and the collective's agreed upon opinions should not act as a barrier for scientific discourse. (which is what the memo was asking for)

Delmania 9y ago

Why don't you go ahead and read this: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2017/08/sloppy-science.html http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2017/08/sloppy-scien... Simply put, unless you are mindful of someone's "subjective feelings" you will never be able to have a "factual discourse" with them. People are individuals and not statistics. You can quote statistics and average all day long, but if you offend, anger, or harm someone with your words, that person will not listen to you.

humanrebar 9y ago
> Simply put, unless you are mindful of someone's "subjective feelings" you will never be able to have a "factual discourse" with them. Isn't that a catch 22? How do we know their subjective feelings if we can't discuss contested issues?
- Delmania 9y ago
  No, not really. For this specific example, Damore knew the issue is a divisive one. If he didn't, then he does need to have some basic sensitivity training. From what I remember reading, he did acknowledge the issue was contentious. In that respect, there are ways and techniques to have that conversation. What Damore did was not that way. He should have consulted a resource like Crucial Conversations (https://www.amazon.com/Crucial-Conversations-Talking-Stakes-Second/dp/1469266822 https://www.amazon.com/Crucial-Conversations-Talking-Stakes-...) first.
  - rpiguy 9y ago
    Sensitivity training would not have helped and is not required here. He went out of his way to praise women engineers and to emphasize he supports diversity. There are just certain that intolerant people cannot discuss rationally, like biological gender differences. The fault lies with the intolerant minds, not Damore's approach.
    - Delmania 9y ago
      That's victim blaming. His claims that he supports diversity are nothing more than false virtue-signaling. I have yet to find a person who would say there are no biological gender differences. The problem is assuming those differences are the underlying cause for why women and minorities are under represented in technology. Were you aware the first programmers were females? There are -many- reasons why women and minorities are underrepresented. The biological differences are not a significant one.