36 ms·

I think one thing that struck me from the linked article was the point that the memo wasn't structured to invite discussion. It wasn't "let's have a chat", it w

I think one thing that struck me from the linked article was the point that the memo wasn't structured to invite discussion. It wasn't "let's have a chat", it was "here's an evidence bomb of how you're all wrong". I think advancing points is fine, but if you're after productive discussion rather than an adversarial debate, you need to proactively invite discussion. And if an adversarial debate was what he was after, that does strike me as inappropriate work communication.

52-6F-62 9y ago
This is rather the page I've been on (outside of my personal disagreements). You put it more concisely than I have previously.
ahugebeach 9y ago
It was a politically charged topic, he would have been crucified either way. But by phrasing the memo the way he did, he covered himself legally. I wouldn't be surprised to hear everything was run by a lawyer first.
- CydeWeys 9y ago
  What could possibly make you think he sought legal representation before writing that document? He was just looking for an argument/discussion.
johnp_ 9y ago
It was apparently a live-document (like etherpad) and the intention was get feedback directly in-line if I understood correctly. Not an unusual way of doing things for an engineer.
- jancsika 9y ago
  It's usual for an engineer to understand something outside their field of expertise by submitting a draft of what they know to others who aren't domain experts, either? Wouldn't an actual engineering process have started by submitting a document for feedback from somebody whose field of expertise deals with unequal gender representation in the workplace?
  - emsy 9y ago
    He has a master in systems biology.
annexrichmond 9y ago
I disagree. He mentioned in an interview[1] that he was looking to be proven wrong which is what led him to share it with the Skeptics group at Google, which is when the document propagated. He had actually wrote the document weeks prior but was unsatisfied with the lack of discussion on his document. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU
- kristianc 9y ago
  That seems an odd approach tbh. Many 'Skeptics' groups (Skeptic / Rationalist YouTube) online at least would agree with his reasoning. It strikes me as odd that he was seeking to take down an ideological echo chamber but published it initially in the echo chamber most likely to agree with him.
  - Moshe_Silnorin 9y ago
    The skeptic tribe is extremely politicly polarized.
  - bkirkby 9y ago
    His first group he sent it to was a diversity group. I think it reasonable that a skeptic group who, ostensibly, would side with reason would be a next logical step.
    - andrewingram 9y ago
      Yes, even if they agreed with the echo chamber idea on the whole, they'd still seek to point out flaws and fallacies in his arguments.
  - thinkfurther 9y ago
    > That seems an odd approach tbh. If that's odd, then what is firing just to prove him right?
    - kristianc 9y ago
nicolashahn 9y ago
Then the correct way to handle it is to drop another refutational evidence bomb attacking his primary points instead of picking the low hanging fruit of claiming it's "too confrontational," "poorly written," "naive," or whatever other secondary problems exist (this is aside from wilfully misrepresenting his claims, which is definitely a bigger problem). Plenty of far more aggressive articles and essays have been written from the opposite side that have not been criticized in the same way. And for the record, I did not get any aggressive tone from his paper. I thought he was as polite as he needed to be and made the necessary caveats. I think many people were just so unprepared to hear any argument from an opposing viewpoint that they read into it what they wanted to.
- Blackthorn 9y ago
  > Then the correct way to handle it is to drop another refutational evidence bomb attacking his primary points instead of picking the low hanging fruit of claiming it's "too confrontational," "poorly written," "naive," or whatever other secondary problems exist (this is aside from wilfully misrepresenting his claims, which is definitely a bigger problem). This was addressed in the article. This burden has fallen on women since they were teenagers. To expect them to do it yet again, to have to defend themselves at work this time, is ridiculous.
  - totalZero 9y ago
    The burden of responding to something that is (at the very least presented as) evidence? I don't think it's possible to have a discussion if you don't expect and allow pro-affirmative-action stakeholders to respond with their own evidence and reasoning, in turn.
    - Blackthorn 9y ago
      He could have brought up his concerns to hiring authorities in the company, whose job it is to refute diversity myths. Not expect people who have had this burden placed on them for their entire adult life to do it yet again.
canoebuilder 9y ago
It wasn't "let's have a chat", it was "here's an evidence bomb of how you're all wrong". We shouldn't really take someone's degree of divergence from reality as somehow being a point in favor of their argument. When people remove themselves so far from reality, ignoring significant mounds of evidence, nearly anything not divorced from reality is going to have the effect of an "evidence bomb."
megous 9y ago
I think if you want to critique author's approach to discussion, you need to learn first what it actually was.
nailer 9y ago
I read the full memo ( https://medium.com/@Cernovich/full-james-damore-memo-uncensored-memo-with-charts-and-cites-339f3d2d05f https://medium.com/@Cernovich/full-james-damore-memo-uncenso...) and it didn't seem like that at all. Saying that discrimination exists but differences in gender representation aren't necessarily caused by discrimination didn't seem like 'you're all wrong', not do the 'suggestions' seem like something someone writing authoritatively would make. Not a female engineer so appreciate I may be missing something - what is it?
- lowbloodsugar 9y ago
  The first page or so is not about gender diversity, but about "Left biases" and "Right biases" and the statement that "the media, and Google lean left". He then follows with "Google's left bias has created a politically correct monoculture". So the difference is between these two statements: a. I believe X, and b. You are all leftists. Leftists believe Y. Y is wrong. The answer is actually X.
  - nailer 9y ago
    Saying Google's culture leans left doesn't mean everyone in Google is a leftist. Nor does acknowledging bias imply that people with that bias is wrong - just biased, Eg looking at a specific part of a larger picture. There's a difference.
xienze 9y ago
Be honest here -- do you _really_ think there's a way to present the argument that --gasp-- men and women might be different in their abilities that _wouldn't_ trigger a meltdown? I think this memo really highlights the fact that there are Some Things You Just Can't Talk About.
- unityByFreedom 9y ago
  No, you can't, because there isn't evidence that biological differences cause people to choose different careers. Why would put forth a theory that is opposed to a company's values of equality if you don't have proof? Most evidence points to socialized factors, not biological ones. If Damore really cares about this issue, he should study biology and make his case there. He will do more to move the debate forward from within the relevant scientific community by gathering evidence than from the outside.
  - thinkfurther 9y ago
    > because there isn't evidence that biological differences cause people to choose different careers. Oh? What about basketball players or jockeys?
    - emsy 9y ago
      Not sure what got you downvoted. There's even a South Park episode about it where Kyle has a surgery to become a black basketball player, which kind of goes in the same direction.
      - thinkfurther 9y ago
        I was just thinking about height. Of course biology affects career choice, and a lot of other things. Doesn't mean men are engineers and women are nurses, but to pretend biology doesn't affect anything is more than hilarious. Which makes people who think that laughable, and they probably don't like it. But hey, you can't prove obedience by agreeing that the sky is blue or a circle is round, it's gotta be something more, like "biology doesn't affect career choice". So whatevs, if it's not that it's something else ^_^
randyrand 9y ago
As someone with a very debate-loving personality, I disagree. Saying how I'm wrong is the best way to start discussion. Now of course, not everyone will be the same. But for those that like to debate and have discussions, then just tell me why you think I'm wrong and we can go from there. I don't need you to coddle me.
fiblye 9y ago
I think a large number of people in tech simply have a straight-to-the-point style of talking. They don't follow through with the HR-like "we appreciate your thoughts and comments, but going forward, we must politely decline to touch base again" style because the expectation is just to say "you're wrong and here's why." What's inviting to some people is insincere to others. What's straight-faced discussion is rude and problematic to others. It's hard reaching a middle ground, because when you try finding a middle point for a group the size of the whole tech industry about such a divisive topic, at least one person will accuse you of trying to appease (insert enemy political group here) and see it as worse than just taking a side.
EGreg 9y ago
Wasn't it posted on a board Google specifically set up for posts like this?
futun 9y ago
That's a good roadmap for future discussion. One must note that it is not a roadmap the left uses. Ever.
ImSkeptical 9y ago
I don't see what's wrong with an "evidence bomb" and I've never seen the complaint that someone's position had too much evidence behind it. If Damore had no evidence, he'd be dismissed as a misogynist with no evidence. When he presents evidence, you dismiss him as an evidence bomber.
GreaterFool 9y ago
I don't think anyone needs a special invitation to have a discussion! "Hey Alice/Bob, I read your memo and I disagree. here's my point of view...".
tboyd47 9y ago
Exactly. People seem to get confused easily about what "discussion" means. Discussion requires real interaction between humans with different views. It doesn't seem like Damore really tried to do that. His apparent goal with the "memo" was to change the policy of his company. So much of philosophy is really just identity politics disguised as rational inquiry.
mcguire 9y ago
One thing I find problematic about the memo is that it conflate three issues: Google's diversity programs, Google's echo chamber, and the left/right politics. If you want to talk about diversity programs, the other two appear to be attempts to shut down further discussion. If you want to talk about the problem of living in an echo chamber, diversity is, or ought to be, an example, not the focus. If you want to talk politics at work, don't.

52-6F-62 9y ago

This is rather the page I've been on (outside of my personal disagreements). You put it more concisely than I have previously.

ahugebeach 9y ago

It was a politically charged topic, he would have been crucified either way. But by phrasing the memo the way he did, he covered himself legally. I wouldn't be surprised to hear everything was run by a lawyer first.

CydeWeys 9y ago
What could possibly make you think he sought legal representation before writing that document? He was just looking for an argument/discussion.

johnp_ 9y ago

It was apparently a live-document (like etherpad) and the intention was get feedback directly in-line if I understood correctly. Not an unusual way of doing things for an engineer.

jancsika 9y ago
It's usual for an engineer to understand something outside their field of expertise by submitting a draft of what they know to others who aren't domain experts, either? Wouldn't an actual engineering process have started by submitting a document for feedback from somebody whose field of expertise deals with unequal gender representation in the workplace?
- emsy 9y ago
  He has a master in systems biology.

annexrichmond 9y ago

I disagree. He mentioned in an interview[1] that he was looking to be proven wrong which is what led him to share it with the Skeptics group at Google, which is when the document propagated. He had actually wrote the document weeks prior but was unsatisfied with the lack of discussion on his document. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU

kristianc 9y ago
That seems an odd approach tbh. Many 'Skeptics' groups (Skeptic / Rationalist YouTube) online at least would agree with his reasoning. It strikes me as odd that he was seeking to take down an ideological echo chamber but published it initially in the echo chamber most likely to agree with him.
- Moshe_Silnorin 9y ago
  The skeptic tribe is extremely politicly polarized.
- bkirkby 9y ago
  His first group he sent it to was a diversity group. I think it reasonable that a skeptic group who, ostensibly, would side with reason would be a next logical step.
  - andrewingram 9y ago
    Yes, even if they agreed with the echo chamber idea on the whole, they'd still seek to point out flaws and fallacies in his arguments.
- thinkfurther 9y ago
  > That seems an odd approach tbh. If that's odd, then what is firing just to prove him right?
  - kristianc 9y ago

nicolashahn 9y ago

Then the correct way to handle it is to drop another refutational evidence bomb attacking his primary points instead of picking the low hanging fruit of claiming it's "too confrontational," "poorly written," "naive," or whatever other secondary problems exist (this is aside from wilfully misrepresenting his claims, which is definitely a bigger problem). Plenty of far more aggressive articles and essays have been written from the opposite side that have not been criticized in the same way. And for the record, I did not get any aggressive tone from his paper. I thought he was as polite as he needed to be and made the necessary caveats. I think many people were just so unprepared to hear any argument from an opposing viewpoint that they read into it what they wanted to.

Blackthorn 9y ago
> Then the correct way to handle it is to drop another refutational evidence bomb attacking his primary points instead of picking the low hanging fruit of claiming it's "too confrontational," "poorly written," "naive," or whatever other secondary problems exist (this is aside from wilfully misrepresenting his claims, which is definitely a bigger problem). This was addressed in the article. This burden has fallen on women since they were teenagers. To expect them to do it yet again, to have to defend themselves at work this time, is ridiculous.
- totalZero 9y ago
  The burden of responding to something that is (at the very least presented as) evidence? I don't think it's possible to have a discussion if you don't expect and allow pro-affirmative-action stakeholders to respond with their own evidence and reasoning, in turn.
  - Blackthorn 9y ago
    He could have brought up his concerns to hiring authorities in the company, whose job it is to refute diversity myths. Not expect people who have had this burden placed on them for their entire adult life to do it yet again.

canoebuilder 9y ago

It wasn't "let's have a chat", it was "here's an evidence bomb of how you're all wrong". We shouldn't really take someone's degree of divergence from reality as somehow being a point in favor of their argument. When people remove themselves so far from reality, ignoring significant mounds of evidence, nearly anything not divorced from reality is going to have the effect of an "evidence bomb."

megous 9y ago

I think if you want to critique author's approach to discussion, you need to learn first what it actually was.

nailer 9y ago

I read the full memo ( https://medium.com/@Cernovich/full-james-damore-memo-uncensored-memo-with-charts-and-cites-339f3d2d05f https://medium.com/@Cernovich/full-james-damore-memo-uncenso...) and it didn't seem like that at all. Saying that discrimination exists but differences in gender representation aren't necessarily caused by discrimination didn't seem like 'you're all wrong', not do the 'suggestions' seem like something someone writing authoritatively would make. Not a female engineer so appreciate I may be missing something - what is it?

lowbloodsugar 9y ago
The first page or so is not about gender diversity, but about "Left biases" and "Right biases" and the statement that "the media, and Google lean left". He then follows with "Google's left bias has created a politically correct monoculture". So the difference is between these two statements: a. I believe X, and b. You are all leftists. Leftists believe Y. Y is wrong. The answer is actually X.
- nailer 9y ago
  Saying Google's culture leans left doesn't mean everyone in Google is a leftist. Nor does acknowledging bias imply that people with that bias is wrong - just biased, Eg looking at a specific part of a larger picture. There's a difference.

xienze 9y ago

Be honest here -- do you _really_ think there's a way to present the argument that --gasp-- men and women might be different in their abilities that _wouldn't_ trigger a meltdown? I think this memo really highlights the fact that there are Some Things You Just Can't Talk About.

unityByFreedom 9y ago
No, you can't, because there isn't evidence that biological differences cause people to choose different careers. Why would put forth a theory that is opposed to a company's values of equality if you don't have proof? Most evidence points to socialized factors, not biological ones. If Damore really cares about this issue, he should study biology and make his case there. He will do more to move the debate forward from within the relevant scientific community by gathering evidence than from the outside.
- thinkfurther 9y ago
  > because there isn't evidence that biological differences cause people to choose different careers. Oh? What about basketball players or jockeys?
  - emsy 9y ago
    Not sure what got you downvoted. There's even a South Park episode about it where Kyle has a surgery to become a black basketball player, which kind of goes in the same direction.
    - thinkfurther 9y ago
      I was just thinking about height. Of course biology affects career choice, and a lot of other things. Doesn't mean men are engineers and women are nurses, but to pretend biology doesn't affect anything is more than hilarious. Which makes people who think that laughable, and they probably don't like it. But hey, you can't prove obedience by agreeing that the sky is blue or a circle is round, it's gotta be something more, like "biology doesn't affect career choice". So whatevs, if it's not that it's something else ^_^

randyrand 9y ago

As someone with a very debate-loving personality, I disagree. Saying how I'm wrong is the best way to start discussion. Now of course, not everyone will be the same. But for those that like to debate and have discussions, then just tell me why you think I'm wrong and we can go from there. I don't need you to coddle me.

fiblye 9y ago

I think a large number of people in tech simply have a straight-to-the-point style of talking. They don't follow through with the HR-like "we appreciate your thoughts and comments, but going forward, we must politely decline to touch base again" style because the expectation is just to say "you're wrong and here's why." What's inviting to some people is insincere to others. What's straight-faced discussion is rude and problematic to others. It's hard reaching a middle ground, because when you try finding a middle point for a group the size of the whole tech industry about such a divisive topic, at least one person will accuse you of trying to appease (insert enemy political group here) and see it as worse than just taking a side.

EGreg 9y ago

Wasn't it posted on a board Google specifically set up for posts like this?

futun 9y ago

That's a good roadmap for future discussion. One must note that it is not a roadmap the left uses. Ever.

ImSkeptical 9y ago

I don't see what's wrong with an "evidence bomb" and I've never seen the complaint that someone's position had too much evidence behind it. If Damore had no evidence, he'd be dismissed as a misogynist with no evidence. When he presents evidence, you dismiss him as an evidence bomber.

GreaterFool 9y ago

I don't think anyone needs a special invitation to have a discussion! "Hey Alice/Bob, I read your memo and I disagree. here's my point of view...".

tboyd47 9y ago

Exactly. People seem to get confused easily about what "discussion" means. Discussion requires real interaction between humans with different views. It doesn't seem like Damore really tried to do that. His apparent goal with the "memo" was to change the policy of his company. So much of philosophy is really just identity politics disguised as rational inquiry.

mcguire 9y ago

One thing I find problematic about the memo is that it conflate three issues: Google's diversity programs, Google's echo chamber, and the left/right politics. If you want to talk about diversity programs, the other two appear to be attempts to shut down further discussion. If you want to talk about the problem of living in an echo chamber, diversity is, or ought to be, an example, not the focus. If you want to talk politics at work, don't.