5 ms·

As far as I have been able to put things together as a non-Googler he went to an unrecorded "diversity summit" about a month and 1/2 ago, where, according to hi

by johnp_ 9y ago

As far as I have been able to put things together as a non-Googler he went to an unrecorded "diversity summit" about a month and 1/2 ago, where, according to his statements in the Jordan Peterson interview, practices where put forward that he considered to be potentially illegal. He then wrote the document in his free time and posted it to a forum dedicated for feedback to the summit (? or more general diversity related). After engagement has been nothing to low he also posted the memo to an internal Google Group called "Skeptics" because he wanted to be proven wrong. Shortly after that the memo was leaked to the public (either without citations or the citations were then removed by the respective media), indicating that someone from this community did so. I'd appreciate if someone could confirm/deny or add anything to this timeline.

lutorm 9y ago
I have no factual information, but I know that when I write papers where I want to invite discussion, I don't make blatant statements based on a subset of the evidence I have and then expect people to dispassionately pick them apart for me. Rather, I present my honest assessment of the strengths of the various pieces of evidence, pro and con. If I "want to be proven wrong", I certainly wouldn't present a falsely certain argument. That is not arguing in good faith. And that's how I would argue a scientific question, not an argument about my coworkers ability.
- bloaf 9y ago
  I don't know, a lot of HNners seem to believe in Cunningham's Law, and it certainly seems to have held in this situation.
ehsankia 9y ago
Just to cleanup what you said: 1. He went to the summit, which wasn't recorded mostly to allow people to be open and share their private stories without fear 2. Something about that summit didn't sit right with him, so he wrote up this document and send it as feedback directly to the organizers (not openly) 3. When he got no response back (it's arguable if organizers should reply to every single feedback, but you can also argue that this was a pretty big one), he posted it to an open but not huge discussion board (skeptics) specifically made for people to argue ideas and have discussions. 4. Eventually, it caught some attention outside of the board and it blew up across the entire company You were pretty close but just wanted to clarify a couple small points.

by johnp_ 9y ago

lutorm 9y ago

I have no factual information, but I know that when I write papers where I want to invite discussion, I don't make blatant statements based on a subset of the evidence I have and then expect people to dispassionately pick them apart for me. Rather, I present my honest assessment of the strengths of the various pieces of evidence, pro and con. If I "want to be proven wrong", I certainly wouldn't present a falsely certain argument. That is not arguing in good faith. And that's how I would argue a scientific question, not an argument about my coworkers ability.

bloaf 9y ago
I don't know, a lot of HNners seem to believe in Cunningham's Law, and it certainly seems to have held in this situation.

ehsankia 9y ago

Just to cleanup what you said: 1. He went to the summit, which wasn't recorded mostly to allow people to be open and share their private stories without fear 2. Something about that summit didn't sit right with him, so he wrote up this document and send it as feedback directly to the organizers (not openly) 3. When he got no response back (it's arguable if organizers should reply to every single feedback, but you can also argue that this was a pretty big one), he posted it to an open but not huge discussion board (skeptics) specifically made for people to argue ideas and have discussions. 4. Eventually, it caught some attention outside of the board and it blew up across the entire company You were pretty close but just wanted to clarify a couple small points.