5 ms·

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

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
    > If that's odd, then what is firing just to prove him right? Google is a company with shareholders and P/L. It's not a thought experiment, a family, a social commons, or a debating society. It exists to make money. Google took the decision to fire him based on what was likely to create a conducive atmosphere for its workers. His memo, however construed, made it likely that he could no longer be able to contribute as effectively to some teams. Google's responsibility to Damore begins and ends at their mutual alignment of economic interests.
    - thinkfurther 9y ago
      > Google took the decision to fire him based on what was likely to create a conducive atmosphere for its workers. They did the opposite, someone said it's not okay to shame people into silence, and then they did just that. > made it likely that he could no longer be able to contribute as effectively to some teams. What does "as effectively" mean? What are "some teams"? If someone sweats a lot, and a million other things, the above would also be technically true. Or hey, if a company fired someone over something like this. That will make a lot of bright people, both male and female, think twice before even giving Google a consideration. > Google's responsibility to Damore begins and ends at their mutual alignment of economic interests. It's not about responsibility to him, but about their responsibility for themselves to not shit the bed like they did.
      - kristianc 9y ago
        Then Google's calculus is simply different to yours. For what its worth, I don't think Google's response to this is going to have a significant impact on Google's ability to hire talented people, or that white, heterosexual, cisgendered people are going to feel that their opportunities at Google are likely to be curtailed. Females, I would say, or any other minority within Google, are even less likely to. Amazon attracts talented staff despite a widespread perception that it's a hellhole to work at (https://www.theverge.com/2015/8/15/9159309/you-probably-dont-want-to-work-for-amazon https://www.theverge.com/2015/8/15/9159309/you-probably-dont...). Google, to most people, will continue to represent a dream job.
- emsy 9y ago
  Scepticism is a methodology, not a political group. I think it just looks that way because the term has been kind of hijacked by anti-regressives.
  - sudojudo 9y ago
    > hijacked by anti-regressives Would someone please explain what this means, wouldn't an anti-regressive be a progressive? If so, why not state it that way? Also, I thought the term "skeptic" had been hijacked by conspiracy wackos. When I think of a classic skeptic, I look to James Randi and the like; critical thinkers who expose quackery. But, for the last 15-20 years, conspiracy theorists have taken the term over (e.g. vaccine/climate/GMO skeptics). I fall into the Randi group of skeptics, but I sure as hell don't describe myself using that word, for fear of being lumped in with the second lot. Real skeptics tend to be progressive, conspiracy skeptics tend to be regressive. Based on the spelling, I'll assume emsy is a Brit... maybe things are different over there, but Randi was always more popular in England than in the US. I'm missing something.
    - emsy 9y ago
      I'm German. The skeptics I were talking about and presumably the comment I answered on, were the YouTube skeptics. What I meant with anti-regressive was that these skeptics mostly tackle so-called progressives that use racism and sexism for their arguments or policies. I've never heard the conspiracy theorists called skeptics, so I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
      - sudojudo 9y ago
        Thanks for clearing it up. It looks like certain groups are using terms in ways that I'm not accustomed to. Now I need new words. Damned kids and your identity politics!
    - flukus 9y ago
      > Would someone please explain what this means, wouldn't an anti-regressive be a progressive? Kind of, but just like skeptic the word "progressive" was hijacked by groups like BLM that started advocating for things like a return to segregation. I used to be happy to call myself a skeptic and a progressive, but that was 10 years ago when the world made more sense.

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
  > If that's odd, then what is firing just to prove him right? Google is a company with shareholders and P/L. It's not a thought experiment, a family, a social commons, or a debating society. It exists to make money. Google took the decision to fire him based on what was likely to create a conducive atmosphere for its workers. His memo, however construed, made it likely that he could no longer be able to contribute as effectively to some teams. Google's responsibility to Damore begins and ends at their mutual alignment of economic interests.
  - thinkfurther 9y ago
    > Google took the decision to fire him based on what was likely to create a conducive atmosphere for its workers. They did the opposite, someone said it's not okay to shame people into silence, and then they did just that. > made it likely that he could no longer be able to contribute as effectively to some teams. What does "as effectively" mean? What are "some teams"? If someone sweats a lot, and a million other things, the above would also be technically true. Or hey, if a company fired someone over something like this. That will make a lot of bright people, both male and female, think twice before even giving Google a consideration. > Google's responsibility to Damore begins and ends at their mutual alignment of economic interests. It's not about responsibility to him, but about their responsibility for themselves to not shit the bed like they did.
    - kristianc 9y ago
      Then Google's calculus is simply different to yours. For what its worth, I don't think Google's response to this is going to have a significant impact on Google's ability to hire talented people, or that white, heterosexual, cisgendered people are going to feel that their opportunities at Google are likely to be curtailed. Females, I would say, or any other minority within Google, are even less likely to. Amazon attracts talented staff despite a widespread perception that it's a hellhole to work at (https://www.theverge.com/2015/8/15/9159309/you-probably-dont-want-to-work-for-amazon https://www.theverge.com/2015/8/15/9159309/you-probably-dont...). Google, to most people, will continue to represent a dream job.
emsy 9y ago
Scepticism is a methodology, not a political group. I think it just looks that way because the term has been kind of hijacked by anti-regressives.
- sudojudo 9y ago
  > hijacked by anti-regressives Would someone please explain what this means, wouldn't an anti-regressive be a progressive? If so, why not state it that way? Also, I thought the term "skeptic" had been hijacked by conspiracy wackos. When I think of a classic skeptic, I look to James Randi and the like; critical thinkers who expose quackery. But, for the last 15-20 years, conspiracy theorists have taken the term over (e.g. vaccine/climate/GMO skeptics). I fall into the Randi group of skeptics, but I sure as hell don't describe myself using that word, for fear of being lumped in with the second lot. Real skeptics tend to be progressive, conspiracy skeptics tend to be regressive. Based on the spelling, I'll assume emsy is a Brit... maybe things are different over there, but Randi was always more popular in England than in the US. I'm missing something.
  - emsy 9y ago
    I'm German. The skeptics I were talking about and presumably the comment I answered on, were the YouTube skeptics. What I meant with anti-regressive was that these skeptics mostly tackle so-called progressives that use racism and sexism for their arguments or policies. I've never heard the conspiracy theorists called skeptics, so I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
    - sudojudo 9y ago
      Thanks for clearing it up. It looks like certain groups are using terms in ways that I'm not accustomed to. Now I need new words. Damned kids and your identity politics!
  - flukus 9y ago
    > Would someone please explain what this means, wouldn't an anti-regressive be a progressive? Kind of, but just like skeptic the word "progressive" was hijacked by groups like BLM that started advocating for things like a return to segregation. I used to be happy to call myself a skeptic and a progressive, but that was 10 years ago when the world made more sense.