29 ms·

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 claimin

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.
    - lliamander 9y ago
      He did, a month or more before the fiasco.
      - Blackthorn 9y ago
        And that's exactly where he should have stopped. If he did not like the result, he should have resigned in a much less public manner.
        lliamander 9y ago
        The result from HR was silence. He never intended for the memo to go public, but he did want feedback from his colleagues. If HR didn't want the issue going further, they should have actually responded to him.
        cityhall 9y ago
        "Everyone who doesn't agree with me should shut up and go away."
        dang 9y ago
        Please don't post snarky one-liners to HN, especially not in divisive discussions, where they make things significantly worse. Also, please don't use quotation marks to make it look like you're quoting someone when you're not.
        rakoo 9y ago
        But he saw a problem and wanted to fix it. You're basically saying he should have left the problem where it is and pretend itsr not there, which is not what engineers typically do. Can you blame him for that?
        fma 9y ago
        Not just engineers...That kind of mentality does not advance society. Imagine..."She thought black people should not have to sit at the back of the bus. She told authorities who just remained silent. She should have sucked it up and moved to the north!"
  - mejari 9y ago
    It's not just "pro-affirmative-action stakeholders" that are expected to respond. _As referenced in the article_, it's extending to expecting women to come up with responses just because they are women. You're talking about a situation where one side (the side of the manifesto) has dropped an "evidence bomb", some of which may be valid, some not, and is now complaining "why won't you have a discussion?" They weren't invited to a discussion, they weren't talked _to_, they were talked _at_, and are now being looked to as the defenders of their gender when they just want to do their damn job.
    - nyolfen 9y ago
      this is textbook tone policing. it's an essay, not a spoken dialogue. you could say this about, say, a published study about climate change projections.
      - mejari 9y ago
        You can throw buzzwords designed to shut down discussion at me all you want, that's irrelevant. He claims his goal was to have a dialogue, the fact is that he chose a very poor way of doing that. Either his goals aren't what he claims or he misunderstood how to accomplish them.
        smallnamespace 9y ago
        In all fairness, we it did at least provoke an internal debate, e.g. this discussion.
        matt_wulfeck 9y ago
        Considering this is one of the most explosively discussed topics on HN and in the industry I would say he's been wildly successful at starting a discussion.
        mejari 9y ago
        I can start a discussion about racism in the US by going on TV and yelling the n-word, that doesn't mean that I did a good job of opening a constructive dialogue.
- generic_user 9y ago
  So basically its ok to discrimate against Men because Women are 'opressed'. Thats not an acceptable argument imo.
  - Blackthorn 9y ago
    You're begging the question. Also, don't put something in quotes that was not a quote.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - someguydave 9y ago
      Which of his premises were assumed in his conclusion?
- nicolashahn 9y ago
  I'm not talking about a woman having to prove her technical ability to her male coworkers at work because of their prejudices. I know that that's bullshit and I'm sorry they have to do so. I'm talking about handling what Damore claimed in an intellectually honest way. You can't dismiss his points just because you're tired of talking about them (or what you think are the same points you've always been talking about, but I think Damore's comments on each gender's preference and pressures for picking careers had something worth discussing). What he said had at least some spark of originality and insight, otherwise it wouldn't have gotten nearly the attention it did. Consider, would we be talking about the memo if it were about how he thought Sundar Pichai was a lizard man? Those who disagreed with Damore already won the battle. They kicked him out of Google and doubled down on their diversity initiatives/echo chamber. We should be able to talk about his arguments honestly and rationally without falling back on gendered reasons at this point at least.
  - camgunz 9y ago
    > We should be able to talk about his arguments honestly and rationally without falling back on gendered reasons at this point at least. We are and lots of people are doing so, but another point made in this post is that the workplace isn't the venue for this.
    - threeseed 9y ago
      Exactly. If Damore had focused his comments purely on hiring practices, quotas, discriminatory policies etc he would still be there and almost all would've found his comments constructive. But he didn't do that. He brought up scientifically baseless, insulting and emotionally immature rationales for an important and sensitive topic. Working around people in a professional environment requires nuance and tact. He showed none of this. The fact that so many in IT seem to miss this point and defend him explains so much about why many men and women stay away from this field.
      - weberc2 9y ago
        I assume you're being sarcastic, given that your description of the memo is so perfectly opposite any reasonable interpretation, but I can't tell.
- Sir_Substance 9y ago
  >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. You know what's ridiculous? Expecting people to magically agree with you because you're tired of arguing your position. Wouldn't it be nice if we lived in that world, but we don't[1]. In a society where all people are equal (which is what we are aiming for, even if the debate rages on whether that's what we have), all opinions are also equal. The tipping force on the scale of debate is tangible evidence, and it's the lifelong struggle of anyone with political opinions to continually remind others of the evidence behind their standpoint. Feel free to not bother and stuff if you're a bit tired or bored or whatever, but be aware that from a third party perspective, there's no visible difference between someone who won't provide evidence and someone who can't. [1] edit: I thought about this for a few seconds and have decided this would be a horrible world
- manigandham 9y ago
  What burden are you talking about exactly? You (along with many others) seem to be conflating the major point of the memo between interests and abilities. Not liking something does not mean you're not capable of doing it.
  - dguaraglia 9y ago
    Would you rather hire someone that likes what they do or someone who doesn't? Would you intuitively think that someone who loves their job are going to be more interested in bigger challenges and doing great work, or someone who doesn't care for the job?
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      > Would you rather hire someone that likes what they do or someone who doesn't? I wouldn't assume someone's interest level based on their demographics. I would, you know, talk to them.
      - dguaraglia 9y ago
        So, you are in favor of outreach programs where you get to talk to more people?
        humanrebar 9y ago
        Sure. I do that already, both formally and informally. Though I've probably been underestimating how career limiting that can be. The Google firing was a really bad move if outreach programs are a good idea.
        dguaraglia 9y ago
        Not sure I follow why you think the firing had something to do with outreach? You mean they'll be losing out on candidates like Damore?
- canoebuilder 9y ago
  to have to defend themselves at work this time, is ridiculous. Let's just agree on two things then. _Every woman at google has every right to be there. & _The number of women at google relative to the number of men is not the result of mostly imperceptible, malicious actions by men, but rather due the fact that the personal interests between the sexes varies substantially on average, and this results in skewed sex ratios throughout the entire workforce that match nearly perfectly with what scientific evidence shows us. Women are more interested in working with people and nurturing professions and men are more interested in working with things and abstract, theoretical, mechanical and spatial professions. https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/06/chart-the-percentage-women-and-men-each-profession/GBX22YsWl0XaeHghwXfE4H/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/06/chart-the-perce...
  - Blackthorn 9y ago
    Can agree on number one. Can't agree on number two. Here's why: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-women-stopped-coding http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-...
  - l_t 9y ago
    Can't agree on number 2, because it's a false dichotomy. The gender imbalance cannot be simplified to being because of any one specific cause (like a difference in personal interests). There is a whole cluster of causes, including: 1. Malicious actions by men. This undoubtedly happens, let's not pretend otherwise. However, it might not be very common. 2. Non-malicious but annoying behavior from men directed towards women. This could include unwanted flirtation, accidental condescension, inappropriate jokes, etc. 3. A male-oriented culture. Even if the guys don't act in an annoying way, being in a significant minority is usually less appealing than being in a situation where you have a more even gender split. 4. Boys and girls are nurtured in different ways, which can drive them towards having different interests as adults. 5. Biological differences between men and women. Personally, I think this is one of the least important factors, and it's also the only one that we can't change. Whether or not (5) is an issue, (1-4) can and should be addressed, so that women who are naturally inclined to CS are not nudged away from the industry by their life experiences.
- tracker1 9y ago
  Why would this mean anyone already working in the field needs to bring any burden to the table in terms of defending themselves? The subject was centered around the probability that some recruiting assumptions may be wrong, and that there may be better approaches to recruiting or improving the situation in general. Women that work in the field should definitely be respected as much as anyone else. They should be free of sexual harassment, and mistreatment. On the flip side, if only 20% of graduating classes in targeted STEM fields are women, and women represent a disproportionate amount of college students... then maybe the issue is broader than the affect of men on the field at that level. I think part of it may be natural inclination... another is probably the role of movies and media. The latter likely a much bigger role on the impressions of the work and the likely types to fulfill those roles. --- Edit: Big example Daisy/Quake from Agents of Shield... started off as a badass hacker, best of the best... as the show moved on, the role was relegated to brawler, and the impact of intellect or technical ability was largely sidestepped, or made secondary and less. Media portrayals of technical professionals all around are usually very unbalanced... and that doesn't even begin to go into the other fields that are disproportionately male or female, or the hindrance of men in higher education.
  - Blackthorn 9y ago
    > Why would this mean anyone already working in the field needs to bring any burden to the table in terms of defending themselves? The subject was centered around the probability that some recruiting assumptions may be wrong, and that there may be better approaches to recruiting or improving the situation in general. Assuming you're asking in good faith: because of the idea that diversity hiring effectively lowered the hiring bar. Imagine for a second you have imposter syndrome. Now imagine that you've been told (not necessarily by Damore) that you're the (not quoting you here) "diversity hire". Imagine how much worse that imposter syndrome now is.
    - tracker1 9y ago
      I suffer from imposter syndrome all the time... but that's on me, not someone else. If you hire someone because of diversity alone over someone with a higher level of merit, then that was wrong. Also, telling someone that they were hired for diversity reasons alone is probably a bad move as well. I'm not saying that people shouldn't try to get more women into tech, or into trash collection, or construction, or every other male dominated occupation, or men as nurses, etc... however, that doesn't mean having to change the rules for men or women. And pointing out that there are differences between men and women shouldn't instantly start of with a storm of hate. "the average woman is shorter than the average man" ... "typical misogynistic cis white male patriarchal bullshit" ... I'm not saying that everyone is volatile and prone to fits of excessive rage in response, but it really feels like there's no place for civil discussion or discourse with a growing portion of the population.
- benchaney 9y ago
  > 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. You can't have it both ways. If you don't want to get involved in the argument, you don't have to, but getting involved and then doing any of the things GP is decrying is actively toxic.
  - mcfunk 9y ago
    Women don't have a choice as to whether we participate. It comes up everywhere. It comes up in our workplaces, and as the minority group in conversation, we have to be there to contradict the people who take it as justification for the (evidence-based) unlevel playing field in tech, sexism etc, and we will be the ones affected if we don't ensure that our colleagues and people we respect don't go therefore shrug and decide that everyone thinks that way.
    - benchaney 9y ago
      Nothing in your comment is a reason you have to participate. > we have to be there to contradict the people who take it as justification for the (evidence-based) unlevel playing field in tech, sexism etc, and we will be the ones affected if we don't ensure that our colleagues and people we respect don't go therefore shrug and decide that everyone thinks that way. If you are concerned about third parties being swayed if you stay silent, that makes it even more important to not engage in the behavior I am decrying. Doing nothing is unlikely to impact most people's opinions. Appealing to platitudes (or worse, actively misrepresenting your opponent) will be actively counterproductive.
- Houshalter 9y ago
  Why would women need to "defend themselves"? He wasn't attacking them. The entire point of it was, that for whatever reason, women are statistically less likely to be interested in computer science. He never said anything about their ability.
  - nodamage 9y ago
    I guess we didn't read the same memo? "I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership."
- rdtsc 9y ago
  >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. Why does research regarding this and the burden has to fall on women? If research is solid why does it matter if it was generated by a specific gender.
- im3w1l 9y ago
  As a white man the burden has fallen on me since I was a pre-teen to explain why I shouldn't be discriminated against.
- adekok 9y ago
  > 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. See "Self made man" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Made_Man_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Made_Man_(book), for a real-life experience of living as a man vs as a woman. Her conclusion at the end was that women have it much, much, easier, and she would much rather live as a woman than as a man. i.e. maybe work is sexist and makes women prove themselves more than men have to. But that's only one aspect of peoples daily lives.
  - mftrhu 9y ago
    IIRC at the end of those 18 months Norah Vincent had to check herself into a psychiatric hospital because of the severe depression she developed. Besides saying that men don't really have it better[1] she also commented[2] "When you mess around with that, you really mess around with something that you need that helps you to function. And I found out that gender lives in your brain and is something much more than costume. And I really learned that the hard way," which is less "women have it much, much easier" and more "women, living as women have it much, much easier". [1]: gender stereotypes hurt everyone, and in [2] she spoke about how "They don't get to show the weakness, they don't get to show the affection, especially with each other. And so often all their emotions are shown in rage"; but they can't be discounted because of this. [2]: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Entertainment/story?id=1526982 http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Entertainment/story?id=1526982
Sir_Substance 9y ago
Not sure why you're getting downvoted, what you're describing is Grahams Hierarchy of Disagreement. The original writing is here: http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html And here it is in handy-dandy picture form: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg/707px-Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/Gr... Responding to tone is one level below an argument that actually addresses the point. Responses to tone can be safely dismissed as irrelevant to the debate at hand.
- rad88 9y ago
  One of the basic contexts of the debate is the question of whether tech workplaces are hostile to women. The tone of the email making claims about women in the workplace is relevant.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
generic_user 9y ago
Precisely, there just grasping at straw men arguments to deflect from the fact that they refuse to consider Scientifically based criticism of there polices when Science disagrees with there ideology.
jake-low 9y ago
This is addressed in TFA. > [W]hen I go to work, I go to work, and not to a debate club. Some people at Google reacted by saying “well if he’s so wrong, then why not refute him,” but that requires spending a significant amount of time building an argument against the claims in his document. On the other hand, if I remain silent, that silence could be mistaken for agreement. I should not be forced into that kind of debate at work. (Ida) > I’m just exhausted by having this same damn argument over and over again since I was a teenager and the amount of time and energy I keep having to spend to counter it. (Edith) Also, none of the "quoted phrases" that you criticized appear in TFA or in any parent comment.
- exergy 9y ago
  I sympathise with the woman saying she'd much rather just focus on code rather than social justice debates. But, as flippant as it is for a guy to say it, it's their cross to bear isnt it? Women in tech. Because, if they don't speak up, then what? Where does that leave us? Should the "other side" also not speak up? Just focus on code? Should they suppress real emotions that they're feeling? I'm not flaming, just wondering what the best-case way forward would be that mollifies both sides.
  - sidlls 9y ago
    I don't care if the women I work with don't speak up. If I see sexism I will (and in fact have on more than one occasion) call it out. I use discussions with my wife and with women I've worked with in the past regarding how sexism in the workplace works to help me identify it in cases where it may be ambiguous or even something I'd never considered to be sexist. It does help identify those cases when women do speak out, though. My view is we should listen more to them about what sexism is and how it works.
  - chc 9y ago
    This seems roughly cognate to "There are people who want to do their jobs, and there are people who want to poke the people in Group A with sticks. Should an employer constrain Group B from poking the people in Group A altogether just because Group A doesn't want to participate?" I think most people would easily answer, "Yes, we should prevent people from going around poking unwilling coworkers with sticks, and they should also be prevented from getting around the rule by throwing sticks around and just 'happening' to hit those coworkers, because it's not useful to have people doing that in your workplace and it disrupts Group A." I don't think anybody would really say, "Getting poked with sticks is just Group A's cross to bear."
notreallythough 9y ago
I'd argue that it's objectively aggressive. His twitter handle "@fired4truth" makes the intention to be so rather obvious (the content he's promoting on that handle is an entire additional ball of wax)... A 10-page manifesto, regardless of the content, when circulated internally without management's consent is in itself hard to view as anything but an act of mutiny.
- compiler-guy 9y ago
  Without stating anything regarding the merit's of Damore's arguments either way: There is a long tradition of this kind of memo inside Google. Many products you probably use every day are better because of one or another. This genre is not exactly encouraged, but lots of good stuff comes out of them. Whatever else that memo was, the genre is common, and the genre itself not considered mutinous within Google.
jacalata 9y ago
I actually know people who are still working on refutational evidence bombs like that. The problem is that actually finding sources and addressing his points in all their "but I really meant" vagueness is a huge piece of work, and people have day jobs. In the meantime, his shit is out there. If it's ok for anyone to read and agree with it without going through to confirm his "facts" and "citations" on the spot, then it's equally ok to read and disagree with it.
- dguaraglia 9y ago
  Exactly. One of the biggest wastes of time I incurred last week was trying to argue with someone here who wouldn't specify what the memo said, but would deny anything I said about it with "but he never said that!" It went on for days.
jrs95 9y ago
This would be good. I've seen 0 criticism of it that falls into this category so far. For the most part, it's essentially just been "I don't like the conclusion so I'm going to call you a sexist and make a straw man of your argument while ignoring the details."
- camgunz 9y ago
  Dr. Sadedin's Quora answer is pretty good: https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-biological-claims-made-in-the-document-about-diversity-written-by-a-Google-employee-in-August-2017 https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-bio...
  - MollyR 9y ago
    SlateStarCodex and HeteroDox are way better and more impartial. http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/01/gender-imbalances-are-mostly-not-due-to-offensive-attitudes/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/01/gender-imbalances-are-m... http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exaggerated-differences http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagger... https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/08/10/the-google-memo-what-does-the-research-say-about-gender-differences/ https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/08/10/the-google-memo-what...
    - camgunz 9y ago
      I take issue with at least Slate Star Codex's 08/07 post because it focuses on interest like some black box and pre-college education as perfectly non-gendered. There is a lot of research (see below) that shows that pre-college education is very gendered. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20403143?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents http://www.jstor.org/stable/20403143?seq=1#page_scan_tab_con... http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0091732X017001269 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0091732X01700126... http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tl.37219924906/full http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tl.37219924906/fu... http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.3660270906/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.3660270906/ab... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4283768/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4283768/
gutnor 9y ago
> Then the correct way to handle it is to drop another refutational evidence bomb attacking ... Well from a strategic perspective, that's a losing attitude though. You start in a defensive position in a debate you didn't call. You are stuck in the specific frame the author has decided to limit his own argument. He also restrict the time you have to prepare such a refutal piece as every minute he spend with his argument unchallenged, the weaker the counterarguments look. Sure the average Google employee is more fact minded than emotionally driven, but it is a loaded subject in general but even more in IT. What's the best possible outcome of crafting such a reply anyway ? Shutting down one single guy because nobody will engage in a friendly debate after live shots have been fired.
- occultist_throw 9y ago
  well, the easiest way to refute is to call him racist, sexist, and ageist, all the while beating the "FIRE HIM NOW" drum. it works rather effectively. (seriously, the dh0 "u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!!!" is a terrifying force, when seen and used as in a group or mob.)
- taneq 9y ago
  You're under no compulsion to refute the author or to engage them in a debate, except that you've taken issue with their statement of their position and you've chosen to attack it. Do you feel that viewpoints that you disagree with should not be allowed to be stated publicly and remain unopposed?
rayiner 9y ago
Workplaces are not free speech zones. Employers have a legitimate interest in maintaining internal harmony and making people feel comfortable. There are lots of things that you should be able to say in general that have no place in the office. E.g. you should be able to maintain a blog detailing your sexual escapades, but emailing those descriptions to all your coworkers is quite reasonably grounds for termination.
- tajen 9y ago
  But Google is a free speech zone for Democrats voters, with company resources dedicated to promoting their point of view.
SapphireSun 9y ago
I seriously question whether that was a minority viewpoint expressed in the memo. I went to school with loads of people like that. I think the reason such viewpoints get blowback is because they basically argue for the status quo when the system is not serving large swaths of the population.
scythe 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). The brute problem is that it's too long to be addressed in a reasonable and productive debate, and because it was posted on an internal company messageboard it is his responsibility to ensure that it can be responded to in a reasonable and productive way. If he presents his complaints in a format which is likely to cause problems, he can be penalized, and a manifesto is certainly such a format because it lends itself so well to "viral" sharing, and it was precisely such "viral" reposting of the document that made it a practical problem for Google in the first place. Had he made his points in an ordinary discussion thread, it would have been harder to publish it everywhere as a unified whole, since discussion threads by their nature will contain counterarguments. For example, if I think another employee is biased against me in code reviews, it does not do me any favors to write a multi-page manifesto indicting said employee on a variety of points for his/her alleged biased review practices. Good debates do not generally come from duelling essays, and it is unfair to participants -- practically unfair, in that it drives them from the debate and so deprives the conversation of their contributions -- it is unfair to participants who do not have the time to invest in researching every point of a ten-page document that they feel they must address the whole awful thing in order to say anything. In fact I try to limit the length of my HN comments for this very reason: long comments are hard to respond to well. Internal company messageboards do not lend themselves to the publication of manifestos, and it is not reasonable to expect them to.
- bjourne 9y ago
  That's not the way to do it. The right way to do it is to pick one statement (the weakest one) from his argument and refute that one solidly. Then repeat the process with the next weakest, the second next weakest and so on. You only have to do that about four or five times before you have established that the author is full of shit. That's the standard method you use for refuting arguments presented in essay form.
StanislavPetrov 9y ago
> 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. You hit the nail on the head, and it isn't limited to this memo. We have a serious intolerance problem in this country that goes far beyond Nazis and racists. Over the last 25 years our culture has warped to the point where opposing viewpoints are considered by many to be offensive. Kids have been raised in an environment where they are told that they (and their opinions) are always worthy of respect (no matter how uninformed or ignorant those opinions might be). Those who show insufficient respect (in the eyes of the person being "disrespected") are seen as hateful aggressors who must be attacked or silenced. In today's society, many people (especially young people) don't want vigorous debate between those of opposing views. They don't want to live in a marketplace of ideas where logic, morality, and the ability and willingness to articulate and defend your beliefs in a public forum are valued. These younger people have been conditioned to appeal to authority when they are offended or their beliefs are challenged, rather than answer the bell and debate the merit (or lack of merit) in an idea or statement. Unfortunately this withering of public discourse is a bellwether for authoritarianism. You need look no farther than the recent outcry against the ACLU for their defense of free speech. There are very dark days ahead.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  I blame postmodernism. Really. Postmodernism says that all discourse is about power, not truth. People are starting to act consistently with what they've been taught.
  - dieterrams 9y ago
    It's not postmodernism. It's hot cognition, and this sort of behavior isn't limited to the left.
    - ageofwant 9y ago
      Arguably the most important of the Jedi mind tricks: to install a gatekeeper wherever you know one is needed. Having one watching this hot/cold dial is important I recon. Knowing you can do this and that you have a choice about how you feel while thinking is something that ought to be taught.
rifung 9y ago
It's very difficult to convince people who aren't interested in being convinced. There are too many people out there with a different, maybe wrong, opinion. Why waste your time with those who don't seem genuinely interested in opposing evidence? I didn't find his tone aggressive but he didn't at all seem interested in having a discussion. If I remember correctly he didn't rebuke any opposing points, let alone present them, which makes me think he didn't bother looking for them. It's like hey I have this point I want you to listen to but I'm not even going to make an attempt to look up answers and instead force you to listen to me before I listen to you. It's like trying to answer someone's question without even understanding what they're asking, which I am sad to say I have seen far too often at Google.
- nicolashahn 9y ago
  You have to remember that this was a rough memo that he never meant to spread as widely as it has been. More like "here's some ideas I've been kicking around and some evidence for them, someone want to take a look and see what I'm missing or mistaken about?" This was originally just posted to the Google Skeptics group, with the implication that it would be (fairly) contested and debated. People keep presenting it as a "manifesto" but that's a term that Gizmodo used, not him. I really would like to have seen what would have come from it being fairly critiqued by his peers and edited until it was presentable to the public (if that's even possible).
djsumdog 9y ago
> 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 agree with this too. There were issues of perception since the Gizmodo version had no sources, links or charts. Later leaked version had the charts and a full version was put up on diversitymemo.com (which no redirects to Damore's official website). So a lot of people didn't get the full version, even if they read the whole thing. Overall I thought we was pretty tactful and did his best to express what he knew would be an unpopular viewpoint.
avinassh 9y ago
> 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. also, may be due to backfire effect? Oatmeal did a brilliant job explaining it [0] [0] - http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe

Blackthorn 9y ago

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.
  - lliamander 9y ago
    He did, a month or more before the fiasco.
    - Blackthorn 9y ago
      And that's exactly where he should have stopped. If he did not like the result, he should have resigned in a much less public manner.
      - lliamander 9y ago
        The result from HR was silence. He never intended for the memo to go public, but he did want feedback from his colleagues. If HR didn't want the issue going further, they should have actually responded to him.
      - cityhall 9y ago
        "Everyone who doesn't agree with me should shut up and go away."
        dang 9y ago
        Please don't post snarky one-liners to HN, especially not in divisive discussions, where they make things significantly worse. Also, please don't use quotation marks to make it look like you're quoting someone when you're not.
      - rakoo 9y ago
        But he saw a problem and wanted to fix it. You're basically saying he should have left the problem where it is and pretend itsr not there, which is not what engineers typically do. Can you blame him for that?
        fma 9y ago
        Not just engineers...That kind of mentality does not advance society. Imagine..."She thought black people should not have to sit at the back of the bus. She told authorities who just remained silent. She should have sucked it up and moved to the north!"
- mejari 9y ago
  It's not just "pro-affirmative-action stakeholders" that are expected to respond. _As referenced in the article_, it's extending to expecting women to come up with responses just because they are women. You're talking about a situation where one side (the side of the manifesto) has dropped an "evidence bomb", some of which may be valid, some not, and is now complaining "why won't you have a discussion?" They weren't invited to a discussion, they weren't talked _to_, they were talked _at_, and are now being looked to as the defenders of their gender when they just want to do their damn job.
  - nyolfen 9y ago
    this is textbook tone policing. it's an essay, not a spoken dialogue. you could say this about, say, a published study about climate change projections.
    - mejari 9y ago
      You can throw buzzwords designed to shut down discussion at me all you want, that's irrelevant. He claims his goal was to have a dialogue, the fact is that he chose a very poor way of doing that. Either his goals aren't what he claims or he misunderstood how to accomplish them.
      - smallnamespace 9y ago
        In all fairness, we it did at least provoke an internal debate, e.g. this discussion.
      - matt_wulfeck 9y ago
        Considering this is one of the most explosively discussed topics on HN and in the industry I would say he's been wildly successful at starting a discussion.
        mejari 9y ago
        I can start a discussion about racism in the US by going on TV and yelling the n-word, that doesn't mean that I did a good job of opening a constructive dialogue.
generic_user 9y ago
So basically its ok to discrimate against Men because Women are 'opressed'. Thats not an acceptable argument imo.
- Blackthorn 9y ago
  You're begging the question. Also, don't put something in quotes that was not a quote.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - someguydave 9y ago
    Which of his premises were assumed in his conclusion?
nicolashahn 9y ago
I'm not talking about a woman having to prove her technical ability to her male coworkers at work because of their prejudices. I know that that's bullshit and I'm sorry they have to do so. I'm talking about handling what Damore claimed in an intellectually honest way. You can't dismiss his points just because you're tired of talking about them (or what you think are the same points you've always been talking about, but I think Damore's comments on each gender's preference and pressures for picking careers had something worth discussing). What he said had at least some spark of originality and insight, otherwise it wouldn't have gotten nearly the attention it did. Consider, would we be talking about the memo if it were about how he thought Sundar Pichai was a lizard man? Those who disagreed with Damore already won the battle. They kicked him out of Google and doubled down on their diversity initiatives/echo chamber. We should be able to talk about his arguments honestly and rationally without falling back on gendered reasons at this point at least.
- camgunz 9y ago
  > We should be able to talk about his arguments honestly and rationally without falling back on gendered reasons at this point at least. We are and lots of people are doing so, but another point made in this post is that the workplace isn't the venue for this.
  - threeseed 9y ago
    Exactly. If Damore had focused his comments purely on hiring practices, quotas, discriminatory policies etc he would still be there and almost all would've found his comments constructive. But he didn't do that. He brought up scientifically baseless, insulting and emotionally immature rationales for an important and sensitive topic. Working around people in a professional environment requires nuance and tact. He showed none of this. The fact that so many in IT seem to miss this point and defend him explains so much about why many men and women stay away from this field.
    - weberc2 9y ago
      I assume you're being sarcastic, given that your description of the memo is so perfectly opposite any reasonable interpretation, but I can't tell.
Sir_Substance 9y ago
>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. You know what's ridiculous? Expecting people to magically agree with you because you're tired of arguing your position. Wouldn't it be nice if we lived in that world, but we don't[1]. In a society where all people are equal (which is what we are aiming for, even if the debate rages on whether that's what we have), all opinions are also equal. The tipping force on the scale of debate is tangible evidence, and it's the lifelong struggle of anyone with political opinions to continually remind others of the evidence behind their standpoint. Feel free to not bother and stuff if you're a bit tired or bored or whatever, but be aware that from a third party perspective, there's no visible difference between someone who won't provide evidence and someone who can't. [1] edit: I thought about this for a few seconds and have decided this would be a horrible world
manigandham 9y ago
What burden are you talking about exactly? You (along with many others) seem to be conflating the major point of the memo between interests and abilities. Not liking something does not mean you're not capable of doing it.
- dguaraglia 9y ago
  Would you rather hire someone that likes what they do or someone who doesn't? Would you intuitively think that someone who loves their job are going to be more interested in bigger challenges and doing great work, or someone who doesn't care for the job?
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    > Would you rather hire someone that likes what they do or someone who doesn't? I wouldn't assume someone's interest level based on their demographics. I would, you know, talk to them.
    - dguaraglia 9y ago
      So, you are in favor of outreach programs where you get to talk to more people?
      - humanrebar 9y ago
        Sure. I do that already, both formally and informally. Though I've probably been underestimating how career limiting that can be. The Google firing was a really bad move if outreach programs are a good idea.
        dguaraglia 9y ago
        Not sure I follow why you think the firing had something to do with outreach? You mean they'll be losing out on candidates like Damore?
canoebuilder 9y ago
to have to defend themselves at work this time, is ridiculous. Let's just agree on two things then. _Every woman at google has every right to be there. & _The number of women at google relative to the number of men is not the result of mostly imperceptible, malicious actions by men, but rather due the fact that the personal interests between the sexes varies substantially on average, and this results in skewed sex ratios throughout the entire workforce that match nearly perfectly with what scientific evidence shows us. Women are more interested in working with people and nurturing professions and men are more interested in working with things and abstract, theoretical, mechanical and spatial professions. https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/06/chart-the-percentage-women-and-men-each-profession/GBX22YsWl0XaeHghwXfE4H/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/06/chart-the-perce...
- Blackthorn 9y ago
  Can agree on number one. Can't agree on number two. Here's why: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-women-stopped-coding http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-...
- l_t 9y ago
  Can't agree on number 2, because it's a false dichotomy. The gender imbalance cannot be simplified to being because of any one specific cause (like a difference in personal interests). There is a whole cluster of causes, including: 1. Malicious actions by men. This undoubtedly happens, let's not pretend otherwise. However, it might not be very common. 2. Non-malicious but annoying behavior from men directed towards women. This could include unwanted flirtation, accidental condescension, inappropriate jokes, etc. 3. A male-oriented culture. Even if the guys don't act in an annoying way, being in a significant minority is usually less appealing than being in a situation where you have a more even gender split. 4. Boys and girls are nurtured in different ways, which can drive them towards having different interests as adults. 5. Biological differences between men and women. Personally, I think this is one of the least important factors, and it's also the only one that we can't change. Whether or not (5) is an issue, (1-4) can and should be addressed, so that women who are naturally inclined to CS are not nudged away from the industry by their life experiences.
tracker1 9y ago
Why would this mean anyone already working in the field needs to bring any burden to the table in terms of defending themselves? The subject was centered around the probability that some recruiting assumptions may be wrong, and that there may be better approaches to recruiting or improving the situation in general. Women that work in the field should definitely be respected as much as anyone else. They should be free of sexual harassment, and mistreatment. On the flip side, if only 20% of graduating classes in targeted STEM fields are women, and women represent a disproportionate amount of college students... then maybe the issue is broader than the affect of men on the field at that level. I think part of it may be natural inclination... another is probably the role of movies and media. The latter likely a much bigger role on the impressions of the work and the likely types to fulfill those roles. --- Edit: Big example Daisy/Quake from Agents of Shield... started off as a badass hacker, best of the best... as the show moved on, the role was relegated to brawler, and the impact of intellect or technical ability was largely sidestepped, or made secondary and less. Media portrayals of technical professionals all around are usually very unbalanced... and that doesn't even begin to go into the other fields that are disproportionately male or female, or the hindrance of men in higher education.
- Blackthorn 9y ago
  > Why would this mean anyone already working in the field needs to bring any burden to the table in terms of defending themselves? The subject was centered around the probability that some recruiting assumptions may be wrong, and that there may be better approaches to recruiting or improving the situation in general. Assuming you're asking in good faith: because of the idea that diversity hiring effectively lowered the hiring bar. Imagine for a second you have imposter syndrome. Now imagine that you've been told (not necessarily by Damore) that you're the (not quoting you here) "diversity hire". Imagine how much worse that imposter syndrome now is.
  - tracker1 9y ago
    I suffer from imposter syndrome all the time... but that's on me, not someone else. If you hire someone because of diversity alone over someone with a higher level of merit, then that was wrong. Also, telling someone that they were hired for diversity reasons alone is probably a bad move as well. I'm not saying that people shouldn't try to get more women into tech, or into trash collection, or construction, or every other male dominated occupation, or men as nurses, etc... however, that doesn't mean having to change the rules for men or women. And pointing out that there are differences between men and women shouldn't instantly start of with a storm of hate. "the average woman is shorter than the average man" ... "typical misogynistic cis white male patriarchal bullshit" ... I'm not saying that everyone is volatile and prone to fits of excessive rage in response, but it really feels like there's no place for civil discussion or discourse with a growing portion of the population.
benchaney 9y ago
> 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. You can't have it both ways. If you don't want to get involved in the argument, you don't have to, but getting involved and then doing any of the things GP is decrying is actively toxic.
- mcfunk 9y ago
  Women don't have a choice as to whether we participate. It comes up everywhere. It comes up in our workplaces, and as the minority group in conversation, we have to be there to contradict the people who take it as justification for the (evidence-based) unlevel playing field in tech, sexism etc, and we will be the ones affected if we don't ensure that our colleagues and people we respect don't go therefore shrug and decide that everyone thinks that way.
  - benchaney 9y ago
    Nothing in your comment is a reason you have to participate. > we have to be there to contradict the people who take it as justification for the (evidence-based) unlevel playing field in tech, sexism etc, and we will be the ones affected if we don't ensure that our colleagues and people we respect don't go therefore shrug and decide that everyone thinks that way. If you are concerned about third parties being swayed if you stay silent, that makes it even more important to not engage in the behavior I am decrying. Doing nothing is unlikely to impact most people's opinions. Appealing to platitudes (or worse, actively misrepresenting your opponent) will be actively counterproductive.
Houshalter 9y ago
Why would women need to "defend themselves"? He wasn't attacking them. The entire point of it was, that for whatever reason, women are statistically less likely to be interested in computer science. He never said anything about their ability.
- nodamage 9y ago
  I guess we didn't read the same memo? "I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership."
rdtsc 9y ago
>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. Why does research regarding this and the burden has to fall on women? If research is solid why does it matter if it was generated by a specific gender.
im3w1l 9y ago
As a white man the burden has fallen on me since I was a pre-teen to explain why I shouldn't be discriminated against.
adekok 9y ago
> 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. See "Self made man" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Made_Man_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Made_Man_(book), for a real-life experience of living as a man vs as a woman. Her conclusion at the end was that women have it much, much, easier, and she would much rather live as a woman than as a man. i.e. maybe work is sexist and makes women prove themselves more than men have to. But that's only one aspect of peoples daily lives.
- mftrhu 9y ago
  IIRC at the end of those 18 months Norah Vincent had to check herself into a psychiatric hospital because of the severe depression she developed. Besides saying that men don't really have it better[1] she also commented[2] "When you mess around with that, you really mess around with something that you need that helps you to function. And I found out that gender lives in your brain and is something much more than costume. And I really learned that the hard way," which is less "women have it much, much easier" and more "women, living as women have it much, much easier". [1]: gender stereotypes hurt everyone, and in [2] she spoke about how "They don't get to show the weakness, they don't get to show the affection, especially with each other. And so often all their emotions are shown in rage"; but they can't be discounted because of this. [2]: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Entertainment/story?id=1526982 http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Entertainment/story?id=1526982

Sir_Substance 9y ago

Not sure why you're getting downvoted, what you're describing is Grahams Hierarchy of Disagreement. The original writing is here: http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html And here it is in handy-dandy picture form: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg/707px-Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/Gr... Responding to tone is one level below an argument that actually addresses the point. Responses to tone can be safely dismissed as irrelevant to the debate at hand.

rad88 9y ago
One of the basic contexts of the debate is the question of whether tech workplaces are hostile to women. The tone of the email making claims about women in the workplace is relevant.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

generic_user 9y ago

Precisely, there just grasping at straw men arguments to deflect from the fact that they refuse to consider Scientifically based criticism of there polices when Science disagrees with there ideology.

jake-low 9y ago

This is addressed in TFA. > [W]hen I go to work, I go to work, and not to a debate club. Some people at Google reacted by saying “well if he’s so wrong, then why not refute him,” but that requires spending a significant amount of time building an argument against the claims in his document. On the other hand, if I remain silent, that silence could be mistaken for agreement. I should not be forced into that kind of debate at work. (Ida) > I’m just exhausted by having this same damn argument over and over again since I was a teenager and the amount of time and energy I keep having to spend to counter it. (Edith) Also, none of the "quoted phrases" that you criticized appear in TFA or in any parent comment.

exergy 9y ago
I sympathise with the woman saying she'd much rather just focus on code rather than social justice debates. But, as flippant as it is for a guy to say it, it's their cross to bear isnt it? Women in tech. Because, if they don't speak up, then what? Where does that leave us? Should the "other side" also not speak up? Just focus on code? Should they suppress real emotions that they're feeling? I'm not flaming, just wondering what the best-case way forward would be that mollifies both sides.
- sidlls 9y ago
  I don't care if the women I work with don't speak up. If I see sexism I will (and in fact have on more than one occasion) call it out. I use discussions with my wife and with women I've worked with in the past regarding how sexism in the workplace works to help me identify it in cases where it may be ambiguous or even something I'd never considered to be sexist. It does help identify those cases when women do speak out, though. My view is we should listen more to them about what sexism is and how it works.
- chc 9y ago
  This seems roughly cognate to "There are people who want to do their jobs, and there are people who want to poke the people in Group A with sticks. Should an employer constrain Group B from poking the people in Group A altogether just because Group A doesn't want to participate?" I think most people would easily answer, "Yes, we should prevent people from going around poking unwilling coworkers with sticks, and they should also be prevented from getting around the rule by throwing sticks around and just 'happening' to hit those coworkers, because it's not useful to have people doing that in your workplace and it disrupts Group A." I don't think anybody would really say, "Getting poked with sticks is just Group A's cross to bear."

notreallythough 9y ago

I'd argue that it's objectively aggressive. His twitter handle "@fired4truth" makes the intention to be so rather obvious (the content he's promoting on that handle is an entire additional ball of wax)... A 10-page manifesto, regardless of the content, when circulated internally without management's consent is in itself hard to view as anything but an act of mutiny.

compiler-guy 9y ago
Without stating anything regarding the merit's of Damore's arguments either way: There is a long tradition of this kind of memo inside Google. Many products you probably use every day are better because of one or another. This genre is not exactly encouraged, but lots of good stuff comes out of them. Whatever else that memo was, the genre is common, and the genre itself not considered mutinous within Google.

jacalata 9y ago

I actually know people who are still working on refutational evidence bombs like that. The problem is that actually finding sources and addressing his points in all their "but I really meant" vagueness is a huge piece of work, and people have day jobs. In the meantime, his shit is out there. If it's ok for anyone to read and agree with it without going through to confirm his "facts" and "citations" on the spot, then it's equally ok to read and disagree with it.

dguaraglia 9y ago
Exactly. One of the biggest wastes of time I incurred last week was trying to argue with someone here who wouldn't specify what the memo said, but would deny anything I said about it with "but he never said that!" It went on for days.

jrs95 9y ago

This would be good. I've seen 0 criticism of it that falls into this category so far. For the most part, it's essentially just been "I don't like the conclusion so I'm going to call you a sexist and make a straw man of your argument while ignoring the details."

camgunz 9y ago
Dr. Sadedin's Quora answer is pretty good: https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-biological-claims-made-in-the-document-about-diversity-written-by-a-Google-employee-in-August-2017 https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-bio...
- MollyR 9y ago
  SlateStarCodex and HeteroDox are way better and more impartial. http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/01/gender-imbalances-are-mostly-not-due-to-offensive-attitudes/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/01/gender-imbalances-are-m... http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exaggerated-differences http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagger... https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/08/10/the-google-memo-what-does-the-research-say-about-gender-differences/ https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/08/10/the-google-memo-what...
  - camgunz 9y ago
    I take issue with at least Slate Star Codex's 08/07 post because it focuses on interest like some black box and pre-college education as perfectly non-gendered. There is a lot of research (see below) that shows that pre-college education is very gendered. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20403143?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents http://www.jstor.org/stable/20403143?seq=1#page_scan_tab_con... http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0091732X017001269 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0091732X01700126... http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tl.37219924906/full http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tl.37219924906/fu... http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.3660270906/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.3660270906/ab... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4283768/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4283768/

gutnor 9y ago

> Then the correct way to handle it is to drop another refutational evidence bomb attacking ... Well from a strategic perspective, that's a losing attitude though. You start in a defensive position in a debate you didn't call. You are stuck in the specific frame the author has decided to limit his own argument. He also restrict the time you have to prepare such a refutal piece as every minute he spend with his argument unchallenged, the weaker the counterarguments look. Sure the average Google employee is more fact minded than emotionally driven, but it is a loaded subject in general but even more in IT. What's the best possible outcome of crafting such a reply anyway ? Shutting down one single guy because nobody will engage in a friendly debate after live shots have been fired.

occultist_throw 9y ago
well, the easiest way to refute is to call him racist, sexist, and ageist, all the while beating the "FIRE HIM NOW" drum. it works rather effectively. (seriously, the dh0 "u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!!!" is a terrifying force, when seen and used as in a group or mob.)
taneq 9y ago
You're under no compulsion to refute the author or to engage them in a debate, except that you've taken issue with their statement of their position and you've chosen to attack it. Do you feel that viewpoints that you disagree with should not be allowed to be stated publicly and remain unopposed?

rayiner 9y ago

Workplaces are not free speech zones. Employers have a legitimate interest in maintaining internal harmony and making people feel comfortable. There are lots of things that you should be able to say in general that have no place in the office. E.g. you should be able to maintain a blog detailing your sexual escapades, but emailing those descriptions to all your coworkers is quite reasonably grounds for termination.

tajen 9y ago
But Google is a free speech zone for Democrats voters, with company resources dedicated to promoting their point of view.

SapphireSun 9y ago

I seriously question whether that was a minority viewpoint expressed in the memo. I went to school with loads of people like that. I think the reason such viewpoints get blowback is because they basically argue for the status quo when the system is not serving large swaths of the population.

scythe 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). The brute problem is that it's too long to be addressed in a reasonable and productive debate, and because it was posted on an internal company messageboard it is his responsibility to ensure that it can be responded to in a reasonable and productive way. If he presents his complaints in a format which is likely to cause problems, he can be penalized, and a manifesto is certainly such a format because it lends itself so well to "viral" sharing, and it was precisely such "viral" reposting of the document that made it a practical problem for Google in the first place. Had he made his points in an ordinary discussion thread, it would have been harder to publish it everywhere as a unified whole, since discussion threads by their nature will contain counterarguments. For example, if I think another employee is biased against me in code reviews, it does not do me any favors to write a multi-page manifesto indicting said employee on a variety of points for his/her alleged biased review practices. Good debates do not generally come from duelling essays, and it is unfair to participants -- practically unfair, in that it drives them from the debate and so deprives the conversation of their contributions -- it is unfair to participants who do not have the time to invest in researching every point of a ten-page document that they feel they must address the whole awful thing in order to say anything. In fact I try to limit the length of my HN comments for this very reason: long comments are hard to respond to well. Internal company messageboards do not lend themselves to the publication of manifestos, and it is not reasonable to expect them to.

bjourne 9y ago
That's not the way to do it. The right way to do it is to pick one statement (the weakest one) from his argument and refute that one solidly. Then repeat the process with the next weakest, the second next weakest and so on. You only have to do that about four or five times before you have established that the author is full of shit. That's the standard method you use for refuting arguments presented in essay form.

StanislavPetrov 9y ago

> 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. You hit the nail on the head, and it isn't limited to this memo. We have a serious intolerance problem in this country that goes far beyond Nazis and racists. Over the last 25 years our culture has warped to the point where opposing viewpoints are considered by many to be offensive. Kids have been raised in an environment where they are told that they (and their opinions) are always worthy of respect (no matter how uninformed or ignorant those opinions might be). Those who show insufficient respect (in the eyes of the person being "disrespected") are seen as hateful aggressors who must be attacked or silenced. In today's society, many people (especially young people) don't want vigorous debate between those of opposing views. They don't want to live in a marketplace of ideas where logic, morality, and the ability and willingness to articulate and defend your beliefs in a public forum are valued. These younger people have been conditioned to appeal to authority when they are offended or their beliefs are challenged, rather than answer the bell and debate the merit (or lack of merit) in an idea or statement. Unfortunately this withering of public discourse is a bellwether for authoritarianism. You need look no farther than the recent outcry against the ACLU for their defense of free speech. There are very dark days ahead.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
I blame postmodernism. Really. Postmodernism says that all discourse is about power, not truth. People are starting to act consistently with what they've been taught.
- dieterrams 9y ago
  It's not postmodernism. It's hot cognition, and this sort of behavior isn't limited to the left.
  - ageofwant 9y ago
    Arguably the most important of the Jedi mind tricks: to install a gatekeeper wherever you know one is needed. Having one watching this hot/cold dial is important I recon. Knowing you can do this and that you have a choice about how you feel while thinking is something that ought to be taught.

rifung 9y ago

It's very difficult to convince people who aren't interested in being convinced. There are too many people out there with a different, maybe wrong, opinion. Why waste your time with those who don't seem genuinely interested in opposing evidence? I didn't find his tone aggressive but he didn't at all seem interested in having a discussion. If I remember correctly he didn't rebuke any opposing points, let alone present them, which makes me think he didn't bother looking for them. It's like hey I have this point I want you to listen to but I'm not even going to make an attempt to look up answers and instead force you to listen to me before I listen to you. It's like trying to answer someone's question without even understanding what they're asking, which I am sad to say I have seen far too often at Google.

nicolashahn 9y ago
You have to remember that this was a rough memo that he never meant to spread as widely as it has been. More like "here's some ideas I've been kicking around and some evidence for them, someone want to take a look and see what I'm missing or mistaken about?" This was originally just posted to the Google Skeptics group, with the implication that it would be (fairly) contested and debated. People keep presenting it as a "manifesto" but that's a term that Gizmodo used, not him. I really would like to have seen what would have come from it being fairly critiqued by his peers and edited until it was presentable to the public (if that's even possible).

djsumdog 9y ago

> 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 agree with this too. There were issues of perception since the Gizmodo version had no sources, links or charts. Later leaked version had the charts and a full version was put up on diversitymemo.com (which no redirects to Damore's official website). So a lot of people didn't get the full version, even if they read the whole thing. Overall I thought we was pretty tactful and did his best to express what he knew would be an unpopular viewpoint.

avinassh 9y ago

> 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. also, may be due to backfire effect? Oatmeal did a brilliant job explaining it [0] [0] - http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe