6 ms·

No, he didn't say that. He speaks about the `distribution of preferences and abilities`. Going from a distribution to state that `women are worse then men at

No, he didn't say that. He speaks about the `distribution of preferences and abilities`. Going from a distribution to state that `women are worse then men at engineering` is a false narrative and COMPLETELY different. You probably didn't realize that because you already made your own politically-correct version of the truth on that subject, and refuse any discussion about those topics. For example, what he said doesn't say anything about two specific individual women and men abilities. About your second point. That's the whole issue! Bringing up any point of debate or discussion on those politically-driven topics will end up pissing of some people (while a majority might agree, but will stay silent because politically incorrect). It is very very sad that this is the state of affairs, and that we cannot discuss those sensible subjects anymore without being fully ostracized.

samfriedman 9y ago
I'd say that the very fact that identical quotes from the memo can be used to argue opposite positions in earnest shows - with no judgment for which side is correct - that the memo itself is poorly written.
- ironjunkie 9y ago
  That's maybe why we should stop focusing on a 10 word quote and maybe read and understand the full memo (which provides context) ?
- gdix 9y ago
  Every single memo/book/essay has quotes that can be taken out of context in order to criticize the whole. That's why the phrase "taken out of context" exists.
lurr 9y ago
Except his point was indefensible, because it was (at best) poorly written.
- ironjunkie 9y ago
  we are all arguing about a 10 word quotes because that is what the media have chosen to focus on. If you read the full memo, you understand what he aims at and I don't think it is poorly written.
  - lurr 9y ago
    Gee, for a group that seems to complain about suppression of alternative thoughts you sure you do love to accuse everyone who disagrees with you of not having read the memo.
    - scruple 9y ago
      So you've concluded then that ironjunkie is an "alt-right" "member" because of _this_ comment thread? Yikes...
      - lurr 9y ago
        No, not at all. I meant conservatives/Damore supporters. The argument hinges on free speech, respect for differing opinions, oppression of conservative viewpoints, etc... That's all fine but then I see a lot of jumping to "you obviously didn't read it". That seems like a bit of a contradiction, to disregard the idea that someone has a different interpretation than you do.
  - collyw 9y ago
    It's a lot better written than most of the articles critisizing it.
thomasahle 9y ago
I think he is somewhat confused or insincere about the maths here. Given this `distribution of preferences and abilities` he said that women on average were lower, but if you only hire people above a certain threshold, there is no difference in the people you hire. This is not true. Unless the `distribution` is binary "has ability / does not have ability", the people coming from the "higher average" distribution will still on average have more ability. For example, say X~N(1,1) and Y~N(2,1) are normal-distributed with standard deviation 1 and mean 1 and 2 respectively, then E[X | X > 3] ≈ 3.37, while E[Y | Y > 3] ≈ 3.53. I am pretty sure Damore doesn't think preference and ability are binary, so unless he's confused about his maths, he does say that women at Google on average have less preference/ability.
- _Tev 9y ago
  You assume that "the lower average" group will apply as much (i.e. lower ability people will apply too) as the "higher average" group. I could now point "confused or insincere" right back at you ... But at least this whole debate is wonderful example why you should not assume bad faith in others.
  - thomasahle 9y ago
    Hm, you are saying one will get equal average skill/interest rates above the cut, if one includes that good people are more likely to apply? That sounds like an interesting argument. I don't think Damore made it, but if you will flesh it out a bit more, I'd be very interested in reading it.
    - _Tev 9y ago
      Well Damore tried to make a lot arguments, I think his (main) fault wasn't in omitting some important ones. And thanks, I'm thinking about making blog a lot, but I have no time.

samfriedman 9y ago

I'd say that the very fact that identical quotes from the memo can be used to argue opposite positions in earnest shows - with no judgment for which side is correct - that the memo itself is poorly written.

ironjunkie 9y ago
That's maybe why we should stop focusing on a 10 word quote and maybe read and understand the full memo (which provides context) ?
gdix 9y ago
Every single memo/book/essay has quotes that can be taken out of context in order to criticize the whole. That's why the phrase "taken out of context" exists.

lurr 9y ago

Except his point was indefensible, because it was (at best) poorly written.

ironjunkie 9y ago
we are all arguing about a 10 word quotes because that is what the media have chosen to focus on. If you read the full memo, you understand what he aims at and I don't think it is poorly written.
- lurr 9y ago
  Gee, for a group that seems to complain about suppression of alternative thoughts you sure you do love to accuse everyone who disagrees with you of not having read the memo.
  - scruple 9y ago
    So you've concluded then that ironjunkie is an "alt-right" "member" because of _this_ comment thread? Yikes...
    - lurr 9y ago
      No, not at all. I meant conservatives/Damore supporters. The argument hinges on free speech, respect for differing opinions, oppression of conservative viewpoints, etc... That's all fine but then I see a lot of jumping to "you obviously didn't read it". That seems like a bit of a contradiction, to disregard the idea that someone has a different interpretation than you do.
- collyw 9y ago
  It's a lot better written than most of the articles critisizing it.

thomasahle 9y ago

I think he is somewhat confused or insincere about the maths here. Given this `distribution of preferences and abilities` he said that women on average were lower, but if you only hire people above a certain threshold, there is no difference in the people you hire. This is not true. Unless the `distribution` is binary "has ability / does not have ability", the people coming from the "higher average" distribution will still on average have more ability. For example, say X~N(1,1) and Y~N(2,1) are normal-distributed with standard deviation 1 and mean 1 and 2 respectively, then E[X | X > 3] ≈ 3.37, while E[Y | Y > 3] ≈ 3.53. I am pretty sure Damore doesn't think preference and ability are binary, so unless he's confused about his maths, he does say that women at Google on average have less preference/ability.

_Tev 9y ago
You assume that "the lower average" group will apply as much (i.e. lower ability people will apply too) as the "higher average" group. I could now point "confused or insincere" right back at you ... But at least this whole debate is wonderful example why you should not assume bad faith in others.
- thomasahle 9y ago
  Hm, you are saying one will get equal average skill/interest rates above the cut, if one includes that good people are more likely to apply? That sounds like an interesting argument. I don't think Damore made it, but if you will flesh it out a bit more, I'd be very interested in reading it.
  - _Tev 9y ago
    Well Damore tried to make a lot arguments, I think his (main) fault wasn't in omitting some important ones. And thanks, I'm thinking about making blog a lot, but I have no time.