7 ms·

I read what he wrote. It was (mostly) ugly but contained a lot of truth. Many of the media interpretations of what James Damore wrote were very biased, and eff

I read what he wrote. It was (mostly) ugly but contained a lot of truth. Many of the media interpretations of what James Damore wrote were very biased, and effectively amounted to hit pieces. His use of terms like "Trait Neuroticism" were direct uses of psychological terms which just sound bad as everyday English. Evolutionary Biology also tends to have a "dismal" feeling to it, like Economics can. One can't take fields like Evolutionary Biology and Economics as morally prescriptive. In that direction lies madness, clearly. However, to then take a knee-jerk ideological stance towards science and declare that everyone must be equal inside is just the West's version of Lysenkoism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism As is usually the case, reality is complex, requires a nuanced understanding, and might sound depressing if you give it a pessimistic read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n691pLhQBkw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n691pLhQBkw

FabHK 9y ago
+1. Most of the pieces about the memo didn't take time to highlight that "neuroticism" and "agreeableness" refer to Big-5 personality traits, not the everyday understanding of the words. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits Most of the pieces didn't distinguish between descriptive and normative statements. Most of the pieces didn't distinguish between statements about distribution of something within a population, and statements about all members of that population.
- bduerst 9y ago
  Except the Big Five has been debunked as being too lexical for biological differentiation. Basically its lexical nature introduces perceptual bias that skews any factor analysis for biological structures - i.e. behavior between genders, for example. The way Damore uses it to support his hypothesis wasn't correct. >And that is what the Big Five represents: a consistent model of how humans reflect individuality using language, no more. There were no considerations of findings in neuroanatomy, neurochemistry, experimental psychology, observations of behavior of people or animals in real situations – none of this was used at the research stage leading to the development of the Big Five. In this sense we can say that the Big Five does not represent the structure of temperament or the structure of biologically based traits, even though lexical perception reflects some elements of it. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3903487/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3903487/
  - stcredzero 9y ago
    Except the Big Five has been debunked as being too lexical for biological differentiation. Thanks for that. I find that reaction much more informative than the name-calling sent at James Damore. In this sense we can say that the Big Five does not represent the structure of temperament or the structure of biologically based traits, even though lexical perception reflects some elements of it. Well, one should expect that something based on self-report surveys to be about that disconnected from underlying biology. "...lexical perception reflects some elements of it" -- where {it} == {underlying biology} As per usual, the reality of what goes on inside us is probably more complicated than our mental model of it.
    - bduerst 9y ago
      Sure, which may be fine for the burden of proof for a personal opinion. Incorrectly using evidence to support your opinion as you broadcast it at work, and not listening, discussing, or considering critical feedback (like this) is a different matter. Especially when it means incorrectly classifying your co-workers and trying to change how your work fights social biases.
      - stcredzero 9y ago
        Incorrectly using evidence to support your opinion as you broadcast it at work Sorry, but while your observation is interesting, there is nothing incorrect about citing such evidence. Especially when it means incorrectly classifying your co-workers and trying to change how your work fights social biases. Exactly how did James Damore go about classifying specific co-workers? [Citation Needed] Seriously, cite James Damore and show how he "classified" anyone in particular.
        bduerst 9y ago
        Sure - The example in context to this thread is right here in Damore's memo: > Women, on average, have more: > - Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas... > - Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness... > - Neuroticism... Damore supports this with a link [1] to a Wikipedia article, which immediately says: > On the scales measured by the Big Five personality traits women consistently report higher Neuroticism, agreeableness, warmth (an extraversion facet)... Damore incorrectly uses this information to make the broad statement that "Women have..." instead of "Women self-report...". This is incorrectly classifying your women coworkers as being, among other things, more neurotic than their male counterparts. You may think, "So what?", but this is being used in an argument about how a company fights social biases, and this is incredibly relevant because lexical self-reporting is open to the same biases that are being fought. Damore, intentionally or not, glosses over this, but more importantly was not receptive to this type of feedback, hence the broadcasting. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology#Personality_traits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology#...
jhanschoo 9y ago
I agree. It seemed to me that Damore's memo was nevertheless fallacious, though nevertheless totally unworthy of the criticism that he received. Unlike in fields we are used to, psychological results have remarkably little prescriptive power given the inherently complex and malleable nature of social structures, and it's still pretty much up in the air how much or little effect nature has on preferences and to what extent a social arrangement is able to affect/has affected/reinterpreted/transformed those preferences without effecting a change in overall happiness/satisfaction. It also saddens me that a number of Damore's suggestions to make the workplace more "nurture-trait-friendly" got overshadowed by those dubious extrapolations. It seems interesting and fruitful to me to explore the work dynamics and psychology present in more "nurture" fields and see how well they translate to software development and collaboration. There is a silver lining to all this for me: it shows that whereas women used to have little voice in the public sphere, "American women" as a class now have a sufficiently loud voice that even its less-well-thought-out ideologies have traction and influence in civil society (along with all that entails, including having possibly self-proclaimed representatives and "thought leaders").
- stcredzero 9y ago
  There is a silver lining to all this for me: it shows that whereas women used to have little voice in the public sphere, "American women" as a class now have a sufficiently loud voice There is nothing good about someone who has a "sufficiently loud voice" -- if that loudness comes not from principle and merit, but from emotional toxicity.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    The way I see it is that the feminism movement of old basically won - women voices are being heard and treated as equally important in the society. But like many movements, instead of dissolving after successful accomplishment of its mission, it transformed into a form that tries to perpetuate its own survival and status of importance.
    - notfromhere 9y ago
vfulco 9y ago
The topic matter was above the IQ of the vast majority of the protesters so we got a mob rule, peasant like response.
- stcredzero 9y ago
  Did James Damore ever claim that women overall have lower IQs than men overall? [Citation Needed]
smrtinsert 9y ago
Just because a media outlet might have been aggressively attacked his memo, doesn't mean his arguments are valid. He cherry picked various pieces and came to conclusions that weren't causal. At the end of the day, his perception of what is happening at Google is just that, perception. My guess is that he will be settled with to avoid the annoyance or simply destroyed in court.
- weberc2 9y ago
  > Just because a media outlet might have been aggressively attacked his memo, doesn't mean his arguments are valid. Many media outlets aggressively attacked his memo, but the argument isn't "his arguments are validated because outlets attacked his memo"; it's that the response to his memo was malicious and slanderous, and this is wrong even if his arguments are bad. Bad arguments should be met with good arguments, not hate and slander.

FabHK 9y ago

+1. Most of the pieces about the memo didn't take time to highlight that "neuroticism" and "agreeableness" refer to Big-5 personality traits, not the everyday understanding of the words. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits Most of the pieces didn't distinguish between descriptive and normative statements. Most of the pieces didn't distinguish between statements about distribution of something within a population, and statements about all members of that population.

bduerst 9y ago
Except the Big Five has been debunked as being too lexical for biological differentiation. Basically its lexical nature introduces perceptual bias that skews any factor analysis for biological structures - i.e. behavior between genders, for example. The way Damore uses it to support his hypothesis wasn't correct. >And that is what the Big Five represents: a consistent model of how humans reflect individuality using language, no more. There were no considerations of findings in neuroanatomy, neurochemistry, experimental psychology, observations of behavior of people or animals in real situations – none of this was used at the research stage leading to the development of the Big Five. In this sense we can say that the Big Five does not represent the structure of temperament or the structure of biologically based traits, even though lexical perception reflects some elements of it. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3903487/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3903487/
- stcredzero 9y ago
  Except the Big Five has been debunked as being too lexical for biological differentiation. Thanks for that. I find that reaction much more informative than the name-calling sent at James Damore. In this sense we can say that the Big Five does not represent the structure of temperament or the structure of biologically based traits, even though lexical perception reflects some elements of it. Well, one should expect that something based on self-report surveys to be about that disconnected from underlying biology. "...lexical perception reflects some elements of it" -- where {it} == {underlying biology} As per usual, the reality of what goes on inside us is probably more complicated than our mental model of it.
  - bduerst 9y ago
    Sure, which may be fine for the burden of proof for a personal opinion. Incorrectly using evidence to support your opinion as you broadcast it at work, and not listening, discussing, or considering critical feedback (like this) is a different matter. Especially when it means incorrectly classifying your co-workers and trying to change how your work fights social biases.
    - stcredzero 9y ago
      Incorrectly using evidence to support your opinion as you broadcast it at work Sorry, but while your observation is interesting, there is nothing incorrect about citing such evidence. Especially when it means incorrectly classifying your co-workers and trying to change how your work fights social biases. Exactly how did James Damore go about classifying specific co-workers? [Citation Needed] Seriously, cite James Damore and show how he "classified" anyone in particular.
      - bduerst 9y ago
        Sure - The example in context to this thread is right here in Damore's memo: > Women, on average, have more: > - Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas... > - Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness... > - Neuroticism... Damore supports this with a link [1] to a Wikipedia article, which immediately says: > On the scales measured by the Big Five personality traits women consistently report higher Neuroticism, agreeableness, warmth (an extraversion facet)... Damore incorrectly uses this information to make the broad statement that "Women have..." instead of "Women self-report...". This is incorrectly classifying your women coworkers as being, among other things, more neurotic than their male counterparts. You may think, "So what?", but this is being used in an argument about how a company fights social biases, and this is incredibly relevant because lexical self-reporting is open to the same biases that are being fought. Damore, intentionally or not, glosses over this, but more importantly was not receptive to this type of feedback, hence the broadcasting. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology#Personality_traits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology#...

jhanschoo 9y ago

I agree. It seemed to me that Damore's memo was nevertheless fallacious, though nevertheless totally unworthy of the criticism that he received. Unlike in fields we are used to, psychological results have remarkably little prescriptive power given the inherently complex and malleable nature of social structures, and it's still pretty much up in the air how much or little effect nature has on preferences and to what extent a social arrangement is able to affect/has affected/reinterpreted/transformed those preferences without effecting a change in overall happiness/satisfaction. It also saddens me that a number of Damore's suggestions to make the workplace more "nurture-trait-friendly" got overshadowed by those dubious extrapolations. It seems interesting and fruitful to me to explore the work dynamics and psychology present in more "nurture" fields and see how well they translate to software development and collaboration. There is a silver lining to all this for me: it shows that whereas women used to have little voice in the public sphere, "American women" as a class now have a sufficiently loud voice that even its less-well-thought-out ideologies have traction and influence in civil society (along with all that entails, including having possibly self-proclaimed representatives and "thought leaders").

stcredzero 9y ago
There is a silver lining to all this for me: it shows that whereas women used to have little voice in the public sphere, "American women" as a class now have a sufficiently loud voice There is nothing good about someone who has a "sufficiently loud voice" -- if that loudness comes not from principle and merit, but from emotional toxicity.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  The way I see it is that the feminism movement of old basically won - women voices are being heard and treated as equally important in the society. But like many movements, instead of dissolving after successful accomplishment of its mission, it transformed into a form that tries to perpetuate its own survival and status of importance.
  - notfromhere 9y ago

vfulco 9y ago

The topic matter was above the IQ of the vast majority of the protesters so we got a mob rule, peasant like response.

stcredzero 9y ago
Did James Damore ever claim that women overall have lower IQs than men overall? [Citation Needed]

smrtinsert 9y ago

Just because a media outlet might have been aggressively attacked his memo, doesn't mean his arguments are valid. He cherry picked various pieces and came to conclusions that weren't causal. At the end of the day, his perception of what is happening at Google is just that, perception. My guess is that he will be settled with to avoid the annoyance or simply destroyed in court.

weberc2 9y ago
> Just because a media outlet might have been aggressively attacked his memo, doesn't mean his arguments are valid. Many media outlets aggressively attacked his memo, but the argument isn't "his arguments are validated because outlets attacked his memo"; it's that the response to his memo was malicious and slanderous, and this is wrong even if his arguments are bad. Bad arguments should be met with good arguments, not hate and slander.