5 ms·

Is Damore responsible for the failure of some of people in managing their own emotions? "He's saying things we don't like! Fire him!" That doesn't seem valid to

by OCASM 9y ago

Is Damore responsible for the failure of some of people in managing their own emotions? "He's saying things we don't like! Fire him!" That doesn't seem valid to me.

lurr 9y ago
"I won't work with someone who thinks I'm less capable because of my genitals" sounds a bit more valid to me.
- OCASM 9y ago
  So they have no problem working with Damore then since he never said such a thing.
chillacy 9y ago
> Is Damore responsible for the failure of some of people in managing their own emotions? That line of stoic reasoning really justifies anything though. Like, my co-workers should manage their anxiety just because I like to work with a firearm strapped to my chest and 2 grenades on my desk.
- OCASM 9y ago
  Anxiety over close proximity to explosives seems justified. Anxiety over somebody stating ideas you simply disagree with doesn't.
  - chillacy 9y ago
    There are disagreeable ideas that nobody has anxiety over though, so it's not just that. But I think you can see that too. If you assume his ideas are correct: 1. His letter becomes well received, my employer changes their hiring policies 2. The current gender ratio was propped by non-gender-neutral hiring practices, without them, that will change back in-line to the base rate 3. My job is in danger Is anxiety over losing one's job justified? Or, another line: 1. His letter is well received, but my employer doesn't change their hiring policies 2. My co-workers now think that I have my job not because I earned it but because of the non-gender-neutral hiring practices 3. My job is in danger I can produce more, but at the end of the day they all threaten either status or jobs, so I don't fault why people would defend their interests with all their effort.
    - OCASM 9y ago
      Being anxious about losing your job doesn't justify getting somebody else fired. Specially through vile means such as character assassination. Edit: Besides, those same arguments apply against the diversity advocates. They openly claim that white men dominate the industry because of sexism, that they don't hold their positions because of merit but because of bias. They're guilty of the same crime they accuse Damore of committing.
      - chillacy 9y ago
        I will agree that getting someone else fired for your own benefit is deeply selfish, but I also expect people to fight for their own interests when livelihood is on the line. And a job is closer to 'food on the table' than 'new discount TV on black friday' (it's closer to the bottom of maslov's hierarchy).
- manfredo 9y ago
  Citing peer-reviewed research about gender differences is not even remotely equivalent to openly brandishing explosives in an office.
  - chillacy 9y ago
    Yes, but both result in a failure to manage one's emotions. The implication I think you're making is that if others are insulting you, you should control your emotions, if others are physically threatening you, it's understandable if you fear for your life. But the biological reality is that both produce amygdala responses and strong emotions. Also, calling it "citing peer-reviewed research" is sort of missing the point. How about "politely and scientifically insinuating that some of my co-workers wouldn't be working here if it weren't for social programs at the company" which can be taken for insult. The validity of the research is besides the point. So no, Damore is not responsible for people not "managing their emotions", he's responsible for not forseeing that people would not "manage their emotions". As in, he should have known better than to insult people at work. Going back to guns, some people like to make demonstrations where they open cary in a Starbucks. They mean no harm, they're within the bounds of the law... but they're either counting on people to freak out to create media commotion or they're obtuse.
    - manfredo 9y ago
      > peer-reviewed research" is sort of missing the point. How about "politely and scientifically insinuating that some of my co-workers wouldn't be working here if it weren't for social programs at the company" which can be taken for insult. The author did no such thing - at least not without the caveat that their rejection would have been a false negative, which negates any implications about these co-workers abilities. And taking steps to reduce the false negative rate for diverse candidates is a pretty standard practice in bay area, see this past comment of mine for an example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14953762 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14953762 Other commenters have chimed in saying Google has similar policies, and the company openly states on their careers page that they're an affirmative action employer. If making a factually correct statement about the company's hiring practices is an insult, then it'd be prudent to rethink those practices.

by OCASM 9y ago

Is Damore responsible for the failure of some of people in managing their own emotions? "He's saying things we don't like! Fire him!" That doesn't seem valid to me.

lurr 9y ago

"I won't work with someone who thinks I'm less capable because of my genitals" sounds a bit more valid to me.

OCASM 9y ago
So they have no problem working with Damore then since he never said such a thing.

chillacy 9y ago

> Is Damore responsible for the failure of some of people in managing their own emotions? That line of stoic reasoning really justifies anything though. Like, my co-workers should manage their anxiety just because I like to work with a firearm strapped to my chest and 2 grenades on my desk.

OCASM 9y ago
Anxiety over close proximity to explosives seems justified. Anxiety over somebody stating ideas you simply disagree with doesn't.
- chillacy 9y ago
  There are disagreeable ideas that nobody has anxiety over though, so it's not just that. But I think you can see that too. If you assume his ideas are correct: 1. His letter becomes well received, my employer changes their hiring policies 2. The current gender ratio was propped by non-gender-neutral hiring practices, without them, that will change back in-line to the base rate 3. My job is in danger Is anxiety over losing one's job justified? Or, another line: 1. His letter is well received, but my employer doesn't change their hiring policies 2. My co-workers now think that I have my job not because I earned it but because of the non-gender-neutral hiring practices 3. My job is in danger I can produce more, but at the end of the day they all threaten either status or jobs, so I don't fault why people would defend their interests with all their effort.
  - OCASM 9y ago
    Being anxious about losing your job doesn't justify getting somebody else fired. Specially through vile means such as character assassination. Edit: Besides, those same arguments apply against the diversity advocates. They openly claim that white men dominate the industry because of sexism, that they don't hold their positions because of merit but because of bias. They're guilty of the same crime they accuse Damore of committing.
    - chillacy 9y ago
      I will agree that getting someone else fired for your own benefit is deeply selfish, but I also expect people to fight for their own interests when livelihood is on the line. And a job is closer to 'food on the table' than 'new discount TV on black friday' (it's closer to the bottom of maslov's hierarchy).
manfredo 9y ago
Citing peer-reviewed research about gender differences is not even remotely equivalent to openly brandishing explosives in an office.
- chillacy 9y ago
  Yes, but both result in a failure to manage one's emotions. The implication I think you're making is that if others are insulting you, you should control your emotions, if others are physically threatening you, it's understandable if you fear for your life. But the biological reality is that both produce amygdala responses and strong emotions. Also, calling it "citing peer-reviewed research" is sort of missing the point. How about "politely and scientifically insinuating that some of my co-workers wouldn't be working here if it weren't for social programs at the company" which can be taken for insult. The validity of the research is besides the point. So no, Damore is not responsible for people not "managing their emotions", he's responsible for not forseeing that people would not "manage their emotions". As in, he should have known better than to insult people at work. Going back to guns, some people like to make demonstrations where they open cary in a Starbucks. They mean no harm, they're within the bounds of the law... but they're either counting on people to freak out to create media commotion or they're obtuse.
  - manfredo 9y ago
    > peer-reviewed research" is sort of missing the point. How about "politely and scientifically insinuating that some of my co-workers wouldn't be working here if it weren't for social programs at the company" which can be taken for insult. The author did no such thing - at least not without the caveat that their rejection would have been a false negative, which negates any implications about these co-workers abilities. And taking steps to reduce the false negative rate for diverse candidates is a pretty standard practice in bay area, see this past comment of mine for an example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14953762 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14953762 Other commenters have chimed in saying Google has similar policies, and the company openly states on their careers page that they're an affirmative action employer. If making a factually correct statement about the company's hiring practices is an insult, then it'd be prudent to rethink those practices.