3 ms·

The "constructive purpose" of the discussion for a man is to practice talking about difficult subjects. The real world implication of discussing it is suggestin

The "constructive purpose" of the discussion for a man is to practice talking about difficult subjects. The real world implication of discussing it is suggesting that the potential of women in tech is up for debate. Just talking about some things is enough to imply unintended conclusions. That's how it works in the real world no matter how hard you want to play Mr. Logic. To believe otherwise is extremely naive and puts you in serious danger, as Damore found out. Opinions based around differences in human biology have a really bad historical track record. Groups and institutions have built up a natural vomit reflex for when they show up. Many might argue that this is a suppression of the truth but they also have to appreciate that that suppression might be in service of a greater good.

DoreenMichele 9y ago
I was married for a lot of years. My marriage was a case of opposites attract. We argued incessantly about everything but personal belief. It took us a lot of years to get to the point where we could go furniture shopping and communicate constructively in order to agree on a purchase instead of fighting about who would win this one. We often were focused on entirely different attributes in our decision making process. For example, attractiveness of a bookshelf might be my focus. Sturdiness might be his. Once we got past knee jerk rejection of each other's first pick, it was entirely possible to find a bookshelf that satisfied both his criteria and mine. But that required us to be able to communicate effectively, something we didn't have mastered when we got married at age 19. When you do surveys, you find that the majority of people are both antiabortion and pro choice at the same time. Most people feel that abortion should be a last resort, not standard birth control. But they also feel a woman should have control over her body and her life and should not need to prove she was raped to choose to terminate a pregnancy. Pollsters with a political agenda know this. They can survey the same people about the same issue and come up with data to support either antiabortion laws or pro choice laws depending on how they ask the questions. Most people are not monoliths and not rabidly polarized along X social fault lines. The inability to safely talk to "the other side" means people can't learn to speak in a more nuanced way and can't build bridges. I'm not 19 anymore. I see no reason to pick bookshelf A while hubby picks bookshelf B and we fight about who gets what they want. I am much more interested these days in finding out why he likes B, talking about why I like A and then looking for a third option that is satisfactory to both of us. Society benefits when people can find a safe sandbox to begin that communication process. It does not have to be a case of which side wins and which side loses.
- iovrthoughtthis 9y ago
  I just published a post about effective communication actually. https://medium.com/@ioverthoughtthis/how-to-have-an-effective-debate-bb955c2c54fd https://medium.com/@ioverthoughtthis/how-to-have-an-effectiv... > Society benefits when people can find a safe sandbox to begin that communication process. Totally agree. I would love some feedback from you given your stance on discussion!
  - DoreenMichele 9y ago
    You have a lot of good points about techniques that are useful. I would add that a debate does not need to be a battle. I am usually not looking to argue and win. I am usually looking to converse. Also, minds and feelings change slowly. Expecting them to change this hour because you used pretty words and had great technique is unrealistic. My goal is to be heard, to be allowed to speak my mind. People can contemplate my words at leisure and draw conclusions later. I don't need acknowledgement that I "won" this round right this minute.
- verylittlemeat 9y ago
  That's your spouse, come on. We're talking about coworkers, people who casually end up in meetings together and talk shit or play politics with zero regard for scorching the earth to get ahead. You have massive incentive not to casually degrade the existence of your spouse. Your example isn't even a different ballpark it's a different game. In my experience most arguments of political nature have nothing to do with finding the right answer. These arguments are social posturing. It's not about me being right it's about you not being right. Some of the worst argumentative know-it-alls I ever met were only that way almost as a form of preemptive strike. They were terrified that someone might socially dominate them so they had to dominate the other person first. For that reason I'm deeply skeptical that Damore was trying to have a conversation in good faith. It seems much more likely to me that he saw a social justice culture that claimed to have a monopoly on what is right and that really got on his nerves. I bet Damore would have been an outspoken social justice advocate if his workshop came to him and asked "hey, do you think these gender initiatives are good?" Instead I bet he got something more along the lines of "this is why you think wrong."

DoreenMichele 9y ago

I was married for a lot of years. My marriage was a case of opposites attract. We argued incessantly about everything but personal belief. It took us a lot of years to get to the point where we could go furniture shopping and communicate constructively in order to agree on a purchase instead of fighting about who would win this one. We often were focused on entirely different attributes in our decision making process. For example, attractiveness of a bookshelf might be my focus. Sturdiness might be his. Once we got past knee jerk rejection of each other's first pick, it was entirely possible to find a bookshelf that satisfied both his criteria and mine. But that required us to be able to communicate effectively, something we didn't have mastered when we got married at age 19. When you do surveys, you find that the majority of people are both antiabortion and pro choice at the same time. Most people feel that abortion should be a last resort, not standard birth control. But they also feel a woman should have control over her body and her life and should not need to prove she was raped to choose to terminate a pregnancy. Pollsters with a political agenda know this. They can survey the same people about the same issue and come up with data to support either antiabortion laws or pro choice laws depending on how they ask the questions. Most people are not monoliths and not rabidly polarized along X social fault lines. The inability to safely talk to "the other side" means people can't learn to speak in a more nuanced way and can't build bridges. I'm not 19 anymore. I see no reason to pick bookshelf A while hubby picks bookshelf B and we fight about who gets what they want. I am much more interested these days in finding out why he likes B, talking about why I like A and then looking for a third option that is satisfactory to both of us. Society benefits when people can find a safe sandbox to begin that communication process. It does not have to be a case of which side wins and which side loses.

iovrthoughtthis 9y ago
I just published a post about effective communication actually. https://medium.com/@ioverthoughtthis/how-to-have-an-effective-debate-bb955c2c54fd https://medium.com/@ioverthoughtthis/how-to-have-an-effectiv... > Society benefits when people can find a safe sandbox to begin that communication process. Totally agree. I would love some feedback from you given your stance on discussion!
- DoreenMichele 9y ago
  You have a lot of good points about techniques that are useful. I would add that a debate does not need to be a battle. I am usually not looking to argue and win. I am usually looking to converse. Also, minds and feelings change slowly. Expecting them to change this hour because you used pretty words and had great technique is unrealistic. My goal is to be heard, to be allowed to speak my mind. People can contemplate my words at leisure and draw conclusions later. I don't need acknowledgement that I "won" this round right this minute.
verylittlemeat 9y ago
That's your spouse, come on. We're talking about coworkers, people who casually end up in meetings together and talk shit or play politics with zero regard for scorching the earth to get ahead. You have massive incentive not to casually degrade the existence of your spouse. Your example isn't even a different ballpark it's a different game. In my experience most arguments of political nature have nothing to do with finding the right answer. These arguments are social posturing. It's not about me being right it's about you not being right. Some of the worst argumentative know-it-alls I ever met were only that way almost as a form of preemptive strike. They were terrified that someone might socially dominate them so they had to dominate the other person first. For that reason I'm deeply skeptical that Damore was trying to have a conversation in good faith. It seems much more likely to me that he saw a social justice culture that claimed to have a monopoly on what is right and that really got on his nerves. I bet Damore would have been an outspoken social justice advocate if his workshop came to him and asked "hey, do you think these gender initiatives are good?" Instead I bet he got something more along the lines of "this is why you think wrong."