3 ms·

Not trying to pick sides here, but the abstract seems to resonate with James Damore's hypothesis [1]. [1] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Go

Not trying to pick sides here, but the abstract seems to resonate with James Damore's hypothesis [1]. [1] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...

josteink 8y ago
Clearly you are picking sides, but seem afraid to admit so. To yourself or others, one might ask. Clearly not much has changed since James Damore started this internal discussion.
yorwba 8y ago
Only insofar as Damore was partially basing his arguments on previous studies with similar results. In my opinion, Damore's mistake wasn't collecting studies like this to support his point, but that he 1) didn't also collect their predicted effect sizes and 2) didn't collect studies on effects in the opposite direction and 3) didn't compare the so-obtained prediction with the situation at Google to see whether he had the full picture but 4) directly jumped to suggesting changes in the way Google does things while 5) tying himself to an unpopular political platform. Then citing a bunch of studies in the opposite direction likewise without regard for effect sizes is an equal-effort response and you get a nice little flame war. The rest is politics. I doubt that this submission will fare any better.
- gizmo686 8y ago
  Damore's piece was fundamentally reactionary, responding to holes present in the diversity training program and the justifications presented for the diversity programs at Google. It is not nessasary to provide a complete account of a situtaion to point out flaws in an existing account. It is not nessasary to have a complete account in order to improve the existing account. There are some really hard questions to answer here. We do not answer hard questions by locking ourselves in a room until we figure it all out and write up a paper to present to the world. We answer hard questions by making incremental progress and sharing and collaborating with that progress so we can work with others to find the answers. Damore's mistake was thinking that the diversity advocates were interested in a good faith discussion, or evidence based policy.

josteink 8y ago

Clearly you are picking sides, but seem afraid to admit so. To yourself or others, one might ask. Clearly not much has changed since James Damore started this internal discussion.

yorwba 8y ago

Only insofar as Damore was partially basing his arguments on previous studies with similar results. In my opinion, Damore's mistake wasn't collecting studies like this to support his point, but that he 1) didn't also collect their predicted effect sizes and 2) didn't collect studies on effects in the opposite direction and 3) didn't compare the so-obtained prediction with the situation at Google to see whether he had the full picture but 4) directly jumped to suggesting changes in the way Google does things while 5) tying himself to an unpopular political platform. Then citing a bunch of studies in the opposite direction likewise without regard for effect sizes is an equal-effort response and you get a nice little flame war. The rest is politics. I doubt that this submission will fare any better.

gizmo686 8y ago
Damore's piece was fundamentally reactionary, responding to holes present in the diversity training program and the justifications presented for the diversity programs at Google. It is not nessasary to provide a complete account of a situtaion to point out flaws in an existing account. It is not nessasary to have a complete account in order to improve the existing account. There are some really hard questions to answer here. We do not answer hard questions by locking ourselves in a room until we figure it all out and write up a paper to present to the world. We answer hard questions by making incremental progress and sharing and collaborating with that progress so we can work with others to find the answers. Damore's mistake was thinking that the diversity advocates were interested in a good faith discussion, or evidence based policy.