5 ms·
So... this is typical of the way this argument goes. Many HN readers are essentially "fellow travellers" with Damore. And you agree with him, and with that wh
by newacct583 6y ago
So... this is typical of the way this argument goes. Many HN readers are essentially "fellow travellers" with Damore. And you agree with him, and with that whitepaper thing he wrote.
But here's the thing: every time this comes up, this is framed, as you do, as a failure of "everyone else" (meaning left-leaning general folks, often women themselves) failing to understand the truth of what he wrote. But what you don't do is actually defend what he wrote.
And that's because what he wrote was really kinda vile. Indeed he didn't say "Women can't be good engineers". He said: "Women at Google aren't good engineers", which is quite frankly no less offensive. Now, sure, sure, his point was that this was because Google's diversity policies were incorrectly boosting these candidates. But that doesn't change what he said.
So... I don't see that the "female engineer" you were talking to really had it that wrong. You're focused on what to her was a minor fact, and while you seem to be oblivious as to why she might find the "correct" interpretation offensive too...
... you aren't. Because you know it's not really that defensible either and don't want to be held to account for Damore's opinions yourself. So you content yourself with what the rest of us view as nitpicking.
- look_lookatme 6y ago"Women at Google aren't good engineers" You quote this, which isn't a quote. Feel free to draw out the passages of his memo where this is explicitly or implicitly stated.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- manigandham 6y agoWhat was actually said is that men and women tend to have different interests on average, and therefore choose different professions when given equal freedom and opportunity. More men choose to be mechanical engineering and more women choose biological sciences. It's strange for that to be so controversial. Not having an interest in a field does not mean you're not capable. Perhaps that's the nuance that's missing.
- fzeroracer 6y agoThis argument doesn't work because there were a significant number of woman devs back in the 70s and 80s. That claim is completely at odds with the history of programming. And before people make the claim that programming was glorified hole punching as it seems to come up by that point in history we already saw the rise of modern abstractions and higher level development. It's controversial because it's trying to abstract some sort of universal biotruths by vaguely linking data with psuedoscience and correlation.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoI don't think "glorified hole punching" is fair at all. It was still an intellectual challenge, just a different one. I find it hard to believe an explanation that proposes an industry has become more sexist since the 70s.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y agoWhat people chose to get degrees in a generation or two ago doesn't really help with hiring today. Especially when you mostly hire people in their twenties (not defending that).
- manigandham 6y agoThe field has changed vastly in the last 50 years. I don't find it shocking that interests and resulting demographics have also changed since then.
- koheripbal 6y agoI agree entirely with what he wrote. Men and women, innately, have different interests - on a statistical level. ...but individual variances make stereotyping ineffective, therefore everyone needs to be treated as individuals, and thus quotas should be eliminated. That was literally his conclusion - and it's spot on.