5 ms·

I understand why you're assuming I didn't read the linked article, but I'm not sure (or perhaps disinterested?) in proving that I did. SSC is excellent, has som

I understand why you're assuming I didn't read the linked article, but I'm not sure (or perhaps disinterested?) in proving that I did. SSC is excellent, has some of my top favorite things on the entire internet, and I don't think I've seen anything from it that I'd consider problematic or of poor quality. TBH, I didn't pay much attention to what others said about JD's document. I saw there was a controversy, looked at a few things about that controversy, then went to the source and came to my own conclusions. Those were some of my conclusions. Sure, JD didn't say diversity was bad. He said something along the lines of what I'll paraphrase as "these are the insurmountable blockers to this kind of success for people who aren't like me." Which, like... if you don't see how that's the problem, I can 100% throw some effort trying to communicate to you how that's the problem. Just ask :) Here's questions: Do you feel like your reply, here, was in any way a critique of my points in a nuanced way? Do you feel like what I've presented of my take on JD's document was a critique of his points in a nuanced way?

ALittleLight 5y ago
I read Damore's document and your summary and description of it seems entirely foreign and inconsistent to me. For example, you summarize it as "these are the insurmountable blockers to this kind of success for people who aren't like me". In Damore's document he discusses ways to promote diversity within Google by accounting for differences between men and women and adjusting Google's hiring and promotion practices to focus less on traits that are more represented among men. In other words, Damore does not view diversity problems as insurmountable blockers. Damore also says of himself that he is less likely to be assertive in ways that are rewarded at Google and explains that efforts to appreciate traits that are better represented among women would also benefit men evincing those traits. In other words, Damore doesn't break things down into "people like me" versus "people not like me". It seems like your summary is completely wrong. I've noticed that a lot of Damore critics have very strong opinions that seem not well informed by Damore's actual writing. Can you highlight any specific thing from Damore's document that is wrong?
- civilized 5y ago
  It's so deeply misinformed to say that Damore posited insurmountable blockers to groups of people not like him. It is impossible for me to understand how someone can claim to have read the document and this is what they understood it to be saying. First of all, he stressed that the relevant traits exist in abundance in all groups, as each group has a wide range of people within it. He had a giant graph illustrating this at the outset. He couldn't have been more clear. Second, he was talking about psychological tendencies and preferences, not a literal inability to do tech work.
  - RangerScience 5y ago
    Yeah, that's fair - it's been awhile since all this went down, so I guess my summary of my own take got hyperbolic over the years :/
    - civilized 5y ago
      You get BIG points for being willing to admit that possibility in my book. We all get things horribly wrong sometimes. Especially with, God, the incredible cultural pressure. I have problems with how Damore expressed himself too FWIW. But I think he was only trying to break an oppressive silence and start a conversation that was being heavily suppressed. I would have been happy to give him a strong, balanced critique had I been at Google and had I felt it wouldn't get me fired too.
      - wussboy 5y ago
        Thank you to both of you for the humility shown in this discussion.
- RangerScience 5y ago
  I think I can. Here's the document: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideol... JD says: "On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways", and then has the nice overlapping bimodal distribution graph. In my read, this data is foundational to many of his arguments, but there's a fundamental flaw in his application of it, which is: why you should expect anyone at Google (or, well, any sub-group with a filter process) would be meaningfully predictable by or representative of their biology's bimodal distribution, in the first place? I've noticed that a lot of Damore proponents never actually engage with the questions I ask them. Can you provide answers to the questions I've already asked? Edit: Acccctually. I'm noticing that this is exhausting for me (wouldn't be surprised if you felt the same) annnnd I don't predict it'll generate all that much worthwhile buuuut I have an idea. Rather than hash over something someone else said four years ago - what do you think of workshopping something that you'd like to express, that you think would receive a negative reception "by the orthodoxy", ala JD? Because I'm willing to bet my time and energy on my thesis that "tone" is what sunk his essay, and that I can help someone else express themselves in a way that'll receive a much, much better reception. (I realize that while I might just be betting my time and energy, you'd be likely to be betting much more, but we're rather limited by this medium haha)
civilized 5y ago
Yes, I think your characterization of Damore's document is deeply flawed, to an irresponsible degree, and I have no problem telling you that directly. The "insurmountable blockers" thing is particularly ridiculous, as I explain in another comment in this tree [1]. I do believe my comment is an appropriately nuanced critique of a flatly ridiculous position. I'm glad that you like SSC though and I'm sure we could get along and discuss this rationally and fairly. I did not say that you didn't read the SSC article, only that you should look at it to appreciate the relevance to the current conversation. All that said, I'm not going to hold back on how poorly I think you've understood what Damore said. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29610370 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29610370
- RangerScience 5y ago
  Fosho. Rest of discussion in other tree; for here, just this bit. You said: > I would highly recommend you read the beginning of the linked SSC article That definitely reads to me like you saying I didn't read it. Can you take a moment and attempt to understand how that would come across as having that meaning?
  - civilized 5y ago
    That's fair. Sometimes when I want to make a point I just charge forward and don't think about the best way to manage how it will sound. "You didn't read X" to a stranger over the internet is an unfounded cheap shot I would never intentionally take.
    - boppo1 5y ago
      You too. Please run for office.
      - civilized 5y ago
        This concept is hilarious to me, but thank you, I will keep it in mind :)
  - 5y ago

ALittleLight 5y ago

I read Damore's document and your summary and description of it seems entirely foreign and inconsistent to me. For example, you summarize it as "these are the insurmountable blockers to this kind of success for people who aren't like me". In Damore's document he discusses ways to promote diversity within Google by accounting for differences between men and women and adjusting Google's hiring and promotion practices to focus less on traits that are more represented among men. In other words, Damore does not view diversity problems as insurmountable blockers. Damore also says of himself that he is less likely to be assertive in ways that are rewarded at Google and explains that efforts to appreciate traits that are better represented among women would also benefit men evincing those traits. In other words, Damore doesn't break things down into "people like me" versus "people not like me". It seems like your summary is completely wrong. I've noticed that a lot of Damore critics have very strong opinions that seem not well informed by Damore's actual writing. Can you highlight any specific thing from Damore's document that is wrong?

civilized 5y ago
It's so deeply misinformed to say that Damore posited insurmountable blockers to groups of people not like him. It is impossible for me to understand how someone can claim to have read the document and this is what they understood it to be saying. First of all, he stressed that the relevant traits exist in abundance in all groups, as each group has a wide range of people within it. He had a giant graph illustrating this at the outset. He couldn't have been more clear. Second, he was talking about psychological tendencies and preferences, not a literal inability to do tech work.
- RangerScience 5y ago
  Yeah, that's fair - it's been awhile since all this went down, so I guess my summary of my own take got hyperbolic over the years :/
  - civilized 5y ago
    You get BIG points for being willing to admit that possibility in my book. We all get things horribly wrong sometimes. Especially with, God, the incredible cultural pressure. I have problems with how Damore expressed himself too FWIW. But I think he was only trying to break an oppressive silence and start a conversation that was being heavily suppressed. I would have been happy to give him a strong, balanced critique had I been at Google and had I felt it wouldn't get me fired too.
    - wussboy 5y ago
      Thank you to both of you for the humility shown in this discussion.
RangerScience 5y ago
I think I can. Here's the document: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideol... JD says: "On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways", and then has the nice overlapping bimodal distribution graph. In my read, this data is foundational to many of his arguments, but there's a fundamental flaw in his application of it, which is: why you should expect anyone at Google (or, well, any sub-group with a filter process) would be meaningfully predictable by or representative of their biology's bimodal distribution, in the first place? I've noticed that a lot of Damore proponents never actually engage with the questions I ask them. Can you provide answers to the questions I've already asked? Edit: Acccctually. I'm noticing that this is exhausting for me (wouldn't be surprised if you felt the same) annnnd I don't predict it'll generate all that much worthwhile buuuut I have an idea. Rather than hash over something someone else said four years ago - what do you think of workshopping something that you'd like to express, that you think would receive a negative reception "by the orthodoxy", ala JD? Because I'm willing to bet my time and energy on my thesis that "tone" is what sunk his essay, and that I can help someone else express themselves in a way that'll receive a much, much better reception. (I realize that while I might just be betting my time and energy, you'd be likely to be betting much more, but we're rather limited by this medium haha)

civilized 5y ago

Yes, I think your characterization of Damore's document is deeply flawed, to an irresponsible degree, and I have no problem telling you that directly. The "insurmountable blockers" thing is particularly ridiculous, as I explain in another comment in this tree [1]. I do believe my comment is an appropriately nuanced critique of a flatly ridiculous position. I'm glad that you like SSC though and I'm sure we could get along and discuss this rationally and fairly. I did not say that you didn't read the SSC article, only that you should look at it to appreciate the relevance to the current conversation. All that said, I'm not going to hold back on how poorly I think you've understood what Damore said. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29610370 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29610370

RangerScience 5y ago
Fosho. Rest of discussion in other tree; for here, just this bit. You said: > I would highly recommend you read the beginning of the linked SSC article That definitely reads to me like you saying I didn't read it. Can you take a moment and attempt to understand how that would come across as having that meaning?
- civilized 5y ago
  That's fair. Sometimes when I want to make a point I just charge forward and don't think about the best way to manage how it will sound. "You didn't read X" to a stranger over the internet is an unfounded cheap shot I would never intentionally take.
  - boppo1 5y ago
    You too. Please run for office.
    - civilized 5y ago
      This concept is hilarious to me, but thank you, I will keep it in mind :)
- 5y ago