6 ms·

I think a reasonable person can conclude that what Damore did was de-facto engaging in harmful stereotypes, even if he believed he was creating a grounded argum

I think a reasonable person can conclude that what Damore did was de-facto engaging in harmful stereotypes, even if he believed he was creating a grounded argument from science. > As for "sexual harassment", I genuinely cannot understand how any reasonable person could ever have alleged this in good faith "Since Suzy is a woman, she is more neurotic than Bob" is also sexual harassment, just in terms of legal definitions. Not all sexual harassment is of the "I want intercourse" kind. > What Damore said, objectively, was no more "sexist" than observing that men are taller than women on average So it turns out that if you go around saying "Well of course Suzy's short, she's a woman," that is sexual harrassment. And while Damore didn't single out any specific coworker, he made clear that he was approaching working with his colleagues from a framework that made assumptions about them based on gender, and that made working with him dicey (especially at Google, where management roles shift so fluidly). I think a piece of the puzzle you're missing is this: the law doesn't always trust science. And the law has reason not to. Eugenics was a science. Phrenology was a science. Race essentialism was a science. Science hasn't always pointed the way towards truth in all cases, and the law's method of finding fact differs from the scientific method with good reason. If something's scientifically true and a Title VII violation... it's a Title VII violation. > All people who made such complains were objectively incorrect in their assessment. The words cited, nor anything else in the memo, plainly do not support such a conclusion. When nearly everyone in a population group is making the same claim about their own emotional state... Wouldn't the "reasonable person" principle conclude that, from a legal standpoint at least, the claim should be accepted true for a reasonable person in that population?

zahlman 11mo ago
> I think a reasonable person can conclude that what Damore did was de-facto engaging in harmful stereotypes, even if he believed he was creating a grounded argument from science. No, a reasonable person cannot do so, because this is a matter of fact. This conclusion is incompatible with what the word "stereotype" means. Objectively, an empirically backed statistical trend is not a stereotype. Again, this is like using the word" stereotype to describe the statement "on average, men are taller than women". It is not a question of Damore believing he was creating a grounded argument from science. It is a question of the objective fact that he was doing so. > And while Damore didn't single out any specific coworker, he made clear that he was approaching working with his colleagues from a framework that made assumptions about them based on gender No. His framework does not "make assumptions about them", i.e. about individuals. It highlights things that are known to be true as statistical patterns. He was explicit in noting that he does not use these statistics to prejudge people, for example: > Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions. He was explicit that his purpose in highlighting the statistics is to refute an argument he saw being made that a disparate outcome evidenced a bias. He offered an alternate explanation for the outcome. To say that this is wrong is to say, in effect, that he is not allowed to hold the view, never mind express it. And it is to say that no refutation of the argument presented could be tolerated. That is not how healthy discussion works. And as I recall, Damore's feedback was part of a program explicitly soliciting this sort of feedback. Also notable, Damore also claimed (again correctly, again backed by statistical evidence) that women show on average higher openness and extraversion (other OCEAN traits) on the same studies where they show higher neuroticism. Nobody objected to that. Because the objection was rooted in emotional affect and a knee-jerk reaction to a word without understanding the underlying concept or caring about the evidence presented. > Wouldn't the "reasonable person" principle conclude that, I don't see why: > In law, a reasonable person or reasonable man is a hypothetical person whose character and care conduct, under any common set of facts, is decided through reasoning of good practice or policy.[1][2] I don't agree that the people in question were conducting themselves in anything like that manner.
zahlman 11mo ago
Just to sum up: I propose that people should be able to make statements they reasonably believe are true, where they proactively bring evidence and apply suitable disclaimers ("It was later updated with a preface affirming the author's opposition to workplace sexism and stereotyping.[19]"), and clearly have no intent to offend; and that it is not fair that they could lose their jobs over it when they say these things as part of explicitly solicited feedback. Do you disagree?
- shadowgovt 11mo ago
  I disagree, because I believe racists reasonably believe (as per their own framework) that racism is hard science. There is a nonzero amount of culture-shaping in the Civil Rights Act, and that was by design. It did draw a line in the sand and say "This category of behavior, regardless of its connection to or detachment from reality, is no longer acceptable, and we will use force of law to make it so." Damore made the mistake of failing to realize that an American place of employment is not the agora. Given a couple opportunities to adjust his flight plan, he decided to stay the course. He was free to do so but he became a walking Title VII violation when he did and too much of a liability for Google to continue to employ. On the plus side, I hear he landed on his feet so it all worked out in the end.
  - gitaarik 11mo ago
    But in what way do you conclude that he is a racist? If you're just stating facts about the general differences between man and woman, and aren't necessarily making any conclusions about any particular person. In what step of the process do you say it becomes racist?
    - shadowgovt 11mo ago
      Well, sexist in the case in question. And I don't believe a reasonable person can conclude that someone believes things like "women score higher on the psychiatric test for neuroticism" and then sets that belief aside when evaluating the behavior or performance of women on their team.

zahlman 11mo ago

> I think a reasonable person can conclude that what Damore did was de-facto engaging in harmful stereotypes, even if he believed he was creating a grounded argument from science. No, a reasonable person cannot do so, because this is a matter of fact. This conclusion is incompatible with what the word "stereotype" means. Objectively, an empirically backed statistical trend is not a stereotype. Again, this is like using the word" stereotype to describe the statement "on average, men are taller than women". It is not a question of Damore believing he was creating a grounded argument from science. It is a question of the objective fact that he was doing so. > And while Damore didn't single out any specific coworker, he made clear that he was approaching working with his colleagues from a framework that made assumptions about them based on gender No. His framework does not "make assumptions about them", i.e. about individuals. It highlights things that are known to be true as statistical patterns. He was explicit in noting that he does not use these statistics to prejudge people, for example: > Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions. He was explicit that his purpose in highlighting the statistics is to refute an argument he saw being made that a disparate outcome evidenced a bias. He offered an alternate explanation for the outcome. To say that this is wrong is to say, in effect, that he is not allowed to hold the view, never mind express it. And it is to say that no refutation of the argument presented could be tolerated. That is not how healthy discussion works. And as I recall, Damore's feedback was part of a program explicitly soliciting this sort of feedback. Also notable, Damore also claimed (again correctly, again backed by statistical evidence) that women show on average higher openness and extraversion (other OCEAN traits) on the same studies where they show higher neuroticism. Nobody objected to that. Because the objection was rooted in emotional affect and a knee-jerk reaction to a word without understanding the underlying concept or caring about the evidence presented. > Wouldn't the "reasonable person" principle conclude that, I don't see why: > In law, a reasonable person or reasonable man is a hypothetical person whose character and care conduct, under any common set of facts, is decided through reasoning of good practice or policy.[1][2] I don't agree that the people in question were conducting themselves in anything like that manner.

zahlman 11mo ago

Just to sum up: I propose that people should be able to make statements they reasonably believe are true, where they proactively bring evidence and apply suitable disclaimers ("It was later updated with a preface affirming the author's opposition to workplace sexism and stereotyping.[19]"), and clearly have no intent to offend; and that it is not fair that they could lose their jobs over it when they say these things as part of explicitly solicited feedback. Do you disagree?

shadowgovt 11mo ago
I disagree, because I believe racists reasonably believe (as per their own framework) that racism is hard science. There is a nonzero amount of culture-shaping in the Civil Rights Act, and that was by design. It did draw a line in the sand and say "This category of behavior, regardless of its connection to or detachment from reality, is no longer acceptable, and we will use force of law to make it so." Damore made the mistake of failing to realize that an American place of employment is not the agora. Given a couple opportunities to adjust his flight plan, he decided to stay the course. He was free to do so but he became a walking Title VII violation when he did and too much of a liability for Google to continue to employ. On the plus side, I hear he landed on his feet so it all worked out in the end.
- gitaarik 11mo ago
  But in what way do you conclude that he is a racist? If you're just stating facts about the general differences between man and woman, and aren't necessarily making any conclusions about any particular person. In what step of the process do you say it becomes racist?
  - shadowgovt 11mo ago
    Well, sexist in the case in question. And I don't believe a reasonable person can conclude that someone believes things like "women score higher on the psychiatric test for neuroticism" and then sets that belief aside when evaluating the behavior or performance of women on their team.