> I disagree with his use of science and data to convert opinions into facts.
Funny. So if you backed your opinions with science that is not right? It was hard to keep reading after that statement.
Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo
111–120 of 1001 posts
Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo
#112Here's a (perhaps controversial) view: people have no rational basis to equate the freedom to speak with freedom from marginalization.
If a person presents beliefs that are incongruent with facts, or that attempt to use facts in a way that isn't compatible with advancing an opinion, I think that person's views should be marginalized. I put climate change deniers, anti-evolutionists, and people who use questionable application of psychological studies to generalize about gender-based proclivities in roughly the same boat.
I also think there is no small amount of fear of a loss of status and privelege being expressed by conservatives when they claim to be marginalized: not having their views taken as gospel by virtue of their privileged position is different from being marginalized.
Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo
#113I think this is one of the better responses I've seen This line really struck me as being spot on: >There’s a difference between “let’s have a discussion” and “let me tell you what’s up, all you wrong people.”
On the other hand, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law
Emphatically defending the wrong ideas in a debate forum, and seeing what points do and do not withstand scrutiny, is a very traditional and pure form of discourse. I claim that this process is even at the heart of scientific progress.
Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo
#114Many of the more reasonable criticisms of the memo say that it wasn't written well enough; it could've been more considerate, it should have used better language, or better presentation. In this particular link, Scott Alexander is used as an example of better writing, and he certainly is one of the best and most persuasive modern writers I've found. However, I can not imagine ever matching his talent and output, even…
I'd actually say just the opposite - the memo seemed to be written as well and in as conciliatory manner as it could be written and the memo made good (or at least plausible) point and bad points. But the bad points were so bad that it was appropriate and necessary to fire Damore. Essentially, as analogy, there's no way for a person to say "Black people are inferior and shouldn't be hired", as a message broadcast thr…
That's a really inflammatory and totally inappropriate analogy.
Downvoters, please cite which part of Damore's essay you think is comparable to overt racism. He explicitly said that he thinks women are capable, and should be hired.
Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo
#115I really enjoyed the well reasoned discussion. I think a lot more constructive dialog is happening now that people have calmed down. Of all the sentiments expressed in the article, I mainly disagree with the comment that Damore did the company harm. He posted his thoughts on an internal discussion board and someone else leaked this internal document to the press. The leaker did harm to Google not Damore. In fact, I t…
As far as I have been able to put things together as a non-Googler he went to an unrecorded "diversity summit" about a month and 1/2 ago, where, according to his statements in the Jordan Peterson interview, practices where put forward that he considered to be potentially illegal. He then wrote the document in his free time and posted it to a forum dedicated for feedback to the summit (? or more general diversity rela…
I have no factual information, but I know that when I write papers where I want to invite discussion, I don't make blatant statements based on a subset of the evidence I have and then expect people to dispassionately pick them apart for me.
Rather, I present my honest assessment of the strengths of the various pieces of evidence, pro and con. If I "want to be proven wrong", I certainly wouldn't present a falsely certain argument. That is not arguing in good faith.
And that's how I would argue a scientific question, not an argument about my coworkers ability.
Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd actually say just the opposite - the memo seemed to be written as well and in as conciliatory manner as it could be written and the memo made good (or at least plausible) point and bad points. But the bad points were so bad that it was appropriate and necessary to fire Damore. Essentially, as analogy, there's no way for a person to say "Black people are inferior and shouldn't be hired", as a message broadcast thr…
Again, like many others you are confusing "less people from this group are qualified" with "people from this group are less qualified". The first doesn't say anything about single individuals, and doesn't suggest any discriminatory practice against the group. The second does.
The article rebuts this point by name.
Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo
#117These comments are largely directed at a straw-man, and in many cases actually agree with the memo, when they think they disagree.
"I disagree with...his arguments pointing to biological factors as a primary reason that there aren’t more female software engineers"
- straw-man - he argues that biology may in part explain the lack of 50/50 representation. from the TLDR: "Differences in distributions of traits between men and women (and not “socially constructed oppression”) may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership"
"I disagree completely and utterly that the (yes, real) average differences between men and women map to being better or worse at certain jobs. Interest in certain jobs, certainly."
- you actually agree with the memo. From the memo: "Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men...These...differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas"
"It seemed like he cherry-picked research that agreed with his views and didn’t seek dissenting research or opinions before sending the document to internal Google groups."
- The purpose of posting this memo was to seek dissenting research and other opinions.
"differences are so significant as to suggest that men or women are better or worse on average at any job that relies on mental work."
- straw man. men or women being "better" is not the concern of the memo.
"his skepticism of his own views deserves a much more prominent placement in the text than a footnote – had he led with this and made it clear he wasn’t sure whether he was correct and simply wanted to start a discussion (as he subsequently stated in a YouTube interview), he likely would not have been blasted the same way."
- the first "background" paragraph literally is this.
"Google has stated many times that its efforts involve focusing more resources on searching for candidates in minority groups rather than lowering the bar for these groups. Such misrepresentation is harmful to those of us at Google who have to overcome the bias that we were hired based other factors beside our skills."
- the author is also concerned with harm to female employees in the form of increased tension resulting from hiring practices that are perceived as lowering the bar. Google obviously would not do this intentionally, but the author felt the practices "effectively" lowered the bar.
Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo
#118Many of the more reasonable criticisms of the memo say that it wasn't written well enough; it could've been more considerate, it should have used better language, or better presentation. In this particular link, Scott Alexander is used as an example of better writing, and he certainly is one of the best and most persuasive modern writers I've found. However, I can not imagine ever matching his talent and output, even…
I am well aware of my inabilities to tackle this issue properly, so ... I don't write a big document about it and circulate it. Discretion is an issue here too. If you are not capable of addressing an issue in a productive manner, then don't, especially if it's not even related to your job. James was hired as an engineer to work on engineering stuff; he wasn't hired as a sociologist to work on diversity stuff. He mad…
right... and i was just hired to pour this Zyklon B down this chimney... why should i question any other aspect of my employment or my employer's actions.
Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo
#119>> political correctness makes it hard for people with unpopular opinions to ask questions and discuss their viewpoints... non_PC != unpopular
I'm going to disagree with you there. 'PC' ideas and speech are those that are popular enough to be said in the company of a diverse crowd. This doesn't mean that they have to be bland or inoffensive to absolutely everyone; just popular enough that any dissenters will be a small minority and pressured against speaking up in fear of social punishment.
Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo
#120> that these arguments about innate biological traits are complicated by trans, non-binary, and intersex folks. 2% (outliers) of the population does not invalidate the trends of the other 98% This is just wrong. > I disagree that it’s possible to write what he did about general populations, then walk it back to say “but of course it doesn’t apply at an individual level.” Gorillas typically have black fur. So no goril…
> 2% (outliers) of the population does not invalidate the trends of the other 98%
A universal claim is invalidated if there is even 1 exception.