Google’s fired engineer: James Damore’s claim against search giant revealed • Hacker News Board

Re: Google’s fired engineer: James Damore’s claim against search giant revealed

#31

Post by manigandham » Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 2:47 PM UTC

aaron-lebo wrote: post #26

manigandham wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you just randomly said something else. His argument is clearly stated right there and quoted by both of us, that was the point I asked about to which you just sidestepped... you are free to say you're unconvinced of the statement but what is your argument against? You can ask him for more info and/or and do your own research too, but his paper is what it is. Why not debate it instead of saying that it's not good e…

Claiming your argument is objective doesn't make it so. He can state that his goal is objectivity through reduced empathy, but if you don't provide objective evidence (he does not), it doesn't mean anything.

That's fair. So you don't buy overall argument from Paul Bloom, who's a Yale psychologist and seems to have done the research for what it's worth.

I'd say that removing anecdotes and emotions for better policy is rather common sense and often used in many military and business practices. In fact it's even a common TV trope.

Either way, and more importantly, I'm happy to actually have a discussion that could potentially lead to the proper objective research rather than stifling any possible discourse.

Re: Google’s fired engineer: James Damore’s claim against search giant revealed

#32

Post by aaron-lebo » Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 2:51 PM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #31

aaron-lebo wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Claiming your argument is objective doesn't make it so. He can state that his goal is objectivity through reduced empathy, but if you don't provide objective evidence (he does not), it doesn't mean anything.

That's fair. So you don't buy overall argument from Paul Bloom, who's a Yale psychologist and seems to have done the research for what it's worth. I'd say that removing anecdotes and emotions for better policy is rather common sense and often used in many military and business practices. In fact it's even a common TV trope. Either way, and more importantly, I'm happy to actually have a discussion that could potential…

No, I just don't believe you can cite an article and suggest that's evidence for your claims without explaining why. Bloom might work at Yale, but that doesn't mean he's right (psychology - that's a quickly moving field) or that his article supports Damore's. If he really wanted a useful discussion, he could have done that for his readers, that's how basic research works.

Bloom even says:

But even if you accept this argument, there is a lot more to life than public policy.

and

I used to believe this, but I am no longer sure.

Re: Google’s fired engineer: James Damore’s claim against search giant revealed

#33

Post by oj-lappi » Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 2:59 PM UTC

aaron-lebo wrote: post #26

manigandham wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you just randomly said something else. His argument is clearly stated right there and quoted by both of us, that was the point I asked about to which you just sidestepped... you are free to say you're unconvinced of the statement but what is your argument against? You can ask him for more info and/or and do your own research too, but his paper is what it is. Why not debate it instead of saying that it's not good e…

Claiming your argument is objective doesn't make it so. He can state that his goal is objectivity through reduced empathy, but if you don't provide objective evidence (he does not), it doesn't mean anything.

A) that wasn't your point.

Your point was "Damore seems to be wanting a policy based on anecdotes because his reasoning is neither objective nor convincing."

And I don't see how that follows. I think we can at least agree that he's not arguing FOR what he's explicitly AGAINST.

B) "It doesn't mean anything"

See A). The memo may or may not include any facts undisputed or otherwise, but we can certainly get a feeling for its intent, which at least part of was: to criticize Googles policies and possibly open up a conversation about them.

I don't think Google handled that very well.

The way Google has steered advertising on youtube [1,2,3] also makes me think this suit is onto something. At least a better look.

1. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/21/youtube-g...

2. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/prageru-sues-you...

3. Video by h3h3 I can't find right now

Re: Google’s fired engineer: James Damore’s claim against search giant revealed

#34

Post by manigandham » Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 3:03 PM UTC

aaron-lebo wrote: post #32

manigandham wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fair. So you don't buy overall argument from Paul Bloom, who's a Yale psychologist and seems to have done the research for what it's worth. I'd say that removing anecdotes and emotions for better policy is rather common sense and often used in many military and business practices. In fact it's even a common TV trope. Either way, and more importantly, I'm happy to actually have a discussion that could potential…

No, I just don't believe you can cite an article and suggest that's evidence for your claims without explaining why. Bloom might work at Yale, but that doesn't mean he's right (psychology - that's a quickly moving field) or that his article supports Damore's. If he really wanted a useful discussion, he could have done that for his readers, that's how basic research works. Bloom even says: But even if you accept this…

An argument regardless of (or even without) evidence would does not mean it cannot be discussed. That is the fundamental issue of the original post.

However, you are clearly misquoting that article and Bloom's statements, why not just use the actual entire paragraph:

"But even if you accept this argument, there is a lot more to life than public policy. Consider our everyday interactions with our parents and children, with our partners and friends. Consider also certain special relationships, such as that between doctor and patient or therapist and client. Empathy might not scale up to the policy level, but it seems an unalloyed good when it comes to these intimate relationships—the more the better.

I used to believe this, but I am no longer sure."

Bloom's statement is that life includes things beyond policy like personal relationships, where more empathy is always seen as good, however he is no longer sure about that and then goes on to describe why in much more detail.

Re: Google’s fired engineer: James Damore’s claim against search giant revealed

#35

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 3:04 PM UTC

oj-lappi wrote: post #33

aaron-lebo wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Claiming your argument is objective doesn't make it so. He can state that his goal is objectivity through reduced empathy, but if you don't provide objective evidence (he does not), it doesn't mean anything.

A) that wasn't your point. Your point was "Damore seems to be wanting a policy based on anecdotes because his reasoning is neither objective nor convincing." And I don't see how that follows. I think we can at least agree that he's not arguing FOR what he's explicitly AGAINST. B) "It doesn't mean anything" See A). The memo may or may not include any facts undisputed or otherwise, but we can certainly get a feeling fo…

[deleted]

Re: Google’s fired engineer: James Damore’s claim against search giant revealed

#36

Post by aaron-lebo » Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 3:07 PM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #34

aaron-lebo wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I just don't believe you can cite an article and suggest that's evidence for your claims without explaining why. Bloom might work at Yale, but that doesn't mean he's right (psychology - that's a quickly moving field) or that his article supports Damore's. If he really wanted a useful discussion, he could have done that for his readers, that's how basic research works. Bloom even says: But even if you accept this…

An argument regardless of (or even without) evidence would does not mean it cannot be discussed. That is the fundamental issue of the original post. However, you are clearly misquoting that article and Bloom's statements, why not just use the actual entire paragraph: "But even if you accept this argument, there is a lot more to life than public policy. Consider our everyday interactions with our parents and children,…

Yes, and if a scientist is choosing words like "no longer sure", that's not a really strong indicator of belief in it, certainly not a good argument for policy.

If an argument doesn't have evidence, it has less value than something that does, that's why the way people are still talking about it like it's something more interesting than a 4chan post is confusing.

Re: Google’s fired engineer: James Damore’s claim against search giant revealed

#37

Post by Berobero » Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 3:09 PM UTC

rhapsodic wrote: post #23

danpalmer wrote: post #10

This article mentions that in California there is no protection of freedom of speech in employment (i.e. a company can terminate you for voicing an opinion it doesn't want voiced), but this seems to be the premise of Damore's unfair dismissal claim? On that basis, I can't see him having much of a chance.

>This article mentions that in California there is no protection of freedom of speech in employment (i.e. a company can terminate you for voicing an opinion it doesn't want voiced), but this seems to be the premise of Damore's unfair dismissal claim? Uh, no, actually, it's been reported many times in many other places that Damore's claim is that he was speaking out in an effort to improve working conditions at Google…

> effort to improve working conditions

I'd assume the bar for this, though, is far higher than just claiming it. Obviously we're not not dealing with a clear cut poor working conditions like no restroom on site, or constant verbal abuse, etc; the meat of the contention seems to be that he wasn't allowed to discuss company policy with coworkers in regards to a politically sensitive subject, and that people with political views that don't cleanly align with that policy feel ostracized. That seems pretty close to "my freedom of speech wasn't protected".

Regardless, it feels like the litigation is somewhat lacking in merit unless Damore can cleanly tie it back issues that made his day to day job difficult to perform (i.e. bona fide poor working conditions).

Re: Google’s fired engineer: James Damore’s claim against search giant revealed

#38

Post by larrykwg » Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 3:22 PM UTC

StevePerkins wrote: post #8

funkythingss wrote: post #4

These cowards don't link to the original: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I... Instead, they link to the heavily edited Gizmodo hit piece, that has the sources removed. Dishonest

Looking at the poster's history, I imagine this was "laziness" rather than "cowardice". For an example of cowardice, take note when this thread is almost certainly flagged and buried within the next hour or two.

You were right they flagged it, that story is hilariously proving itself constantly.

Re: Google’s fired engineer: James Damore’s claim against search giant revealed

#39

Post by Viliam1234 » Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 3:29 PM UTC

So sad to see yet another article linking the version of memo edited by Gizmodo, instead of the original one.

Just imagine: You write "X". A malicious website writes "he wrote Y". Somehow it becomes an important topic for the whole planet. And almost all newspapers link the "he wrote Y" document.

Is this an exceptional incompetence, or a standard in journalism? Is it a new standard of the clickbait era, or was it always like this?

Re: Google’s fired engineer: James Damore’s claim against search giant revealed

#40

Post by StevePerkins » Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 3:37 PM UTC

pdkl95 wrote: post #30

StevePerkins wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if you're addressing me, OP, Damore, or just yelling into the aether. I certainly haven't said anything TO address regarding the content of Damore's original paper. For the record, I found Damore's reasoning to be terribly flawed. However, I happen to also believe that squashing all public discussion in its wake is foolish, cowardly, and entirely counterproductive from a practical standpoint. If you're a…

The problem is you're implicitly assuming this (and other recent "culture war topics" is actually about reasoning and legitimate attempt at debate. It isn't. This is about controlling narratives and reframing offensive goals so they become a legitimate political opinion. Most of these calls for a "debate" are not trying to actually debate anything. They are trying to make enough confusing noise and repeat their talki…

The problem is you're implicitly saying that ANY discussion is a pointless waste. As there will always be people on one more sides who see any other views as illegitimate per se. And there will always be people on all sides using "clickbait"-style tactics to sway people who lack critical thinking skills.

I refuse to accept this premise. Even if some (or even most) discussion is disingenuous or low-quality, I refuse to believe that anything positive can come from declaring any discussion topic forbidden in the public square.