21–30 of 46 posts
What a dumb pretense for an article. If you want to write something criticizing James' memo, just do that . Don't use Larry Page as a scenario for your message and headline.
I almost wonder if they're hoping people will misread the article, think it was an email, and share it on that mistake. It's strange to contrive hypothetical headers.
What a dumb pretense for an article. If you want to write something criticizing James' memo, just do that . Don't use Larry Page as a scenario for your message and headline.
Maybe the author is more comfortable role-playing Larry Page with stuff like that.
Great article. If anyone who agrees with James Damore's point is motivated to see the reason these arguments are summarily dismissed by many, I recommend reading "the mismeasure of man", by Stephen Jay Gould. The idea of biological determinism has one fatal flaw... the grouping.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14skull.html?r...
Pretty good article. The economist can be counted on for insightful takes on current events. I recommend everyone add it to their daily reading list. There is one problem with the article, though. It's not going to bring along any of the right-leaning people who are upset about anti-male discrimination and other such things. The article opens (smartly) by calling out “motivated reasoning”. But by the end, it referenc…
I entirely disagree on the "Motivated reasoning," point. Making that suggestion serves to discredit an argument without providing evidence (and complicates the debate) and it's doubly un-useful because either side could use it here (or in almost any argument)
You could say the same about "ad hominem" or "straw man". I could just argue against anything by saying those things, even if they aren't true.
Let's look at motivated reasoning in this case. Google has diversity initiatives. What is their motive? Google exists to make money for their shareholders, the greatest beneficiaries being the executives and the board. Google has determined that they can be more successful (and therefore make more money) by being inclusive. Seriously now, how likely do you think it is that a company like Google is willing to give up their technical edge?
Pretty good article. The economist can be counted on for insightful takes on current events. I recommend everyone add it to their daily reading list. There is one problem with the article, though. It's not going to bring along any of the right-leaning people who are upset about anti-male discrimination and other such things. The article opens (smartly) by calling out “motivated reasoning”. But by the end, it referenc…
I don't believe empathy, cooperation, collaboration or managing team is engineering. Engineering is human mind dealing with systems and things. Engineering is as much about empathy and collaboration, as much as HR is about being able to use payroll software. You need the latter to be able to do the job, but it isn't "all about" that.
Yes, if you want to go up, then after a certain point you need to get into management, (like the article says "Senior engineers must manage teams", but must manage teams does not mean engineering somehow is about managing teams), but writing documentation, sitting in meetings, being on calls and reviewing other people's code is not engineering. It's not what excited me as a kid, and it's not the reason why in my free time from job I tinker stuff and write code (and nearly every Sr engineer in my team whom I respect does that). I have seen people quit of being a great tech lead to join a startup as a developer, mostly because they felt that something within them was dying.
> Your memo was a great example of what’s called “motivated reasoning” Guess he'll have to join the throngs of people fired for motivated reasoning to arrive at 'diversity is strength' and 'everyone is equal'.
I see you are interested in logical fallacies. You may also be interested in the one called "tu quoque."
Step three is really missing most of the time.
Calling out hypocrisy has the purpose of questioning self-righteousness. It is used to puncture the reality distortion field that some smug people use to "win" discussions.
Since not everyone is a Vulcan, calling out hypocrisy has a legitimate purpose.
Great article. If anyone who agrees with James Damore's point is motivated to see the reason these arguments are summarily dismissed by many, I recommend reading "the mismeasure of man", by Stephen Jay Gould. The idea of biological determinism has one fatal flaw... the grouping.