←back to thread

Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

(blog.ycombinator.com)
1080 points cbcowans | 6 comments | 15 Aug 17 19:19 UTC | HN request time: 0.23s | source | bottom
Show context
hedgew ◴[15 Aug 17 19:57 UTC] No.15021772[source]▶
Many 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 if I practiced for years to try and catch up.

I do not think that anyone's ability to write should disbar them from discussion. We can not expect perfection from others. Instead we should try to understand them as human beings, and interpret them with generosity and kindness.

replies(31): >>15021858 #>>15021871 #>>15021893 #>>15021907 #>>15021914 #>>15021963 #>>15021998 #>>15022264 #>>15022369 #>>15022372 #>>15022389 #>>15022448 #>>15022883 #>>15022898 #>>15022932 #>>15022997 #>>15023149 #>>15023177 #>>15023435 #>>15023742 #>>15023755 #>>15023819 #>>15023909 #>>15024938 #>>15025044 #>>15025144 #>>15025251 #>>15026052 #>>15026111 #>>15027621 #>>15028052 #
1. grey-area ◴[15 Aug 17 20:15 UTC] No.15021963[source]▶
Instead we should try to understand them as human beings, and interpret them with generosity and kindness.

Advice Damore would have done well to heed when writing his essay. You should also note there are serious questions about its validity - this is not just a matter of tone or style.

https://www.wired.com/story/the-pernicious-science-of-james-...

replies(2): >>15022402 #>>15022671 #
2. sol_remmy ◴[15 Aug 17 20:52 UTC] No.15022402[source]▶
> You should also note there are serious questions about its validity - this is not just a matter of tone or style.

Then why don't you summarize the article's points so people are free to give a rebuttal

3. semi-extrinsic ◴[15 Aug 17 21:15 UTC] No.15022671[source]▶
So I read that, and it's not so much "serious questions about validity" as "overall weak agreement disguised as rebuttal". The main takeaway in the form of disagreement is that social science findings are mostly untrustworthy/not usable?
replies(2): >>15022806 #>>15025078 #
4. moduspol ◴[15 Aug 17 21:29 UTC] No.15022806[source]▶
> The main takeaway in the form of disagreement is that social science findings are mostly untrustworthy/not usable?

No, I think they're fine as long as they're consistent with the idea that sexism and oppression are the only relevant factors.

Otherwise, better keep that science to yourself.

replies(1): >>15023242 #
5. dang ◴[15 Aug 17 22:20 UTC] No.15023242{3}[source]▶
Please don't post ideological snark to HN, regardless of what your underlying point is. It poisons discussion and we can all use less poison right now.
6. grey-area ◴[16 Aug 17 05:08 UTC] No.15025078[source]▶
The point I took away was that this is not settled science at all and he was cherry picking results in order to buttress a conclusion which he'd already made, but also that the differences between men and women on average simply are not large enough to explain the disparities in tech, not even close. There are many other rebuttals which focus on other points, for example if the reason for disparities in women and men in tech is biological, why was the balance significantly altered within a few decades from the 70s to now?