Most active commenters
  • kristianc(3)
  • thinkfurther(3)

←back to thread

Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

(blog.ycombinator.com)
1080 points cbcowans | 15 comments | 15 Aug 17 19:19 UTC | HN request time: 4.017s | 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 #
ryanbrunner ◴[15 Aug 17 20:06 UTC] No.15021858[source]▶
I think one thing that struck me from the linked article was the point that the memo wasn't structured to invite discussion. It wasn't "let's have a chat", it was "here's an evidence bomb of how you're all wrong".

I think advancing points is fine, but if you're after productive discussion rather than an adversarial debate, you need to proactively invite discussion. And if an adversarial debate was what he was after, that does strike me as inappropriate work communication.

replies(17): >>15021879 #>>15021892 #>>15022000 #>>15022018 #>>15022073 #>>15022588 #>>15022780 #>>15022931 #>>15023041 #>>15023358 #>>15023561 #>>15023702 #>>15024459 #>>15024944 #>>15024964 #>>15027097 #>>15028521 #
1. annexrichmond ◴[15 Aug 17 20:20 UTC] No.15022018[source]▶
I disagree. He mentioned in an interview[1] that he was looking to be proven wrong which is what led him to share it with the Skeptics group at Google, which is when the document propagated. He had actually wrote the document weeks prior but was unsatisfied with the lack of discussion on his document.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU

replies(1): >>15022069 #
2. kristianc ◴[15 Aug 17 20:24 UTC] No.15022069[source]▶
That seems an odd approach tbh. Many 'Skeptics' groups (Skeptic / Rationalist YouTube) online at least would agree with his reasoning. It strikes me as odd that he was seeking to take down an ideological echo chamber but published it initially in the echo chamber most likely to agree with him.
replies(4): >>15022127 #>>15022559 #>>15023141 #>>15023294 #
3. Moshe_Silnorin ◴[15 Aug 17 20:29 UTC] No.15022127[source]▶
The skeptic tribe is extremely politicly polarized.
4. bkirkby ◴[15 Aug 17 21:05 UTC] No.15022559[source]▶
His first group he sent it to was a diversity group. I think it reasonable that a skeptic group who, ostensibly, would side with reason would be a next logical step.
replies(1): >>15022941 #
5. andrewingram ◴[15 Aug 17 21:43 UTC] No.15022941{3}[source]▶
Yes, even if they agreed with the echo chamber idea on the whole, they'd still seek to point out flaws and fallacies in his arguments.
6. thinkfurther ◴[15 Aug 17 22:06 UTC] No.15023141[source]▶
> That seems an odd approach tbh.

If that's odd, then what is firing just to prove him right?

replies(1): >>15023182 #
7. kristianc ◴[15 Aug 17 22:12 UTC] No.15023182{3}[source]▶
> If that's odd, then what is firing just to prove him right?

Google is a company with shareholders and P/L. It's not a thought experiment, a family, a social commons, or a debating society. It exists to make money.

Google took the decision to fire him based on what was likely to create a conducive atmosphere for its workers.

His memo, however construed, made it likely that he could no longer be able to contribute as effectively to some teams.

Google's responsibility to Damore begins and ends at their mutual alignment of economic interests.

replies(1): >>15023266 #
8. thinkfurther ◴[15 Aug 17 22:22 UTC] No.15023266{4}[source]▶
> Google took the decision to fire him based on what was likely to create a conducive atmosphere for its workers.

They did the opposite, someone said it's not okay to shame people into silence, and then they did just that.

> made it likely that he could no longer be able to contribute as effectively to some teams.

What does "as effectively" mean? What are "some teams"? If someone sweats a lot, and a million other things, the above would also be technically true. Or hey, if a company fired someone over something like this. That will make a lot of bright people, both male and female, think twice before even giving Google a consideration.

> Google's responsibility to Damore begins and ends at their mutual alignment of economic interests.

It's not about responsibility to him, but about their responsibility for themselves to not shit the bed like they did.

replies(1): >>15023348 #
9. emsy ◴[15 Aug 17 22:26 UTC] No.15023294[source]▶
Scepticism is a methodology, not a political group. I think it just looks that way because the term has been kind of hijacked by anti-regressives.
replies(1): >>15024962 #
10. kristianc ◴[15 Aug 17 22:32 UTC] No.15023348{5}[source]▶
Then Google's calculus is simply different to yours. For what its worth, I don't think Google's response to this is going to have a significant impact on Google's ability to hire talented people, or that white, heterosexual, cisgendered people are going to feel that their opportunities at Google are likely to be curtailed. Females, I would say, or any other minority within Google, are even less likely to.

Amazon attracts talented staff despite a widespread perception that it's a hellhole to work at (https://www.theverge.com/2015/8/15/9159309/you-probably-dont...). Google, to most people, will continue to represent a dream job.

replies(1): >>15023491 #
11. thinkfurther ◴[15 Aug 17 22:56 UTC] No.15023491{6}[source]▶
> Amazon attracts talented staff

Yet you don't know if they would have even more talented staff being more decent. They're by definition stuck with what they can get.

12. sudojudo ◴[16 Aug 17 04:38 UTC] No.15024962{3}[source]▶
> hijacked by anti-regressives

Would someone please explain what this means, wouldn't an anti-regressive be a progressive? If so, why not state it that way?

Also, I thought the term "skeptic" had been hijacked by conspiracy wackos. When I think of a classic skeptic, I look to James Randi and the like; critical thinkers who expose quackery. But, for the last 15-20 years, conspiracy theorists have taken the term over (e.g. vaccine/climate/GMO skeptics). I fall into the Randi group of skeptics, but I sure as hell don't describe myself using that word, for fear of being lumped in with the second lot.

Real skeptics tend to be progressive, conspiracy skeptics tend to be regressive.

Based on the spelling, I'll assume emsy is a Brit... maybe things are different over there, but Randi was always more popular in England than in the US. I'm missing something.

replies(2): >>15025152 #>>15025182 #
13. emsy ◴[16 Aug 17 05:28 UTC] No.15025152{4}[source]▶
I'm German. The skeptics I were talking about and presumably the comment I answered on, were the YouTube skeptics. What I meant with anti-regressive was that these skeptics mostly tackle so-called progressives that use racism and sexism for their arguments or policies.

I've never heard the conspiracy theorists called skeptics, so I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.

replies(1): >>15025456 #
14. flukus ◴[16 Aug 17 05:38 UTC] No.15025182{4}[source]▶
> Would someone please explain what this means, wouldn't an anti-regressive be a progressive?

Kind of, but just like skeptic the word "progressive" was hijacked by groups like BLM that started advocating for things like a return to segregation.

I used to be happy to call myself a skeptic and a progressive, but that was 10 years ago when the world made more sense.

15. sudojudo ◴[16 Aug 17 06:53 UTC] No.15025456{5}[source]▶
Thanks for clearing it up. It looks like certain groups are using terms in ways that I'm not accustomed to.

Now I need new words. Damned kids and your identity politics!