Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

It seems to be completely lost on a lot of HN people that Damore's memo was not very scientific at all for the subject matter he was tackling. It was written in a certain intellectual language that often provides a veneer of authority for those who agree with his conclusions and lack the domain knowledge to understand the nuances of why he's wrong. But a lot of these "bio-truth" type of arguments do the same thing.

Google had plenty of reason to rethink his employment, not just because of his poor judgement, but because of the fact that he tackled a new (to him) science is such an unreasoned and unscientific way.

All it would have taken was for him to run the essay past a couple of people with solid domain expertise, and they would have pointed out the dozens and dozens of problems with his assertions, reasoning and perspective.

As people have pointed out on HN before, there is something about computer science that leads people to believe they can out-think experts in other fields at their own game. And while reaching outside of your expertise is to be encouraged, it should come with a certain humility that is not common in our industry.

>>All it would have taken was for him to run the essay past a couple of people with solid domain expertise, and they would have pointed out the dozens and dozens of problems with his assertions, reasoning and perspective.

I don't think this squares with truth. There is at least one PH.D psychologist who mentioned the memo was generally correct.

> he tackled a new (to him) science is such an unreasoned and unscientific way

So very much this. He presented very few facts and a tiny bit of cherry-picked research. He decided to tackle a big-boy subject with a sixth-grader's game.

Pro-tip: Don't dress up your opinions as fact. Pro-tip #2: Don't tackle large or sensitive topics with an air of authority Pro-tip #3: When addressing your colleagues find people who disagree with you or question you and incorporate their feedback.

#3 is the most difficult step. If you perform true self-reflection it can often lead to abandonment of the argument you were attempting to make because you realize you were wrong or simply that you don't know much about the topic.

> there is something about computer science that leads people to believe they can out-think experts in other fields at their own game.

This is very common among many fields of expertise. Go ask any physicist at your local university about crank papers claiming to have overturned Einstein (and possibly all of science). First of all they'll have a drawer full of them. Secondly you'll see over half are written by someone with an engineering degree.

> Pro-tip #3: When addressing your colleagues find people who disagree with you or question you and incorporate their feedback.

Which is why he brought it to the Google Skeptics group.

Edit: and it was they (or someone they shared it with) that leaked the document.

Yep, many agree with him.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/01/gender-imbalances-are-m...

http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagger...

https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/08/10/the-google-memo-what...

http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-...

I don't understand why this means that Damore shouldn't have shared his opinion.

We absolutely should not construct a credentialist edifice that says only people certified to have gone through brainwa---err, regent-approved programs--- can comment on a topic. That would prevent discussion on most topics, as virtually all topics of interest are complex and have many years of study behind them.

Overall, these comments are still criticizing the how instead of the what, which is what people do when they don't know how to criticize the what but want to express their offense anyway. It's much easier to criticize delivery and in fact it will always happen whenever anyone cares, because delivery is inherently contextual/subjective.

If Damore's paper was rejected from Nature or another peer-reviewed journal, that'd make sense, as it is not a rigorous academic work. It's just a conjecture on the state of diversity hiring and it expresses his reasoning for believing the way he does. If he is so wrong, it should be simple to disprove him, and we can all move on without anyone having to get fired.

>I don't understand why this means that Damore shouldn't have shared his opinion.

"Shouldn't have shared his opinion" and "should have shared his opinion in a different way" are two completely different things, and I don't see many people saying the first.

I saw so many people saying the first (on sites like Medium and Facebook). Not on HN, though.

> Google had plenty of reason to rethink his employment, not just because of his poor judgement, but because of the fact that he tackled a new (to him) science is such an unreasoned and unscientific way.

This is emphatically not the issue. Suppose for argument's sake that he had made an air-tight case. Wouldn't he still be advancing "harmful gender stereotypes?" It wouldn't void a single one of Sundar Pichai's points when he fired him.

And turn it around; suppose an activist had sent around a poorly argued pro-diversity screed that "cherry-picked" shoddy research on implicit association tests, stereotype threat, etc. Would Google seriously be rethinking her employment for tackling research in an "unreasoned and unscientific way?"

Damore is out because he took on the left's sacred beliefs.

No one outside of science should be able to talk about scientific subjects or reference science? Really? Do you apply these arguments equally to people you agree with as those you don't?

As far as I can tell, nothing in the memo was wrong or "cherry picked". He presented some evidence that women have statistically different personality traits than men. That's absolutely correct! That's not very controversial. Then he suggests that different personality traits might lead to different choice of professions and interests. That shouldn't be a terribly controversial idea either.

I feel like a lot of the statements in this thread are arguing the first.

I think "should have shared his opinion in a different way" is moving the goalposts too far. I think anything that would have placated critics on this point would have neutered Damore's position.

Can someone produce a "diversity culture" critic (for lack of a better term) who provides a good example for Damore? One that is well received across the board?

The people he cited told reporters they disagree with his interpretations of their research. There's a wired article going around with direct quotes but I'm mobile and can't find it easily.

> there is something about computer science that leads people to believe they can out-think experts in other fields at their own game.

That's the same stereotyping generalization found in the doc you oppose.

To be fair to Damore, his paper wasn't intended for wide publication. It was a quick internal write-up intended to generate discussion among people who already had some frame of reference for Damore's background and professional trajectory. There was very little chance he would've been mistaken for a biology professor within the Google Skeptics discussion group.

A big four-paragraph disclaimer at the beginning would've been a big waste of everyone's time, and it could just as easily be interpreted as a sign of hostility or malfeasance. If people want to dislike something, there is an infinity of potential nits to fixate on.

I've always been brash so I've been through the "delivery ringer" many times. The conclusion I've reached is that frequently, the only way to avoid it is to be so opaque and listless in your communication that people aren't sure what you meant.

If you say something people don't like in a non-ambiguous way, they will be mad, and they will insist on finding a reason to dismiss it.

Damore shouldn't have shared his opinion (the way he did) because there is a huge gap between what he claims to aim for and what he actually does. He claims that open discussion, diversity and helping to improve the situation are what important to him. But in practice he does right the opposite: creates a hostile working environment with perverted reasoning, loads of bias perpetuating harmful stereotypes, ignoring how his tone will affect others and pretty agressive promotion of these views instead of politely sharing a well thought out intellectually honest opinion. Given the sensitivity of topic he tries to discuss, 'how' is an extremely important part of 'what', still he manages to twist his declared 'what' to the 180 degree with his 'how'. It seems that he was fired exactly for showing strong intention to continue the promotion of his highly biased opinions while completely ignoring what it actually does to people around him. Disproving the memo wouldn't help to stop it if this was the case.

First, you've crossed over from criticizing delivery into criticizing content, so it's clear that's actually the part that offends you. What you're saying is that Damore shouldn't have delivered his opinion unless it was first made to match something reasonably close to your own opinion. There is nothing inherently "dishonest" or "perverted" about Damore's memo; that is a subtext that you are choosing to read in because you disagree with its conclusions.

If Damore had pined on the tragedy of the modern economic structure while exhaustively disclaiming every potential discriminatory implication before he began the memo, I guarantee people would've read just as much "intellectual dishonesty", "perverted reasoning", and "loads of bias" as they did now. In fact, they very likely would've read more, taking the content that initially appeared friendly to their POV as a sign that Damore had malicious intent and that he was attempting to hoodwink people by pretending to be "on their side".

As discussed below, if someone wants to dismiss something they don't like, airy, abstract terms like "perverted reasoning" will get bandied around no matter what. These terms are great precisely because their subjective interpretation allows the writer to sound semi-credible in their condemnation without having to specify further.

Damore was fired because once this hit the mainstream press, it was the only way for Google to preserve a strong defense against inevitable discrimination suits.

Of course they did. When the press is on a witch hunt, and somebody is made to be the scum of the earth, people want to distance themselves from them. And if they hear what said person said framed as an "anti-diversity manifesto" (as if that was what it was), "sexist" etc, they would obviously say they "disagree with his interpretations of their research".

Your response is the kind of response that just builds support for him more.

What have I seen since this memo came out, from people who disagree with it?

His words are offensive. Poorly written. Yes there's science but it was cherry picked. He's a "sixth-grader" and "not a pro". He's wasting work time. He's naive. He's a bad person. He's "alt right". He wrote his memo with an air of authority that he should not have used. He doesn't understand the topic. OK, he's studied biology but not the right kind of biology. He said women suck compared to men. OK, maybe he didn't but he implied it. His memo was too long. Or maybe it was too short, because he cited 'very few facts'. Why is he "evidence bombing" people. He should have known readers would misinterpret it and that's his fault. He shouldn't have given interviews to YouTubers I don't like. OK, he interviewed with the WSJ but he was wearing a dumb t-shirt. He's the face of Silicon Valley sexism. Some women are offended and that's enough to stop discussing it. It's ridiculous that anyone agrees with him. He posted it to the wrong forums. Maybe he posted it to the right forums but he should have known it'd go viral. Why is he so naive? He deserves everything he gets.

These are all excuses to shoot the messenger. I am tired of reading them. They do not advance the debate at all, they are just ways to try and shut it down. And every time I see someone attack James Damore, or his writing style or whatever, instead of talking about the actual issues, I feel these people are losing the debate.

So you're questioning the integrity of the scientists Damore cited...to give more credit to his argument. Neat how that works.

Your third source claims that there is evidence of gender gap being due to biological differences that result in different interests. But Damore also made the claim that there is a biological difference in ability. Your source strongly disagrees, saying that "gender differences in math/science ability, achievement, and performance are small or nil." So they agree with some of Damore's memo and were careful to point out that they disagree with his claim about ability. If Damore had been that careful, he might still have a job.

Your fourth source includes one of the scientists who Damore cited. David P Schmitt's take is that "using someone’s biological sex to essentialize an entire group of people’s personality would be like operating with an axe. Not precise enough to do much good, probably will cause a lot of harm."

Hardly "many agree with him". And it bears repeating over and over that cherry-picking science facts (or even the opinion of scientists who agree with you) is not science. It's the same exercise those who believe in chem trails engage in. Let's stop. If you want information about the population Google hires from, do research on that population not the general public. You would be studying the smartest of folks, who are likely to graduate from the elite universities of the world. Studies of biological differences in the general population might have little bearing on the specific population Google hires from.

No, I'm mentioning a common reaction during witch hunting / moral panic / etc scenarios.

(Plus I don't consider people as solid blocks. One's reaction towards the media is not representative of the integrity of their work, one's family life is not representative of their public persona, and so on. Galileo bowed to the Inquisition, but his work is still solid).

Doubly so if, as it often happens, what they were asked to comment on were not the writings themselves in full, but a straw-man summarisation of them by journalists and related pundits (on which everybody seems to argue about).