Most active commenters
  • humanrebar(3)

←back to thread

Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

(blog.ycombinator.com)
1080 points cbcowans | 17 comments | 15 Aug 17 19:19 UTC | HN request time: 1.534s | 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 #
nicolashahn ◴[15 Aug 17 20:25 UTC] No.15022073[source]▶
Then the correct way to handle it is to drop another refutational evidence bomb attacking his primary points instead of picking the low hanging fruit of claiming it's "too confrontational," "poorly written," "naive," or whatever other secondary problems exist (this is aside from wilfully misrepresenting his claims, which is definitely a bigger problem). Plenty of far more aggressive articles and essays have been written from the opposite side that have not been criticized in the same way.

And for the record, I did not get any aggressive tone from his paper. I thought he was as polite as he needed to be and made the necessary caveats. I think many people were just so unprepared to hear any argument from an opposing viewpoint that they read into it what they wanted to.

replies(15): >>15022166 #>>15022241 #>>15022251 #>>15022252 #>>15022290 #>>15022356 #>>15022677 #>>15023037 #>>15023069 #>>15023120 #>>15023315 #>>15023353 #>>15023493 #>>15024899 #>>15025581 #
jake-low ◴[15 Aug 17 20:40 UTC] No.15022252[source]▶
This is addressed in TFA.

> [W]hen I go to work, I go to work, and not to a debate club. Some people at Google reacted by saying “well if he’s so wrong, then why not refute him,” but that requires spending a significant amount of time building an argument against the claims in his document. On the other hand, if I remain silent, that silence could be mistaken for agreement. I should not be forced into that kind of debate at work. (Ida)

> I’m just exhausted by having this same damn argument over and over again since I was a teenager and the amount of time and energy I keep having to spend to counter it. (Edith)

Also, none of the "quoted phrases" that you criticized appear in TFA or in any parent comment.

replies(3): >>15022410 #>>15022483 #>>15022715 #
1. humanrebar ◴[15 Aug 17 20:58 UTC] No.15022483[source]▶
> [W]hen I go to work, I go to work, and not to a debate club.

Sure. But people on the wrong side of the Google monoculture feel like they have to be closeted at work. They don't want to feel that way either. There has to be a way for everyone to be professional and honest here.

replies(3): >>15022598 #>>15023210 #>>15023447 #
2. sidlls ◴[15 Aug 17 21:08 UTC] No.15022598[source]▶
Good. People who think we don't need diversity efforts or that think studies of aggregates should be applied to determine efforts for smaller specialized populations or individuals should keep it to themselves. I wouldn't want a racist to feel comfortable quoting Bell Curve "research" or criminal population composition numbers at work,for many of the same reasons.
replies(3): >>15022731 #>>15022751 #>>15022837 #
3. jrs95 ◴[15 Aug 17 21:20 UTC] No.15022731[source]▶
So you're saying that any research or argument that comes to a conclusion you disagree with should be equated with the research and arguments that Neo-Nazis use? How progressive, open-minded, and forward thinking. That this is a widely held viewpoint on these things ought to be more disturbing than the memo.
replies(1): >>15022916 #
4. JimDabell ◴[15 Aug 17 21:22 UTC] No.15022751[source]▶
> People who think we don't need diversity efforts

The memo in question explicitly supported the goal of improving diversity and provided concrete suggestions on how to do so.

replies(1): >>15022953 #
5. abiox ◴[15 Aug 17 21:32 UTC] No.15022837[source]▶
> a racist

i can't help but feel that this is more and more just a boo-word that doesn't actually mean much.

replies(2): >>15022933 #>>15022936 #
6. sidlls ◴[15 Aug 17 21:41 UTC] No.15022916{3}[source]▶
No, that's not at all what I wrote.
7. fche ◴[15 Aug 17 21:42 UTC] No.15022933{3}[source]▶
being closely followed by "nazi"
8. JimDabell ◴[15 Aug 17 22:15 UTC] No.15023209{4}[source]▶
Am I correct in understanding that you think he's a conservative who is lying about supporting diversity? What led you to this conclusion? It seems odd to me to believe a conservative who doesn't support diversity would write a memo that ascribes negative consequences to right wing viewpoints and provides suggestions for improving diversity.
9. mejari ◴[15 Aug 17 22:15 UTC] No.15023210[source]▶
>There has to be a way for everyone to be professional and honest here.

I agree, but just because there has to be a way for everyone to be professional and honest, that doesn't mean that what Damore did was professional and honest.

replies(1): >>15023339 #
10. humanrebar ◴[15 Aug 17 22:31 UTC] No.15023339[source]▶
I'm not prepared to fault him because I don't see how he could have been both professional and honest in discussing this issue. I think workplace norms need to evolve in one direction or another.
replies(1): >>15023391 #
11. mejari ◴[15 Aug 17 22:40 UTC] No.15023391{3}[source]▶
Not being able to come up with a way to do what you want does not mean you are correct to just do what you want anyway.
replies(1): >>15023635 #
12. rifung ◴[15 Aug 17 22:49 UTC] No.15023447[source]▶
> Sure. But people on the wrong side of the Google monoculture feel like they have to be closeted at work. They don't want to feel that way either

Everyone has to be closed at work; it's a part of being in a professional environment. For example, you can't go up to your co-worker and tell them you think they're a complete idiot even if you think so.

In social settings this is possible because relationships can just end, but that's not the case for a business where you are expected to interact with the same people often.

replies(1): >>15025739 #
13. humanrebar ◴[15 Aug 17 23:20 UTC] No.15023635{4}[source]▶
I'm not sure anyone can come up with a better way to discuss the issue. I'm open to ideas if you have any.

I've asked this around HN many times over the last week. Most of them boil down to letting people who probably disagree with you edit your thoughts before you release them. Or not releasing your thoughts in any meaningful way.

If you were Damore, what would have been a healthier way to start a broader discussion on the issue?

replies(1): >>15023841 #
14. thanatropism ◴[15 Aug 17 23:55 UTC] No.15023841{5}[source]▶
Ano/pseudonymity.
replies(1): >>15024950 #
15. conanbatt ◴[16 Aug 17 04:34 UTC] No.15024950{6}[source]▶
Hindsight is 20/20. But honestly falling back to ano/pseudo feels like a loss.

Would this have happened if the paper had been written by a woman?

replies(1): >>15026145 #
16. oh_sigh ◴[16 Aug 17 08:03 UTC] No.15025739[source]▶
> For example, you can't go up to your co-worker and tell them you think they're a complete idiot even if you think so.

Sure you can - if you are supported Trump, or were even just he prevailed over Hillary, thousands of people in Google either called you an idiot or agreed with the statement. You should have heard the tone of conversation on the 9th. Between that and the cry-ins that were hosted, it was an absolutely disgusting, pathetic display of personal bias and lack of understanding of a large swath of America.

17. thanatropism ◴[16 Aug 17 09:37 UTC] No.15026145{7}[source]▶
Sheer indignation changes nothing.

The "diversity culture" Left has been very succesful in a kind of cultural engineering where any deviation from accepted consensus is inches from being labeled "hate". Lone wolf kamikaze-type performances will only strengthen it.

What the fucking alt-right has been doing about this is trying to ignore the facts altogether, which may have populist impact but will alienate the professional/intellectual circles where this consensus takes root.

Maybe it's worth looking at the much-cited-in-this-thread Wired piece that agrees with Damore about everything substantive and then in full non sequitur condemns him.They're doing something effective.

----

Frankly, I have no idea of what to do about the toxic change in culture we have been experiencing. I try to avoid this kind of thining altogether -- it's a huge distraction from just trying to become the best version of me, etc. But I do understand that indignation and anger on our side is a windfall for theirs. If you're really willing to take them on you need to think seriously about strategy.