←back to thread

Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

(blog.ycombinator.com)
1080 points cbcowans | 8 comments | 15 Aug 17 19:19 UTC | HN request time: 0.213s | 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 #
aaron-lebo ◴[15 Aug 17 20:07 UTC] No.15021871[source]▶
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.

You are completely right, but on the other hand if you are going to invoke "science" and you present your writing as scientific (he did), you have a higher bar. If you fail to be objective (see semi-related assertions about Marxism), or your writing obscures the point you are attempting to make, then you've failed as a writer of scientific content.

If your writing isn't good enough, then don't release a memo to your workplace of tens of thousands of smart and ideological people. Put it on a blog, write it anonymously, but expect whatever criticism you get.

replies(4): >>15022297 #>>15022310 #>>15022412 #>>15023500 #
michaelchisari ◴[15 Aug 17 20:44 UTC] No.15022297[source]▶
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.

replies(6): >>15022507 #>>15022847 #>>15022896 #>>15023115 #>>15023589 #>>15024049 #
1. Artistry121 ◴[15 Aug 17 21:33 UTC] No.15022847[source]▶
>>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.

replies(4): >>15022986 #>>15023020 #>>15023990 #>>15027774 #
2. MollyR ◴[15 Aug 17 21:49 UTC] No.15022986[source]▶
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-...

replies(1): >>15027879 #
3. ◴[15 Aug 17 21:52 UTC] No.15023020[source]▶
4. j2kun ◴[16 Aug 17 00:23 UTC] No.15023990[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>15025571 #
5. coldtea ◴[16 Aug 17 07:23 UTC] No.15025571[source]▶
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".
replies(1): >>15027651 #
6. j2kun ◴[16 Aug 17 14:21 UTC] No.15027651{3}[source]▶
So you're questioning the integrity of the scientists Damore cited...to give more credit to his argument. Neat how that works.
replies(1): >>15027901 #
7. tchaffee ◴[16 Aug 17 14:51 UTC] No.15027879[source]▶
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.

8. coldtea ◴[16 Aug 17 14:53 UTC] No.15027901{4}[source]▶
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).