←back to thread

1080 points cbcowans | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
hedgew ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
xienze ◴[] No.15023041[source]
Be honest here -- do you _really_ think there's a way to present the argument that --gasp-- men and women might be different in their abilities that _wouldn't_ trigger a meltdown? I think this memo really highlights the fact that there are Some Things You Just Can't Talk About.
replies(2): >>15023076 #>>15023559 #
unityByFreedom ◴[] No.15023076[source]
No, you can't, because there isn't evidence that biological differences cause people to choose different careers.

Why would put forth a theory that is opposed to a company's values of equality if you don't have proof?

Most evidence points to socialized factors, not biological ones.

If Damore really cares about this issue, he should study biology and make his case there. He will do more to move the debate forward from within the relevant scientific community by gathering evidence than from the outside.

replies(4): >>15023152 #>>15023279 #>>15023390 #>>15025752 #
roel_v ◴[] No.15023390[source]
"Most evidence points to socialized factors, not biological ones."

I'm loathe to post in discussions like this because it's so useless, but points like this make me wonder if I'm just living on a different planet. Do you have children? Of different genders? Because literally every parent I know who has both boys and girls has the simple, non-ideologically-biased experience that boys and girls are vastly different, even if you treat them just the same. My youngest is a boy who was surrounded by pink fairy castles and butterfly coloring books until he was 2 or 2,5. And yet the moment he got his hands on a stick, he'd use it as a play weapon.

And from that observation that boys and girls are different, I wouldn't call it a stretch to assume that men and women might not be exactly the same, either. Why is this not blindingly obvious? I mean, how is saying otherwise not the very essence of "post truthiness"?

replies(2): >>15023977 #>>15024213 #
shaftoe ◴[] No.15023977[source]
I have a similar experience with my children. From an extremely early age, my daughter has "tucked in" toys to bed, rocked them to sleep, etc. She was NOT taught to do this, but just did this as play. My sons can't seem to find a toy that cannot be used as a sword or a gun, to my wife's constant annoyance.

Even with the SAME toys, they are used very differently. For example, all of my kids play minecraft. My daughter loves to build houses with kitchens and bathrooms, bake, and invite people into her house for dinners and parties. My sons fight the monsters, build elaborate towers and castles, and play with explosives.

This image summarizes my experience: http://imgur.com/AT2Ak

replies(1): >>15025659 #
3xnis ◴[] No.15025659[source]
The question is: Who has tucked in your children? You or your wife? Children know which parent has the same sex and they like to play grown up.

Regarding the shooting and the building, are you sure that you have encouraged your daughter the same way as your sons? Have you looked your daughter into the eyes and smiled when she first tried to fight with you?

And even if you were all supportive in that development, it's still not a fair experiment. As long as your children have friends with traditional values and your children watch TV with advertisements that present pink female princesses and male worriers and builders, children are locked down into their roles.

replies(2): >>15025881 #>>15026204 #
MagnumOpus ◴[] No.15026204[source]
The question has been answered. The dimorphism in gender preferences has been demonstrated (a decade ago) in a very similar fashion in primates who are really not inculcated with "traditional values" or "cultural role models":

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/

Is that a "fair" experiment?

replies(2): >>15027609 #>>15027612 #
1. 3xnis ◴[] No.15027609{3}[source]
I don't think that the study directly answers the question. Choosing role models is different from choosing toys.

If anything, the study suggests that women are equally capable of becoming engineers:

>Unlike male monkeys and like girls, female monkeys did not show any reliable preference for either toy type.

If you follow the pattern of the study, then men would reject 'female' jobs but women are interested in both 'male' and 'female' options. Women not only tuck in toys but also like playing with guns.

However, according to that article, male monkeys like to play more. You could argue that IT is all play and thus it's a better environment for men.