14 ms·

> As someone who actually read what he wrote, I just had to bite my tongue. That's not what he said at all, As someone that also read it, those arent the words

> As someone who actually read what he wrote, I just had to bite my tongue. That's not what he said at all, As someone that also read it, those arent the words he used, but that is very much what he was saying. A facade of misrepresented psuedoscience doesnt change the intent, motivation, or reality.

look_lookatme 6y ago
That's not what he said. He said on average women do not prefer the field, and optimizing to change that observable fact is a fool's errand. I don't have an opinion on whether he's right or wrong but I don't think he shouldn't be able to make that argument...
- smitty1e 6y ago
  And the lady engineers should put out some great work in reply and refute him.
  - Nitramp 6y ago
    That's not good. Imagine how you'd feel. Imagine people would generally claim that someone who looks like you is a bad engineer (say, someone with your hair color). And then imagine that people would expect you to constantly disprove that assumption, just because of your hair color. You'd be on the edge all the time. You'd never feel at home in the field. And whenever you interact with someone who doesn't have past work experience with you, they'd still assume you're a bad engineer.
    - Udik 6y ago
      But don't you think that the fairer the selection (blind to things such as gender, race or politics) the more confidence you'd have that you deserve to be in the position you are? How does a woman engineer should feel, knowing she was given a boost in the selection process by some kind of affirmative action? Isn't that in itself a source of uncertainty?
      - JoeSmithson 6y ago
        Have a lot of female programmers told you about the unfair advantages they feel they have in the field?
        Udik 6y ago
        Not sure what you mean. All the female programmers I've come across had been hired without receiving any boost from an affirmative action program. Had I worked in a company that gave a score boost to candidates belonging to any group X, I could have the legitimate doubt that without the boost some of the people in the group X wouldn't have been hired. It's simply a necessary consequence of the affirmative action.
        JoeSmithson 6y ago
        Originally you were presenting an opposition which is based on a theoretical objection held _by women themselves_, one which you've now confirmed you've never actually seen. If you're going to advocate on people's behalf, limit it to concerns they've actually expressed themselves. You've now rephrased your objection that you would have a problem because you would assume female programmers were less qualified, which is not what you said in your original comment.
        Udik 6y ago
        I'm sorry, but I don't follow. - There is a score threshold you must cross to get a job; - score is normally representative of competence; - individuals belonging to group X get a score boost. It follows that it's possible for someone to cross the minimum threshold thanks to the boost given by their belonging to the favoured group, and not because of their competence alone. It's not a matter of "the point of view of the woman" or "my point of view". It's not a point of view. It's a logical consequence that can be inferred by women, men, everyone, equally.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - smitty1e 6y ago
      I can't understand how doing great work isn't a great thing. As the moderation bears witness, we live in an age where positive is somehow negative.
- jashmatthews 6y ago
  > Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate Damore deliberately chose to cast doubt on whether the women Google hired were as good as the men. Otherwise, it's easier and less controversial to just argue that any form of discrimination is wrong.
  - koheripbal 6y ago
    "cast doubt". That's a weasel word, because he said nothing of the sort.
  - forgot_again 6y ago
    Given the existence of affirmative action policies in which gender gives a positive boost to some women and may compensate for some deficiency, technical or otherwise, that's a reasonable assumption to make.
  - xiphias2 6y ago
    At Google casting doubt was a good in the early days. Even in search relevance of the results were the most important factor, even if it meant much less clicks, and the culture that Eric Schmidt created with the founders reflected that. Nowadays I think it's a better strategy at Google to not discuss if you don't agree with its policies. It's still a great workplace as long as you can discard politics.
    - jpdb 6y ago
      > It's still a great workplace as long as you can discard politics. There are large swathes of people who can't just "discard politics" because they are directly affected by the current political status quo.
      - free_rms 6y ago
        Sorry, but if you're talking about Googlers, that's bullshit, they're fine. 200k/yr, 300k/yr+ worth of fine. It's great to have empathy for people in a less fortunate position, and yes we have a lot of problems in our society, but FAANG software engineers are arguably the least oppressed people on the planet.
- amelius 6y ago
  > He said on average women do not prefer the field, and optimizing to change that observable fact is a fool's errand. Yes, it still leaves open whether the following is true: > when women do prefer the field, they tend to be amazing engineers Hence I'd say there is nothing wrong with the statement.
  - badrabbit 6y ago
    Not just women but anyone. For any social group,the share of that group may never be at or close to their make up of the population. People come from an insanely diverse set of upbringing and social expectations. If they think 50% of engineers should be women, I would like to hold them to an even higher standard by requiring that out if that 50% of women,each national origin,ethnicity,political/ideological upbringing and social status (mother,single,divorced,etc...) is also proportionally represented. If this is about making up for historical prejudice then let every women of a wronged group be equally represented. You will soon see the silliness of the pursuit. It is the cause that needs policing and adjustment (upstream) not the effect.
jashmatthews 6y ago
The original memo is poorly written, poorly reasoned, and thinly veiled: > Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts
manigandham 6y ago
No, the summary is that men and women have different interests (in average across billions) which creates a tendency to choose different professions. This division is even more pronounced in the most egalitarian and free societies. Lack of interest in a subject does not mean a lack of capability.
- magic5227 6y ago
  If a society tells a woman she's not likely as interested in something, guess what profession she is more likely to choose? Not the one she's being told she won't be happy with.
  - amazingman 6y ago
    What an oddly paternalistic point of view.
    - joelhoffman 6y ago
      People do form a lot of their personalities as small children, after all.
      - james_s_tayler 6y ago
        It also has a large genetic component at the same time.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    Wouldn't that apply to both sexes? Can you really tell someone what their interests are? "happy with" is not the same as "interested in" however it seems like the last 2 decades have had a lot of focus on letting people follow their passion.
  - alexpetralia 6y ago
    Is there any evidence that would convince you that interests can diverge, independent of society (nurture)? Your argument relies on the assumption (yes, an assumption, not evidence) that society exclusively determines our interests. You do not admit a role for biology. There is little scientific evidence that supports this view.
koheripbal 6y ago
It's so disappointing to read this. I don't see how his thesis of "everyone needs to be treated by their individual merits because personal variances grossly outweigh any gender bias" can be interpreted as sexist. He was literally preaching for equality. His point was that affirmative action programs do companies a disservice by making minority/women employees seem like they didn't get there through their own merit, and also punishes companies that don't have sufficient women due to a lack of interest women have in programming - which may or may not be innate. ...and he was fired for that. Crazy.
- ergothus 6y ago
  Focusing on the idea that women are biologically "less interested" (but don't worry, we aren't talking about the good ones you may know, they are just statistical outliers) and trying to twist up scientific "proof" for that does not lead me to trust him or his motives. Being blind to the widespread dismissive, discriminatory, and derogatory behavior that routinely drives women from the industry does not inspire confidence. Choosing to ignore the quantities of good science on the topic in favor of what he did does not inspire confidence. Then he chooses to widely declare this and demean large swathes of his coworkers. I'm all for open communication, but that doesnt absolve you of social consequences. When you make a big chunk of your company uncomfortable with you and how you view them....yeah, consequences, yeah, fired. The only reason this is a surprise is because it happened to some like him and not the groups he was pretending to defend. I assure you most of them would be outraged and frustrated but nearly as surprised had the interaction gone the other way. All you have to do is watch and listen to know that.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    Men and women (biologically and socially) have different interests. This is different than capabilities. Countries with the most free choices see the most division between sexes in different professions. Nobody seems to have a problem when it comes to auto mechanics, medical sciences, teachers, social services, lawyers, etc. Why are different interests such a controversial thing to accept?
lawnchair_larry 6y ago
You can’t do that. You have to judge based on what was written, not what you’ve convinced yourself was an ulterior motive and dismissing his actual words as a facade. This behavior is so perplexing. It is not what he was saying. Why do so many people absolutely insist on misinterpreting it to the point of willful distortion?
- ergothus 6y ago
  You are literally describing critical thinking. To assume no one would lie, mislead, or even just be blind to their own biases is to be part of the problem. How did I "convince myself of an ulterior motive"? I read what was written, and then I asked questions and did research. Are these studies he cites credible? [No]. Why would he bring these up? What motivations would be involved? How do the people he is talking about feel? Did he consider their feelings? If I were Google, what are my options, and what are the results of those options? Dog-whistles and micro-aggressions thrive on failure to ask these questions. It empowers the status quo to entrench so long as they avoid the absolute most stark of statements.
  - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
    I tend to tune out once I see words like micro-aggression and dog-whistle. It has been my experience that people throwing these phrases around are too deeply immersed in their ideological war to assume any good faith at all in who they perceive as their opposition, which tends to a preclude any productive discussion. You’re wrong, by the way.
atdrummond 6y ago
I went to HS with James for a few years and have spoken to him on this topic a few times. I don’t agree with how he went about pursuing the issue but your assessment does not comport with the views he’s shared with me or our contemporaries who stay in touch with him.
- aisengard 6y ago
  Then he should have done a better job representing himself. At any time he could come out and say exactly what he means and doesn't mean, and apologize for any harm done. Instead, he allied himself with the very people whose views you claim he doesn't hold. At some point, your actions define you.
JSavageOne 6y ago
> but that is very much what he was saying No it's not. Nowhere in the paper did he say that women can't become good engineers. You're literally defaming his work. Either support your accusation with evidence, or don't comment.
- jpdb 6y ago
  > You're literally defaming his work. His "work" does a fine job of that on its own.
- mabbo 6y ago
  > those arent the words he used, but that is very much what he was saying > Nowhere in the paper did he say that You both are saying the same thing- he did not use those exact words. The parent comment is saying that despite not saying "Women can't be engineers", the entire purpose of the paper, in the view of that reader, was to insinuate that women can't be engineers. It's not terribly hard to promote an idea without ever saying it explicitly. Perhaps you didn't read the deeper meaning out of the memo. And demanding those who interpret things differently than you "don't comment" doesn't promote discussion, it ends it. When someone says something you disagree with, don't tell them to shut up, ask them why they see things differently. Debate. Discuss. Grow.
  - h4l0 6y ago
    > in the view of that reader, was to insinuate that women can't be engineers Although his intentions were unclear by his vague approach to the subject, I believe he didn't mean to say women can't be engineers. Most of the time he gave population-based examples of how women decided not to be engineers. His thesis was to show that forcing women in STEM fields is not a fair practice to both women and men who want to be STEM professionals.
  - darkerside 6y ago
    You're right that they both talked about exact words, but you're indexing too highly on it. Just because they used the same words in places doesn't mean they're saying the same thing. Reading again, I don't know why you start with that statement. It really muddies the rest of your comment. Please take this idea with an open mind. When you arrive a singular purpose to the paper, it may say more about your views than it does about the author's. He didn't have a thesis that stated directly that he meant to "insinuate that women can't be engineers", so you're literally putting words in his mouth. And the "don't comment" line explicitly said it was in response to statements that are unfounded, NOT statements that disagree. Putting that all together, you seem to be having an argument with a ghost of your own making.
high_derivative 6y ago
No, that's your political interpretation of it. You __choose__ to read it that way because then his punishment can be justified.
reroute1 6y ago
That's not what he said it's what you project and transform his arguments into. What he said was factual and his concerns were legit and the over reaction was hilarious
coldtea 6y ago
>As someone that also read it, those arent the words he used, but that is very much what he was saying. Ah, the classic "so you mean (something not said, and never meant)"...
tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
There is a huge difference between "women can't be good engineers" and "women are less likely to be good engineers", and he said the latter (while, IIRC, explicitly acknowledging that variance is high enough that it shouldn't influence decisions about individuals). Edit: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideo... page 4 has a diagram at the top explicitly explaining that.

look_lookatme 6y ago

That's not what he said. He said on average women do not prefer the field, and optimizing to change that observable fact is a fool's errand. I don't have an opinion on whether he's right or wrong but I don't think he shouldn't be able to make that argument...

smitty1e 6y ago
And the lady engineers should put out some great work in reply and refute him.
- Nitramp 6y ago
  That's not good. Imagine how you'd feel. Imagine people would generally claim that someone who looks like you is a bad engineer (say, someone with your hair color). And then imagine that people would expect you to constantly disprove that assumption, just because of your hair color. You'd be on the edge all the time. You'd never feel at home in the field. And whenever you interact with someone who doesn't have past work experience with you, they'd still assume you're a bad engineer.
  - Udik 6y ago
    But don't you think that the fairer the selection (blind to things such as gender, race or politics) the more confidence you'd have that you deserve to be in the position you are? How does a woman engineer should feel, knowing she was given a boost in the selection process by some kind of affirmative action? Isn't that in itself a source of uncertainty?
    - JoeSmithson 6y ago
      Have a lot of female programmers told you about the unfair advantages they feel they have in the field?
      - Udik 6y ago
        Not sure what you mean. All the female programmers I've come across had been hired without receiving any boost from an affirmative action program. Had I worked in a company that gave a score boost to candidates belonging to any group X, I could have the legitimate doubt that without the boost some of the people in the group X wouldn't have been hired. It's simply a necessary consequence of the affirmative action.
        JoeSmithson 6y ago
        Originally you were presenting an opposition which is based on a theoretical objection held _by women themselves_, one which you've now confirmed you've never actually seen. If you're going to advocate on people's behalf, limit it to concerns they've actually expressed themselves. You've now rephrased your objection that you would have a problem because you would assume female programmers were less qualified, which is not what you said in your original comment.
        Udik 6y ago
        I'm sorry, but I don't follow. - There is a score threshold you must cross to get a job; - score is normally representative of competence; - individuals belonging to group X get a score boost. It follows that it's possible for someone to cross the minimum threshold thanks to the boost given by their belonging to the favoured group, and not because of their competence alone. It's not a matter of "the point of view of the woman" or "my point of view". It's not a point of view. It's a logical consequence that can be inferred by women, men, everyone, equally.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - smitty1e 6y ago
    I can't understand how doing great work isn't a great thing. As the moderation bears witness, we live in an age where positive is somehow negative.
jashmatthews 6y ago
> Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate Damore deliberately chose to cast doubt on whether the women Google hired were as good as the men. Otherwise, it's easier and less controversial to just argue that any form of discrimination is wrong.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  "cast doubt". That's a weasel word, because he said nothing of the sort.
- forgot_again 6y ago
  Given the existence of affirmative action policies in which gender gives a positive boost to some women and may compensate for some deficiency, technical or otherwise, that's a reasonable assumption to make.
- xiphias2 6y ago
  At Google casting doubt was a good in the early days. Even in search relevance of the results were the most important factor, even if it meant much less clicks, and the culture that Eric Schmidt created with the founders reflected that. Nowadays I think it's a better strategy at Google to not discuss if you don't agree with its policies. It's still a great workplace as long as you can discard politics.
  - jpdb 6y ago
    > It's still a great workplace as long as you can discard politics. There are large swathes of people who can't just "discard politics" because they are directly affected by the current political status quo.
    - free_rms 6y ago
      Sorry, but if you're talking about Googlers, that's bullshit, they're fine. 200k/yr, 300k/yr+ worth of fine. It's great to have empathy for people in a less fortunate position, and yes we have a lot of problems in our society, but FAANG software engineers are arguably the least oppressed people on the planet.
amelius 6y ago
> He said on average women do not prefer the field, and optimizing to change that observable fact is a fool's errand. Yes, it still leaves open whether the following is true: > when women do prefer the field, they tend to be amazing engineers Hence I'd say there is nothing wrong with the statement.
- badrabbit 6y ago
  Not just women but anyone. For any social group,the share of that group may never be at or close to their make up of the population. People come from an insanely diverse set of upbringing and social expectations. If they think 50% of engineers should be women, I would like to hold them to an even higher standard by requiring that out if that 50% of women,each national origin,ethnicity,political/ideological upbringing and social status (mother,single,divorced,etc...) is also proportionally represented. If this is about making up for historical prejudice then let every women of a wronged group be equally represented. You will soon see the silliness of the pursuit. It is the cause that needs policing and adjustment (upstream) not the effect.

jashmatthews 6y ago

The original memo is poorly written, poorly reasoned, and thinly veiled: > Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts

manigandham 6y ago

No, the summary is that men and women have different interests (in average across billions) which creates a tendency to choose different professions. This division is even more pronounced in the most egalitarian and free societies. Lack of interest in a subject does not mean a lack of capability.

magic5227 6y ago
If a society tells a woman she's not likely as interested in something, guess what profession she is more likely to choose? Not the one she's being told she won't be happy with.
- amazingman 6y ago
  What an oddly paternalistic point of view.
  - joelhoffman 6y ago
    People do form a lot of their personalities as small children, after all.
    - james_s_tayler 6y ago
      It also has a large genetic component at the same time.
- manigandham 6y ago
  Wouldn't that apply to both sexes? Can you really tell someone what their interests are? "happy with" is not the same as "interested in" however it seems like the last 2 decades have had a lot of focus on letting people follow their passion.
- alexpetralia 6y ago
  Is there any evidence that would convince you that interests can diverge, independent of society (nurture)? Your argument relies on the assumption (yes, an assumption, not evidence) that society exclusively determines our interests. You do not admit a role for biology. There is little scientific evidence that supports this view.

koheripbal 6y ago

It's so disappointing to read this. I don't see how his thesis of "everyone needs to be treated by their individual merits because personal variances grossly outweigh any gender bias" can be interpreted as sexist. He was literally preaching for equality. His point was that affirmative action programs do companies a disservice by making minority/women employees seem like they didn't get there through their own merit, and also punishes companies that don't have sufficient women due to a lack of interest women have in programming - which may or may not be innate. ...and he was fired for that. Crazy.

ergothus 6y ago
Focusing on the idea that women are biologically "less interested" (but don't worry, we aren't talking about the good ones you may know, they are just statistical outliers) and trying to twist up scientific "proof" for that does not lead me to trust him or his motives. Being blind to the widespread dismissive, discriminatory, and derogatory behavior that routinely drives women from the industry does not inspire confidence. Choosing to ignore the quantities of good science on the topic in favor of what he did does not inspire confidence. Then he chooses to widely declare this and demean large swathes of his coworkers. I'm all for open communication, but that doesnt absolve you of social consequences. When you make a big chunk of your company uncomfortable with you and how you view them....yeah, consequences, yeah, fired. The only reason this is a surprise is because it happened to some like him and not the groups he was pretending to defend. I assure you most of them would be outraged and frustrated but nearly as surprised had the interaction gone the other way. All you have to do is watch and listen to know that.
- manigandham 6y ago
  Men and women (biologically and socially) have different interests. This is different than capabilities. Countries with the most free choices see the most division between sexes in different professions. Nobody seems to have a problem when it comes to auto mechanics, medical sciences, teachers, social services, lawyers, etc. Why are different interests such a controversial thing to accept?

lawnchair_larry 6y ago

You can’t do that. You have to judge based on what was written, not what you’ve convinced yourself was an ulterior motive and dismissing his actual words as a facade. This behavior is so perplexing. It is not what he was saying. Why do so many people absolutely insist on misinterpreting it to the point of willful distortion?

ergothus 6y ago
You are literally describing critical thinking. To assume no one would lie, mislead, or even just be blind to their own biases is to be part of the problem. How did I "convince myself of an ulterior motive"? I read what was written, and then I asked questions and did research. Are these studies he cites credible? [No]. Why would he bring these up? What motivations would be involved? How do the people he is talking about feel? Did he consider their feelings? If I were Google, what are my options, and what are the results of those options? Dog-whistles and micro-aggressions thrive on failure to ask these questions. It empowers the status quo to entrench so long as they avoid the absolute most stark of statements.
- lawnchair_larry 6y ago
  I tend to tune out once I see words like micro-aggression and dog-whistle. It has been my experience that people throwing these phrases around are too deeply immersed in their ideological war to assume any good faith at all in who they perceive as their opposition, which tends to a preclude any productive discussion. You’re wrong, by the way.

atdrummond 6y ago

I went to HS with James for a few years and have spoken to him on this topic a few times. I don’t agree with how he went about pursuing the issue but your assessment does not comport with the views he’s shared with me or our contemporaries who stay in touch with him.

aisengard 6y ago
Then he should have done a better job representing himself. At any time he could come out and say exactly what he means and doesn't mean, and apologize for any harm done. Instead, he allied himself with the very people whose views you claim he doesn't hold. At some point, your actions define you.

JSavageOne 6y ago

> but that is very much what he was saying No it's not. Nowhere in the paper did he say that women can't become good engineers. You're literally defaming his work. Either support your accusation with evidence, or don't comment.

jpdb 6y ago
> You're literally defaming his work. His "work" does a fine job of that on its own.
mabbo 6y ago
> those arent the words he used, but that is very much what he was saying > Nowhere in the paper did he say that You both are saying the same thing- he did not use those exact words. The parent comment is saying that despite not saying "Women can't be engineers", the entire purpose of the paper, in the view of that reader, was to insinuate that women can't be engineers. It's not terribly hard to promote an idea without ever saying it explicitly. Perhaps you didn't read the deeper meaning out of the memo. And demanding those who interpret things differently than you "don't comment" doesn't promote discussion, it ends it. When someone says something you disagree with, don't tell them to shut up, ask them why they see things differently. Debate. Discuss. Grow.
- h4l0 6y ago
  > in the view of that reader, was to insinuate that women can't be engineers Although his intentions were unclear by his vague approach to the subject, I believe he didn't mean to say women can't be engineers. Most of the time he gave population-based examples of how women decided not to be engineers. His thesis was to show that forcing women in STEM fields is not a fair practice to both women and men who want to be STEM professionals.
- darkerside 6y ago
  You're right that they both talked about exact words, but you're indexing too highly on it. Just because they used the same words in places doesn't mean they're saying the same thing. Reading again, I don't know why you start with that statement. It really muddies the rest of your comment. Please take this idea with an open mind. When you arrive a singular purpose to the paper, it may say more about your views than it does about the author's. He didn't have a thesis that stated directly that he meant to "insinuate that women can't be engineers", so you're literally putting words in his mouth. And the "don't comment" line explicitly said it was in response to statements that are unfounded, NOT statements that disagree. Putting that all together, you seem to be having an argument with a ghost of your own making.

high_derivative 6y ago

No, that's your political interpretation of it. You __choose__ to read it that way because then his punishment can be justified.

reroute1 6y ago

That's not what he said it's what you project and transform his arguments into. What he said was factual and his concerns were legit and the over reaction was hilarious

coldtea 6y ago

>As someone that also read it, those arent the words he used, but that is very much what he was saying. Ah, the classic "so you mean (something not said, and never meant)"...

tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago

There is a huge difference between "women can't be good engineers" and "women are less likely to be good engineers", and he said the latter (while, IIRC, explicitly acknowledging that variance is high enough that it shouldn't influence decisions about individuals). Edit: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideo... page 4 has a diagram at the top explicitly explaining that.