Hacker News Reader

I think you are making a number of poor logical leaps. I have read the memo in its entirety. I have begun the process of reading the citations in their entirety. I am, so far, entirely unconvinced of that he has proven his point about gender bias. I am entirely convinced that he did prove his entire point about the political and moral echo chamber that is Googles Mountain View office. Though he did not do it within the letter. Google helped him by firing him.

Where you've made some poor logical leaps are: there is zero evidence that he shouted out his obviously controversial beliefs to the world. As far as I can tell this memo did not go to the whole world by his doing. It did not go to the entire Google staff by his doing. In fact, for all we know he was asked for his well thought out opinion on Googles diversity training and gave it to the appropriate people who did not respect the fact that he was giving his opinion to a small group and began forwarding it on. You might say I have no proof of this, and you'd be right. But you have no proof that he blasted this to the whole world.

Additionally, he was a number of things in the memo but he was not an unhinged idiot. It reads like someone who was asked for his opinion on the training that was going on and whether there was value in making it mandatory.

I have been asked in professional settings for my opinion on controversial matters. One time I was put into a very troubling position because of my opinion and many people were quite upset. It was uncomfortable for us all. I no longer give my opinion on controversial topics. I keep quiet and do my work and if I disagree with a policy or procedure I find new employment.

I am sure the author of this memo has learned his lesson now. He will shut up. I hope that the world is a better place without his opinion.

Maybe you misinterpreted my statement as defending this person being silenced and fired but I was not. Frankly I have no strong opinions with regards to PC culture. It does not affect me and I see the injustice that comes from both sides. My statement was more intended to be advice, if you haven't cultivated a reputation/influence and you step out of line you will be mocked, ostracized, and perceived as an unhinged idiot. I believe the result of this debacle backs my point.

I might very well have. So in the case that an employee is asked to give their opinion on a controversial topic, what would you suggest is the best course of action so that they will not be mocked, ostracized, and perceived as an unhinged idiot? My solution is always to just shut up. But then again, it doesn't really create a discussion around controversial topics, does it? Because the majority will mock, ostracize, and condemn you as an unhinged idiot. Is that a good thing for society? Or should we open our ears and listen? Maybe read before we speak? Maybe even debate with facts and counter facts? Before we go straight to the mocking, ostracizing, and condemning.

These are all hypothetical questions of course. But something to think about.

Edit: because my phone likes four letter words that sound like shut.

It's obviously not good for society but it's also wrong to believe you will make any positive impact by throwing away all influence you have and effectively ruining your own life.

Do you think this person that has been fired has gained anything? Do you think anything will change because of this memo?

I don't.

I come from a legal background so pardon my argument. I don't mean to offend.

I do agree with you, if in fact that was the authors intent. The issue you bring up is a good one though. Did he believe that he would throw away his influence and ruin his life by sharing this opinion? That's very tough to prove one way or the other. It entirely depends on the circumstances surrounding why he wrote the memo. If he did so entirely on his own without being asked or provoked, then you are right. If he was asked to write the memo by a superior or someone in perceived authority, you may be partially correct. If he was led to believe his opinion would be valued and his reputation kept and protected, then you are quite wrong. Unfortunately, I don't believe we will ever know the truth. So this interesting academic exercise will never really come to a conclusion.

Now, on the other hand. A thorough reading of the source would indicate that he should know that essentially saying that Google is biased against privileged individuals (say, white, male software engineers) is a pretty hard position to defend and he was foolish for attempting the argument. But hindsight is 20/20.

"Even before the memo was released I had a negative opinion of it."

That's a problem. I read the whole thing and was annoyed that TechDirt cut the charts and the references.

No it's not a problem. I didn't have a negative opinion of it because of the content (which contained no new or interesting ideas by the way). I had a negative opinion of it because someone out there believed that you could just shout out your controversial beliefs in a group email and expect something positive to come from it.

If you haven't read it you shouldn't critique its content.

Well I just scanned it and can again confirm that there are no new ideas in that document.

>I had a negative opinion of it because someone out there believed that you could just shout out your controversial beliefs in a group email and expect something positive to come from it.

I'm honestly struggling to understand your perspective. Would you prefer a world where nobody says anything "controversial", everyone just rolls with the status quo, and nothing ever changes? Why is espousing "controversial ideals" offensive to you? I treat ideas that clash with my own internal logical understanding of the world as challenges that can only improve my understanding of the world. If I run these "controversial ideas" through my logic and reasoning faculties, there's really only two possible outcomes:

- I reject the idea and now have arguments against them that I can share with others

- I end up embracing the idea because I realize that my implicit rejection of it lacked a sturdy logical foundation

Either way, I win—I get a better understanding of the world I live in.

Why would you choose to shield yourself from improving yourself mentally?

1. He worked for Google. One could argue that he wouldn't have been hired in the first place without "cultivating a positive reputation."

2. He earned his PhD in Biology at Harvard University.

What, in your opinion, should James Damore have additionally done to ensure that his thesis would be taken seriously?

Cited primary sources, linked his biological argument to his workplace argument with something other than handwaving, avoiding tying his scientific argument to a related but not equivalent political argument, taken into account evidence collected from women who've left the industry and ensured that his model accounted for that, and, uh, basically written an actual thesis? If I'd submitted work like this as an undergraduate I'd have got it back with a lot of red ink and a pretty terrible grade.

(I work for Google and have a PhD in Biology from Cambridge University)

> Cited primary sources

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression was that he did cite sources, but that Gizmodo decided to remove them. In addition they also re-badged this internal email as a "manifesto" and presented it as a war-cry rather than a basis for discussion. Pretty dishonest changes really.

These dishonest changes certainly helped further this shitstorm. Knowing Gizmodo (and their sister-website Jezebel which has no issues with domestic violence against men), I'm just going to assume this was the intended consequence.

He cited some primary sources. And some Wikipedia pages. But I'm comfortable saying that he doesn't review the issues fully.

It's a memo, for crying out loud, not a scientific paper. That's why he cites the scientific papers! A full review would require a book-length response.

He cites a few papers. And whenever you cite a paper, it's best to cite at least two, to bracket the literature, or a decent review article.

> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression was that he did cite sources, but that Gizmodo decided to remove them

Wikipedia is not a primary source.

A professor of social psychology at Rutgers said:

> The author of the Google essay on issues related to diversity gets nearly all of the science and its implications exactly right.

An evolutionary psychology professor said:

> For what it’s worth, I think that almost all of the Google memo’s empirical claims are scientifically accurate. Moreover, they are stated quite carefully and dispassionately. Its key claims about sex differences are especially well-supported by large volumes of research across species, cultures, and history. I know a little about sex differences research. On the topic of evolution and human sexuality, I’ve taught for 28 years, written 4 books and over 100 academic publications, given 190 talks, reviewed papers for over 50 journals, and mentored 11 Ph.D. students. Whoever the memo’s author is, he has obviously read a fair amount about these topics. Graded fairly, his memo would get at least an A- in any masters’ level psychology course. It is consistent with the scientific state of the art on sex differences. (Blank slate gender feminism is advocacy rather than science: no gender feminist I’ve met has ever been able to give a coherent answer to the question ‘What empirical findings would convince you that psychological sex differences evolved?’)

http://archive.is/z6xxP

The author of the Google memo did cite primary sources such as:

https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2011/SPP457/um/23632422/Hakim...

A professor of social psychology whose position in the field is, let us say, not mainstream, and look evolutionary psychology is just bullshit. Further, https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2011/SPP457/um/23632422/Hakim... is a review and is therefore (by definition) not a primary source.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...

I just read it for the first time, it's actually much better written than I thought. I was prepared for it to be horrible, but he brings up some valid points. Some I don't agree with, but he is right that we have made it unacceptable to discuss this subject.

I do encourage people to read it and make their own opinion, there are so many other opinions on this now, the only way to get back to reality is to read it for yourself.

Other commenter here said he has a PhD in Biology from Harvard. I think it should give him some credit about what he said.

If I had a PhD in Computer Science, and I write a 10-page manifesto about biology, should it instantly be believable too?

He wrote a manifesto giving some actual biology facts and he wasn't talking about CS but something more close to biology (or at least from the point of view of biology)

How do we know that he expected no negative consequences?

You can't cultivate a positive reputation and express controversial beliefs

You aren't supposed to start with expressing controversial beliefs.