Does this mean James Damore was right? Or is there something wrong with this research?
"a good number of the people you [Damore] might have to work with may simply punch you in the face"
https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-man...
I have no idea why this guy Yonatan is still allowed to work anywhere.
What the outrage mob did was as follows:
1. Change preference to ability: so "the research suggests that women, on average, prefer to do things other than code" to "women can't code"
2. Change a statistical argument to an essentialist one. So "on average" to "no women"
3. Change the population/sample from the general population to "people who work at Google". So at this point we have gone from "in the general population, there appear to be more men who like the sorts of tasks associated with coding than women who like the same kinds of tasks" to "Women at Google can't code"
4. Get horribly upset about someone claiming that they can't code.
5. Use the demonstrable fact of their being so horribly upset as evidence that he is the one creating a toxic work environment.
6. Voilà, he just has to go.
(7. Also: claim, falsely, that there is no research for what he said)
This multi-level shifting of definitions and wording is a common pattern, so something to watch out for.
They then further created a hostile work environment when Damore explained why their victim narrative was false and ran him out of the company for it.
For these reasons I would never dream of joining Google any more.
His choice of wording is poor, and it's clear in most cases he assumes he's "right" - rather than posing a question and linking to supporting evidence for why he "might be right".
The way to start a good conversation isn't Authoritarian: "You're wrong, and I'm right. Now let me lecture you why."
It's Seneca style: "here's some things I noticed that are weird and don't add up, let's discuss, and - please - correct me if I'm wrong."
The memo could've maybe led to good discussion if he avoided prescriptions at the end - which he wasn't qualified to make - and withheld opinion. Among other things, his table of right/left is highly subjective and controversial and adds almost nothing to the discussion beside asking for trouble...
If you're aware that certain things are sacred, you should be aware that you need to navigate opposition to the narrative very carefully...
Are people not allowed to think they are correct? That’s clearly a bad-faith accusation. Just look at your comment, it directly contradicts your own imaginary standards of discourse.
There's also some effort required on the reader's part here. You should dig through some bad phrasing and for each statement that the writer makes, ask yourself, "what's the strongest interpretation of this that can be backed up?" A good reader tries to get the most out of it, and not discard it because of the form (how would Seneca read it?).
The way I read his statement is that woke agenda does not deserve so much trust, and there's plenty of reasons to question Google's official view on gender-equality; that having an opposing view is a valid position, which makes you neither a foil-hat-flat-earth psycho, nor a misogynist, nor a bad person. There's enough uncertainly in this question to make both opinions valid, and allow people to pick the one they like. And for woke people, this statement is enough of a reason to "cancel" someone.
Thinking that he insists on his view being the only right one is a bit of a strawman argument. I say "a bit" because I admit that he chose a rather provoking manner to make his statement, but I still say "strawman" because you could easily read it differently. I assume he did it because his opponents also do that, and it may have been an emotional choice to some extent. And, as I said, if we've established that there's enough uncertainty in this question to make it a matter of preference (for now, until the science gives us a definitive answer), it's ok to advertise the choice you prefer in an emotional and provoking manner — which I think is also one of the goals of the memo.
To summarize, I think there's some good things to extract from there if you put in effort. And for a non-expert, he did ok of a job writing it.
> asking for trouble...
It doesn't justify what they did to him, I don't understand why you'd even mention this. "She wore a short skirt, so she asked for harassment" — literally the same victim-blaming technique.
Obviously. A well constructed argument requires minimal effort - and avoids flamebait and opinion - so it's easier to focus on the actual points...
> There's enough uncertainly in this question to make both opinions valid, and allow people to pick the one they like.
We should be trying to arrive at the truth, not arbitrarily picking opinions based on feelings or whatever fits your world view.
One of the best pg articles imo:
It was a private report he was asked to write, that got leaked by someone else.
What? it is about the work environment.
He made more points than men prefer things and women prefer people.
If you make 1000 points, and one of them is right, it doesn't make the other 999 right.