
You can't say that – It might be true - lisper
http://blog.rongarret.info/2017/08/you-cant-say-that-it-might-be-true_11.html
======
CalChris
_I am not defending Damore 's thesis. I am defending his right to advance it
without putting his livelihood at risk._

The trouble is that this was at work where Damore was earning that livelihood
and the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech doesn't extend to work.
Google was well within its rights in CA to fire him for having a bad haircut.

BTW, I have a new theory about the manifesto: Damore is a really bad writer.
He probably got an A on every paper he ever turned in and he's still a bad
writer.

One of Orwell's rules in _Politics and The English Languages_ [1] is:

    
    
       The great enemy of clear language is insincerity.
    

I don't think Damore is being sincere and says what he means. He's clearly
angry about how people have misinterpreted him and says that Pichai
misrepresented him. But really, he's just a bad writer who isn't saying what
he means.

[1]
[http://www.npr.org/ombudsman/Politics_and_the_English_Langua...](http://www.npr.org/ombudsman/Politics_and_the_English_Language-1.pdf)

~~~
abnry
You are projecting by assuming Damore isn't saying what he means. I.e., you
are assuming he is deep into the alt-right, which seems like a hidden smear,
when there is no evidence that he is.

~~~
candiodari
If you read the doc[1] it will become very clear that Damore is a
leftist/progressive, not a rightist.

The right is defending him, and that by itself seems to be enough reason for
the left to vilify him.

I'm left, and I feel ashamed at the way this is happening and how many of my
friends do the same.

[1] [https://medium.com/@Cernovich/full-james-damore-memo-
uncenso...](https://medium.com/@Cernovich/full-james-damore-memo-uncensored-
memo-with-charts-and-cites-339f3d2d05f)

~~~
croon
> If you read the doc[1] it will become very clear that Damore is a
> leftist/progressive, not a rightist.

Would you mind elaborating on how/where that is very clear? Honest question.
Not that I think it should matter, but I'm inclined to say the opposite and
that he very much had an agenda.

> But as mainstream journalists across the globe reached out to him for
> interviews this week, Damore largely ignored the queries and instead
> selected two rightwing YouTube personalities [...] Stefan Molyneux and
> Jordan B Peterson, who both have large followings on YouTube and have
> espoused anti-feminist views.

------
yosito
As a person who wholeheartedly agrees that we shouldn't avoid considering
unpleasant truths in the quest for truth, the real problem here isn't Damore's
hypothesis, or the fact that he held it. And there is no problem with testing
such a hypothesis in the search for truth. The real problem here is the
_context_ in which he presented his hypothesis is very prone to miscontrual of
hypotheses as facts in a way that can cause unacceptable, and unwarranted
discrimination that may be very hard to reverse.

~~~
Boothroid
Looks more like they sacked him for wrongthink, to me.

------
carlosdp
> It is important to note that Pichai makes no attempt to actually debunk
> Damore's claims about women's biology.

Why is the CEO somehow obligated to debunk the theory? Why are we entertaining
the notion that women might be biologically less inclined for engineering?
Aren't we passed this?

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills or went through a time machine.

~~~
abnry
Pichai is obligated to do so because he fired Damore for "perpetuating harmful
stereotypes" while at the same time "affirming" that Google values open
discussion about what is true.

The notion that women may be biologically less inclined toward engineering is
something that can be suggested in a non-contrived way from scientific
studies. I am not claiming it is true.

When diversity training is based on the foundation that the totality of the
gender disparity in tech is due to prejudice, and there is a possibility other
important factors are at play, the resultant policies could have a negative or
meaningless effect.

If this assumption about the cause of diversity is shoved down people's throat
through a culture of shaming and silencing, then this is a serious workplace
problem /unless/ the non-biological cause of the gender disparity is
demonstrated to be the only cause by Pichai.

------
Houshalter
>I do not agree with Damore's hypothesis. The evidence for it seems thin to
me, and the best data indicates that there are few discernible differences in
mental capacity between men and women.

There are very large and well documented differences in personality traits
between men and women. There is an enormous difference between men and women
in the "interest in things vs interest in people" dimension. See here:

[http://sci-hub.cc/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x](http://sci-
hub.cc/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x)

93% of men are more "thing oriented" than the average women. And that's
assuming there is no noise in the measurement, likely the true value is even
higher! Similar for big 5 personality traits.

~~~
Boothroid
Exactly. Women may indeed have the same intellectual potential as men, perhaps
more. But so what? I believe talent is widespread - and therefore what makes
the difference is motivation and application.

One thing that bothers me is the putting on a pedestal of social skills, as if
it's the be all and end all. Of course, it's those with supposedly good social
skills that do this (though their social skills apparently do not extend to
being kind to those that are different). Who do these people think built the
bloody technology they use to post their banal crap on Instagram?

------
Houshalter
Not surprised at all that this was flagged of the front page in minutes.
Completely proving the point...

~~~
imartin2k
Although most of the pieces that have ended up on the frontpage (based on my
subjective impression) actually were critical of what happened. I wouldn't
imply that HN is overrun with people who want to surpress striving for the
truth.

I also had a tex flagged. It seems to happen to articles about the topic which
mostly include a personal oppinion and not much more.

------
cpr
Why was this flagged?

It's a quite reasonable argument.

------
qguv
Gender segregation in sports is certainly not without controversy.

~~~
lisper
That's news to me. References?

~~~
trav4225
[http://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-mcenroe-refuses-to-
apologiz...](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-mcenroe-refuses-to-apologize-
for-controversial-serena-williams-comments/)

------
wybiral
On the one hand I understand why people feel like they need the law to protect
them when discussing biological differences in the workplace. Someone who is
blind might not be the best at driving cars, for instance...

But on the other hand I don't feel good about notions of genetic superiority
being accepted in the workplace and I worry about the slopes that could be
exposed from such discussion.

~~~
Houshalter
No one said anything about genetic superiority. The Google memos entire
argument was that women are statistically less likely to be _interested_ in
tech for various reasons. He never said they were less capable or intelligent
or anything.

