A good example could be that Googler from a few years ago who seemed amazed at the blowback he got from publicly posting that he thought women were genetically inferior as software engineers. Had he been as smart as he thought he was, that could have been a great opportunity for self reflection that would not have been available without that public airing of his thoughts.
Saying "women make bad engineers" is inflammatory and incorrect. That's the sentiment people quickly parse because basically "tl;dr". Saying "the educational system and society in general sets the stage for women on average to not succeed in science fields as well as men" is far more correct, most women in science would agree, and not exactly flashy as "we don't employ women because women are bad at science and math". If the reader gets even that far, a lot of people are going to write off anything further.
Damore said that women biologically were inferior at science, that's what I am reading second-hand so might _also_ be filtered through a lens already. That sentiment is pretty insane and ignores the huge effect of socialization on who we become. There have been no conclusive studies that female and male brains are structurally different. What that leaves, in my opinion, is a difference in socialization and what women tend to be told they are good at or pushed towards.
Sorry, not trying to start an argument at all. I am always a little baffled by science-y types ignoring that most people aren't interested in reading dissertations randomly handed off to them. People, in my opinion, are going to read 3 sentences then make up their minds whether they agree with your premise.
Looking in the mirror, I don't like people's livelihoods getting ruined, but I'm not interested in extending much sympathy for someone who stuck his neck out in the name of sexism (regardless of how vehemently he denies doing so, while yanno, saying a bunch of sexist stuff). Pretty clear from the document he knew how inflammatory it was. He made up his mind to die on some hill, whatchagunnuhdo. It's healthier for the industry that people like that aren't in senior roles where they can gatekeep women's careers, anyhow.
At a micro scale, when I say something on HN I know people aren't going to like, I don't clutch my pearls when it gets downvoted. If I think something is true but unpopular, I'll say it and accept the obvious consequences.
> Damore said that women biologically were inferior at science, that's what I am reading second-hand so might _also_ be filtered through a lens already.
That's a confession, or totally misleading.
He stuck out his neck only to those who appeared to welcome his supported and honest interpretation of the truth, only for the standards of discussion to change. He didn't post it on the open internet. If reality has asymmetries, don't blame him for reminding us of that. For example, barely after childbirth there are group differences in interest in people vs things.
Apologies, I didn't clarify I am a different person.
> He didn't post it on the open internet.
I think that's one of the reasons for the strong reaction - he said this stuff in a professional context, which is pretty inappropriate.
Also could you quote where "Damore said that women biologically were inferior at science"?
Is that what he posted? Do you have some quotes?
Edit: if this is not in fact an accurate representation of what happened, it makes a good example of one of the cons of thinking in public: you may be misinterpreted and/or misrepresented forever after if you reach a large enough audience.
If you're looking for a single "gotcha" quote you don't really find it because the document is a fortress of wordy CYA. I think the only thing to say is normative statements like "women like people and men like things because women are wired to raise children" is post-hoc justification of the roles society prescribe for men and women, not some kind of truth bomb that's too hot to handle. People use similar arguments to the ones in this document to justify differences in pay and representation between races as well. It's a well worn path in sophistry to justify the status quo.
In the interests of fairness, I'll highlight a part of the document I thought was fairly insightful.
> Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more “feminine,” then the gender gap will shrink[.]
I think framing this as "men becoming feminine" is patronizing and prefer instead "allowing people a greater range of self expression, with men and women able to take on roles and personality traits traditionally reserved for another gender if they choose to (eg, there's no reason to highlight men becoming more feminine and not women becoming more masculine), as well as being afforded the opportunity to adopt non-binary genders previously considered to be invalid." I think it's underappreciated how men's gender role can be stifling and how men and women should both support the cause of feminism to achieve better outcomes for everyone.
I'm looking for any quotes. One thing that confuses the issue is that the gizmodo piece removed citations, which makes it look like this was all his original thoughts. Of course, one response to this is to then attack the cited pieces, but that's a different argument.
Anyways, I'm not here to pick up his banner and run with it. I believe that people did honestly interpret what he wrote as you have here. But I also believe that other people honestly interpreted it as not that.
Which, back to the topic of this thread, is a perfect example of the pitfalls of thinking in public. If people perceive you to be thinking the wrong things about topics that are very sensitive for them, they will react very strongly (understandably).
It's sort of like a variation on murphys law: anything you say publically that could possibly be interepreted negatively will be. And then it needs to be attacked because it might actually move the needle on some issue, whether or not the author intended it to.
I recall that it was mostly about predisposition and preference, not ability. It was certainly spun in the way you describe, but I'm surprised to see that take here. The memo was thoroughly dissected on HN.
The truth is not a popularity contest.
Conversely, others have no obligation to respect your opinions.
In fact, explaining things is often a great way to lose credibility to large swaths of people, as you'll have become boring and confusing.
I posit this is okay, as I wouldn’t trust your citation selection anyway!
Most of the internet makes a lot more sense if you stop thinking of it as a place to argue, and start thinking of it as a place to exchange ideas.
You give me an idea, and I’ll mull it over myself, research it myself, and confirm/adopt it or refute it myself.
None of this requires an argument or evidence, just the idea, and that’s how most people use the Internet.
> explaining things is often a great way to lose credibility
> I wouldn’t trust your citation selection anyway!
One popular earth reason is people like teaching and learning. We call it knowledge. I'm sure you're fun at parties.
If your systems can’t prevent you from falling for QAnon, flat eartherism, or the time cube, you are exploitable and are likely already actively exploited.
Believing what you read in an HN comment is a terrible idea.
Monologues can easily be boring. They are hard to put together for most people and you have to have implied consent from the crowd to be monologued. People don't like to be forced to be polite to listen to anyone for more than 30 seconds.
But there are certain ways of conversing where you have time to explore deeper. Unfortunately, not everyone is open to conversation for the sake of argument.
If you are in those circles, speak of ideas, not people.
Some truths need to be handled with care, and indelicate handling will cause unwanted angry attention, not the truth itself.
Funny though, how so many people confuse this point. It's easier to feel indignancy over attracting vitriol over "a truth" than it is to play victim for brutish behavior.