> And then he talks about "Google lowering the bar".
Strange how you directly quote parts that don't mention the lowering of the bar, then suddenly paraphrase the lowering the bar part, and put quotes around a non-quote. This is the sort of intellectual run around that is really common.
I searched the doc, and Damore uses this word "bar" exactly once (if the search function can be believed - lowering zero):
> Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
And this links (via the text "effectively lower the bar for") to an internal Google chat I can't see.
So ten pages, and lower(ing) the bar is mentioned once, in which he links to some discussion which I assume is relevant to the quote. How can anyone know what that quote means with out reading the internal google chat? For all I know, it links to an chat discussing false negatives in hiring, because I find that whole sentence confusing - how is decreasing false negatives bad? Is he saying they only use practices which reduce false negatives on diversity hires and not other hires? That would actually be really interesting - Google conducting different interviews based on "diversity" and finding they get better candidates as a result would be weird not to replicate.
In any case, that internal chat must clear up at least part of that context, and I can't read it so I have no context for this single line. Given this was an internal memo, however, the author gave its intended audience full access to the context, so even then, I can't see how this can be used as a sweeping statement by those externally of much of anything.
Why did she become a teacher? I mean, the grades difference required to be a teacher vs CS are vast. How does that happen?
My mum went through this - she finished 1st in a state in Australia in English, and top 100 in History, and became an English teacher. Thing is, that was 1960s. She taught at a selective school (academic?) and NONE, ZERO of her students under similar circumstances would choose english teaching over being a lawyer. Now, my mother also taught with an ex-lawyer who hated it and became a teacher, but that was not because she was not given opportunities, but because she hated the law industry.
I wonder again how was your sister was steered down this path?
Criticism: (buttering up first, as all good criticisms do: I give to the Give Directly UBI test through Effective Altruism Australia, basically because I read Doing good Better, and am very pro what you are all doing with 80,000 hours specifically).
I think the mistake of the article is that you assume people have a context for your asking these sorts of questions. I know it is tedious to start with the context every. time. but without some context, the articles end up preaching a little to the converted, or risk putting people offside. They are also impossible to share, which is a shame because I think the basic premise (do good better) is really easy to sell, and the methodology really helpful.
You are 100% correct if you have zero context. Let me provide some context.
If you look at https://80000hours.org/about/ their goal is to help people make the world better, by a combination of career and charitable donations.
> Our aim is to help as many people as possible lead high-impact careers.
> We do this by providing career advice for talented young people who want to have a social impact.
Given this context, several questions arise:
1. What to give to?
2. Which areas to give to? Health? Social? Education?
3. Which countries?
4. Which programs that you can give to have positive outcome? How do you decide which to give to?
That's the context of question being asked.
The specific article is about an issue that, in this community, is a big question, and 80,000 hours (a YC non-profit BTW) tries to quantify the truth of this common - in their sphere - belief.
It is not an attack, or a denial of any of the things you stated, just a different context for inquiry.
> What positive connotation could be drawn from it?
IMHO that is the wrong question. Connotations aren't something anyone can argue for or against - one can have bad connotations for all sorts of words. Actual example: my ex hated the word "negotiate" in any personal discussion as she saw negotiations as something where you tried to screw the other person over (she was a lawyer). This was to the point where she refused to negotiate anything - including where we would have dinner. How can anyone live without negotiating? Hence, ex :)
I think a better question than one about connotations would be:
If we accept that women have a preference for people over things, what would encourage women to want to do a "things" job? The memo's answer: more peer programming i.e. adding a people element to a things/systems job. That is internally consistent, I think, with the evidence presented on average female preference.
Honestly, I find all this inferior/superior talk really troubling. Different != inferior, or superior, it is just DIFFERENT. Is a hammer a better tool than a saw? Depends what I want to do... I find it even more troubling that people against labelling others superior/inferior see everything that way. Personally, I think vive la difference!
Where are these findings? It would be rather easy to show Search Console data with a decline, but that isn't the case. Do they have that sort of evidence?
Also, was the "Fake News" thing about regular SERPs, or specifically news SERPs? I have no idea - it isn't an area I've looked at - but I'm pretty sure it was news based, no?
I'd be surprised if there wasNT a lawsuit. I'm not American - but what's the risk to the sacked dude? He sues, loses, and then what? He sues, wins, how much? What do lawyers cost? Solve for the equilibrium.
I think the risk (professional death?) is not relevant (as I doubt he gets a job at any equally leftist SV workplace), he doesn't seem terribly charismatic (see Jordan Peterson interview) so he won't be a public star that makes money off his ideas, and Google has deep pockets and a deeper desire to avoid any more publicity about ANY of this.
Sue, settle for 7 figures, sign an NDA agreeing to go quietly into the night, go back to Harvard and study more Biology/whatever interests him.
But seriously, what are the rules here? I went OS for 6 months once (started out as 1) and worked the whole time. I billed through my AU company, but still, was I allowed to work in those places?
I think the idea is you get the research, plus all the citations for or against, versus pages of articles on The Guardian, or Techcrunch, or Breitbart. That tool sounds pretty cool to me to be honest!
> but that it doesn't convincingly argue why these difference are relevant to what is being suggested.
This is the most honest critique I have seen, and that speaks to the audience far more than the author. I agree 100% with you on the unconvincing nature, and that TERRIFIES me.
I don't think the argument was convincing either, where I'd wager we differ is that I think that is because the audience just wasn't ready for the argument. That is clear in every strawmanning of a word like "empathy", of the emotional responses and the complete denial that there is any science supporting his claims - and I know this hyperbole is rhetoric, but consider this direct quote form the rebuttal "... and flies directly in the face of all research done in the field for decades". ALL research for DECADES. All of it. DECADES. That a PhD in biology from Harvard is willfully ignorant of ALL the research FOR DECADES seems... unlikely?
When someone can make a calm, rational, thought out argument and be yelled out and mocked with no evidence he has the science wrong or even, heaven forbid, that his counter-proposals are less likely to help, what is left? When no attempt was made to meet the author even 10% of the way, and consider he has some supporting evidence, how CAN one make a convincing argument? Will every argument use confirmation bias pandering to pre-existing ideals? I fear this is the moment when we lose the ability to convince with reason, or facts, or evidence, and begin a scary world on in-group biases and walled off intellectual forts immune to new ideas or even being challenged.
I'm not sure I agree. A significant play in the startup playbook is:
1. Double Revenue in X period.
2. Add 50% to costs in same X period.
3. Raise enough money that the money in the bank is greater than the losses while (Revenue X 2) < (Costs X 1.5).
No matter the starting point, as long as the runway is long enough, Revenue X 2 will eventually eclipse Costs X 1.5. Heck, even if it slows, as long as the Revenue X is greater than the Costs X, revenue will eventually exceed costs.
The "leaked" financials bare out that this play, and I think Uber is a lot closer to breakeven than people seem to think, as long as than can 2X revenue. That's simply selling investors on maths, and doesn't require a lot of distortion .
I love the caveats - and yes, it is really good, and no, I neither endorse nor reject this paper either... at the very least, I'll do neither publicly :)
Even if I accept that, even if that is true, is it better to make more and lose the other four dimensions? I can see where NOT making more is better for a person, if they can optmise some other element of their lives.
I think we need to follow your thought process through to conclusion:
> "a bulk of IT work is about empathizing with users at least as much as attention to detail."
HYPOTHESIS: If autism is useful for code, but not all IT is code related, there will parts with LESS code reliance, and MORE empathy reliance, and therefore different gender ratios.
FALSIFIABILITY: If the boring, code-only gigs - programming switches and embedded systems, DNS etc - have the same male/female discrepancy, or are less male dominated, than empathy related tech gigs like UX, web design and graphic design, the hypothesis is false. (NB: The opposite won't PROVE the idea, but it certainly is an indication there is something there).