[manigandham]

So you just randomly said something else.

His argument is clearly stated right there and quoted by both of us, that was the point I asked about to which you just sidestepped... you are free to say you're unconvinced of the statement but what is your argument against?

You can ask him for more info and/or and do your own research too, but his paper is what it is. Why not debate it instead of saying that it's not good enough? How does that further anything?

[aaron-lebo]

Claiming your argument is objective doesn't make it so. He can state that his goal is objectivity through reduced empathy, but if you don't provide objective evidence (he does not), it doesn't mean anything.

[manigandham]

That's fair. So you don't buy overall argument from Paul Bloom, who's a Yale psychologist and seems to have done the research for what it's worth.

I'd say that removing anecdotes and emotions for better policy is rather common sense and often used in many military and business practices. In fact it's even a common TV trope.

Either way, and more importantly, I'm happy to actually have a discussion that could potentially lead to the proper objective research rather than stifling any possible discourse.

[aaron-lebo]

No, I just don't believe you can cite an article and suggest that's evidence for your claims without explaining why. Bloom might work at Yale, but that doesn't mean he's right (psychology - that's a quickly moving field) or that his article supports Damore's. If he really wanted a useful discussion, he could have done that for his readers, that's how basic research works.

Bloom even says:

But even if you accept this argument, there is a lot more to life than public policy.

and

I used to believe this, but I am no longer sure.

[manigandham]

An argument regardless of (or even without) evidence would does not mean it cannot be discussed. That is the fundamental issue of the original post.

However, you are clearly misquoting that article and Bloom's statements, why not just use the actual entire paragraph:

"But even if you accept this argument, there is a lot more to life than public policy. Consider our everyday interactions with our parents and children, with our partners and friends. Consider also certain special relationships, such as that between doctor and patient or therapist and client. Empathy might not scale up to the policy level, but it seems an unalloyed good when it comes to these intimate relationships—the more the better.

I used to believe this, but I am no longer sure."

Bloom's statement is that life includes things beyond policy like personal relationships, where more empathy is always seen as good, however he is no longer sure about that and then goes on to describe why in much more detail.

[aaron-lebo]

Yes, and if a scientist is choosing words like "no longer sure", that's not a really strong indicator of belief in it, certainly not a good argument for policy.

If an argument doesn't have evidence, it has less value than something that does, that's why the way people are still talking about it like it's something more interesting than a 4chan post is confusing.

[manigandham]

As I said, Bloom goes on to describe his position in much more detail. Have you read the entire article?

I'm not sure why you are so adamant about evidence here. Bloom is just one example of someone who did some research and put together an argument, which was then cited by Damore for a single point in a larger piece. I do believe that particular point is valid (as it's completely accepted in popular culture) but regardless the greater issue is that it can be discussed at all.

You seem to be saying that it shouldn't be discussed at all... because there's no evidence for it? People talk endless about many things that have no evidence and are purely conjecture, just to start exploring a certain perspective (which usually comes before the hard scientific research). Why is that a problem?

[oj-lappi]

You keep dodging. His point was that you misquoted Bloom to create a perception that he disagrees with Damore.

Also this is more interesting since its an insider opinion by an educated man. You are trying to dismiss Damore outright without counterargument. That's not productive.

[oj-lappi]

A) that wasn't your point.

Your point was "Damore seems to be wanting a policy based on anecdotes because his reasoning is neither objective nor convincing."

And I don't see how that follows. I think we can at least agree that he's not arguing FOR what he's explicitly AGAINST.

B) "It doesn't mean anything"

See A). The memo may or may not include any facts undisputed or otherwise, but we can certainly get a feeling for its intent, which at least part of was: to criticize Googles policies and possibly open up a conversation about them.

I don't think Google handled that very well.

The way Google has steered advertising on youtube [1,2,3] also makes me think this suit is onto something. At least a better look.

1. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/21/youtube-g...

2. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/prageru-sues-you...

3. Video by h3h3 I can't find right now