[tlb]

There are quite a few things that are probably true, but you can't say publicly without attracting a lot of unwanted angry attention. If your line of thinking approaches any of these topics, it makes it difficult to think through the issue in public.

[rainsford]

Maybe I'm thinking about this wrong, but getting a lot of angry feedback from what you consider to be axiomatic truths seems like a useful benefit to thinking in public. Lots of topics might attract the occasional troll or disagreement from certain corners, but when your thinking regularly draws the kind of widespread condemnation I suspect you're talking about, a reasonable person might consider how "probably true" their thinking really is.

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.

[ifyoubuildit]

> posting that he thought women were genetically inferior as software engineers.

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.

[burnished]

I cant be arsed, here is a link to the text in an article, go for it https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-di...

[maxbond]

The tl;dr is that he takes a bunch of stereotypes about men and women and asserts they're biological/intrinsic, and spends most of the document using pseudoscience and weasley language in a preemptive attempt to couch any blowback. (Perhaps undermining the idea that this was a learning opportunity & that the author did not anticipate a strong response. He explicitly mentions in the beginning that he anticipated a strong response in public and support in private, go figure.)

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.

[ifyoubuildit]

> 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'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.

[maxbond]

I don't disagree and I have had that problem before, such as in expressing business ideas that aren't fully formed to certain people best summarized as "haters" who offered unhelpful criticism and attempted to dissuade me rather than shore up the idea. Perhaps this wasn't a good example, become this isn't so much thinking on public as engaging in organizational politics, making an argument for reforms within Google.

[crackercrews]

> posting that he thought women were genetically inferior as software engineers.

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.

[stkdump]

One could argue about the nuances between predisposition and ability of a population (half of the population). But saying that you don't expect a certain understanding of a topic on HN seems to imply that you think HN is an echochamber.

[crackercrews]

No, I thought HN was a place where this was better understood. Someone who only heard about Damore on NPR would not be well-informed. Someone who read comments on HN would know that the narrative did not do justice to the facts.

[mlb893]

You could certainly see it that way but I think he's saying that it was dissected, meaning thoroughly examined (debated?). That being said I did not read that original thread.

[ponow]

Way to dismiss and mischaracterize that moment. Not only did he not claim any such inferiority, his post was in the context of discussions going on inside a private company that seemed to encourage such reflections, until they turned on him.

[tbrownaw]

> but when your thinking regularly draws the kind of widespread condemnation I suspect you're talking about, a reasonable person might consider how "probably true" their thinking really is.

The truth is not a popularity contest.

[patrick451]

That engineer wasn't wrong though, he just said the wrongthink out loud. Just because there is blowback to some opinion you hold has zero bearing on whether or not it is correct. The evolution of fashionable opinion through history should be enough to disabuse even the casual observer of such silliness.

[madamelic]

I think you are falling into the same problem as Damore did. You are thinking people are digesting the whole article like a research paper rather than considering small bits, just the title, or even second-hand summaries.

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.

[ponow]

You didn't even read his paper, got him wrong, and yet you dismiss him. You're exhibiting the very trait that caused the injustice against him. After having studied that paper, look in the mirror and ask whether what he wrote was so unconscionable to require the wrath he endured.

[maxbond]

I did read it, that is more or less what he said. He used a lot more words to say it, not a lot more nuance.

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.

[ponow]

You had said:

> 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.

[andirk]

This is where a lot of voices on Twitter feel they're being marginalized because their hate speech isn't accepted which is odd to them because in private, it is accepted. Similarly, saying "Joe Rogan" in certain holier-than-thou circles will get you banished. Point is that public discourse is often policed by the most offensive and the most sensitive, but still speak your mind, and always with respect to those in the forum.

[nicbou]

If you criticise someone for liking Joe Rogan, you have to explain why and convince them. You can’t dunk on them and get cheered by your side automatically. You have to deal with the other person’s perception of you, and listen to their rebuttal. This makes people a lot less intense.

[SpeedilyDamage]

You have no obligation to explain yourself to anyone, I have no earthly idea why you think you do.

Conversely, others have no obligation to respect your opinions.

[TheCapeGreek]

Correct, you aren't obligated to explain anything to anyone. If you want your opinion/idea/statements to be taken seriously however, you have to back them up and can't just speak absolutes into a void.

[SpeedilyDamage]

This is in no way true, and you can see how untrue it is by observing any popular "alt" speaker for a short period of time.

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.

[mlb893]

I disagree on your conclusion. I think there are certain ways of explaining your point of view amongst an ambiguous crowd.

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.

[wadd1e]

I think you and the person you're replying to just have different ideas of what you mean by "people". I think they'd be right in saying you can't speak absolutes and get away with it in a group of curious and non-impressionable people who will challenge what you have to say and will try to understand your POV too, but you're also right in saying there's groups of people where the same strategy will backfire.

[ponow]

It is true, just incomplete. Preaching to the converted doesn't require this evidence and argument, but _in general_ you need that capability. If you want popularity you have to customize your pitch to the audience.

[mlb893]

I think that the best way of speaking about these things is not to refer to Joe Rogan but to speak ideas irrespective of who is behind. Some have a certain reaction when AOC is mentioned while others have the same reaction regarding Rogan.

If you are in those circles, speak of ideas, not people.

[honkler]

speech i dont like is hate speech

[philwelch]

Even worse, the criteria for what you can't say publicly without attracting a lot of unwanted angry attention changes over time. So you're not even safe avoiding the controversies of the day; you also have to try and predict the controversies of tomorrow.

[SpeedilyDamage]

The truth of something is not always the most impactful part of that thing.

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.

[hgsgm]

Public can be anonymous (or anonymous enough if your thoughts are mild enough to not inspire a doxxing and get a harmful reaction if you are doxxed).

[bee_rider]

Pseudonymous is a fantastic word that describes lots of things nowadays, unfortunately eclipsed by its more assertive brother Anonymous.