A charitable reading isn't something that's owed. It's something that almost universally helps discourse. Communication is hard.
We're always willing to give Us a charitable reading, and it's a damned shame people are so unwilling to afford that to Them, regardless which side of anything you're on.
I certainly did my best to ignore it. It was poorly informed, poorly considered. His firing was inevitable and possibly even what he wanted. Certainly I can't imagine a more effective way to get fired at Google.
Since James didn't do the courtesy of being informed, it seems odd to demand that everyone offer him the courtesy of finishing his argument for him
Progress isn't made when both parties refuse to cooperate. And one side isn't absolved of responsibility just because they believe the other side to be not worth their effort. This is petty.
I'm not here dropping links about stereotypes and pointing out trivial logical errors in the discourse because it's good for my heart or my psyche.
I'm on Twitter hiatus, but I still end up wrapped in these fruitless conflicts. But please, continue arguing that what I'm doing is deleterious. I'm not friendly on this subject, but you can hardly accuse me of not engaging openly and being responsive to the dialogue.
I recognize that giving a promise this vast in scope was a bad idea. However, I feel obligated to keep it.
I'm bored to death of men with almost no conception of the topic at hand demanding deference and respect just because they think they know how to program a computer. And yet, here I am keeping my promise.
You seem to think my intent is malicious. It's really too bad.
Nope. I think you're acting out of pain. I think you're in pain because you yourself said that your current behavior on the forum is "costly" and bad "for my heart or my psyche." Again, you're reading something that was literally never written. Hence, cognitive dissonance.
addendum: Irrational people misinterpreting a text is precisely that. Surely you can't be saying that a text having a fairly high bar for intelligent interpretation and discussion is reason for that text to not exist?
Reading a text is a dialogue. If the writer did not appropriately express the intent, then they invite the reader to finish the thought. And this even rational people can arrive at different conclusions.
To suggest every reading you don't approve of as "irrational" is a predictable, even classical tactic. Many words exist for it, but in the end the notion of blaming the reader for finishing an incomplete thought is an exercise in futility. The reader has no choice.
If you want to talk about how the memo was poorly written, talk about how the memo was poorly written. The readings of others certainly can supplement your analysis, but you haven't provided that analysis.
The memo begins with it's intent, and even has a TLDR after the opening three paragraphs.
Also, while the memo was mostly trying to assess the current state and factors of the gender imbalance in tech and Google particularly, it does provide several, literal, conclusions. Here are just a few:
>We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration.
>Women on average are more cooperative [...] Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there's more we can do.
>Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits.
If you actually read the memo, and have actual problems with what was actually written, then talk about that. There's certainly plenty to discuss and to rationally disagree about, but you have yet to say anything substantial about the thing you're criticizing.
Which does little to excuse the subsequent content. Why would it? Impact matters far more than intent. Asking for someone to read a paragraph in a light quite opposed to it's content in this era of Poe Principle Supremacy is essentially asking for an act of faith.
I possess no such faith. And why should I? The implicit suggestion here is that James's memo had value or novel input. Even if I fastidiously follow his intent statement, it appears misinformed and to misinterpret some findings, offering a solution I have discussed as inadequate and insulting many times on this website.
> If you actually read the memo, and have actual problems with what was actually written, then talk about that.
I have at length. I am now talking about the discourse at hand. Please find someone else to make demands of. I'm not your conversational sparring partner and even this reply is only a courtesy. Please do not exhaust my good will.
The only thing I could find that begins to be a direct reference is "In this memo's case, perhaps you're mad at someone for saying you're genetically predisposed to be less capable of individual action (e.g., don't worry I am sure if we set up pair programming that will make it fair for you social women types)." The only thing I found in the memo that could be interpreted as women being less capable in something regarding tech work was, "This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading." Granted, I did not interpret "having a harder time" as meaning "is less capable of," but I do see how you could think that. However, that statement is analogous to something like "black Americans in the 50s generally had a harder time running businesses, getting quality education, and finding quality housing." Empirically true, and has nothing to do with capability.
Another point of confusion I can understand is while it mentions the fact that men and women have biological differences, it never says anything at all about what those differences are. Further, he goes on to say "many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions." Now I certainly agree that raising the topic of potential biological differences, only to instantly drop it, is poor writing, and if you justly continue reading the memo expecting more references to that topic, you could be left with a certain level of confusion.
It's fine to not agree with something or someone. It's also OK to be wrong about something, or misunderstand a given piece of material. It is not OK to dismiss out of hand perceived others or to take an emotionally vested interest in your misunderstanding when it's been pointed out.
This is a discussion board. pharrington literally and solely exists to discuss things with KirinDave (and any other accounts posting on this site).
I'm uninterested in James, his feelings, his emotions, his needs, his wants, his _intents_, and his plans. I've met him in passing, and he did not hold my attention anymore in person.
I've been much more focused on the flaws in the discourse here than his memo precisely because of this.
Your ultimate strategy across multiple threads appears to be: "paint this person as an irrational creature, fraught with emotion, that cannot respond rationally and therefore should be dismissed."
If you think this'll work, good luck. If the karma numbers I can see are any indication, my opinion is not being received in the light you're painting it it. If your opinion of the overall HN community is that folks here are an irrational bunch with cognitive abilities to base to catch the pitch of reason, then what sort of motivation (rational or otherwise) are you finding to stay?
And I'm also enjoying watching the numbers pop back up after a sudden depression. Why is that, I wonder? It continues to happen on some threads long after they're open.
> Another point of confusion I can understand is while it mentions the fact that men and women have biological differences, it never says anything at all about what those differences are.
This is simply untrue.
It's boring. Please, stop.
Quite frankly: many people do. Some of them are at Google. James chose to run headlong into this discussion without any practical knowledge of the discourse. His point was poorly delivered precisely because it leaves open such radical room for misrepresenting it.
Discussions of social issues MUST be informed by the social discourse they enter, even if armed with science and evidence. To suggest otherwise is obviously wrong.
No one owes James a charitable reading. And if you think the "mobs" of liberals are misrepresenting his point, you should see where MRA/goreans are going with it.