文案与商业写作2017economist.com
拉里·佩奇本该写给詹姆斯·达莫尔的那封邮件
The e-mail Larry Page should have written to James Damore
导读
这是《经济学人》以“拉里·佩奇本应写给詹姆斯·达莫尔的邮件”为题的文章，示范如何写一封逐条反驳的公开信。对写作者的价值在于：它本身是一篇驳论文的样本，而评论区又暴露出它哪里写坏了——如何复述对方论点、如何避免稻草人、人称与语气如何影响说服力。
可以直接用的写作要点
- 01
反驳前先准确复述对方原话，明确区分“他明说的”和“你觉得他暗示的”，否则容易被指为稻草人。
- 02
检查文中“你”与“我/我们”的比例：通篇用“你”指责，读者感到被审判；多用“我/我们”陈述立场，才像邀请对话。
- 03
罗列对方“逻辑谬误”时，要保证各条互不重叠、且能对应原文原句，否则清单越长越显得站不住。
- 04
用一个同类对照（如外科医生与软件工程师）来检验对方的论证是否普遍成立，比抽象辩论更有力。
HN 评论精选
反驳者把“兴趣差异”偷换成“能力差异”再加以攻击，是典型的稻草人；读者常急于推断动机而非读文本。
开头写得不错，整体公允克制，但中间有这么一段：“然后你似乎从男女在‘关注人还是关注物’‘系统化还是共情’这类指标上的群体差异，一跃跳到男女编程能力的差异。至少看起来你是这么做的；你并没有明说。”那么，如果他“并没有明说”，你怎么知道他“看起来像是”在做这件事？如果不拼命挖掘潜台词，而是平实地分析他的文章，再听听他在采访中的澄清，很明显他谈的是兴趣，不是能力。遗憾的是，接下来七段里有很大篇幅都在拆解一个他们假定的论点，好像那就是他提出的论点。直到这份备忘录，我才意识到有多少人一拿到一篇文章，就立刻开始做动机推断、潜台词分析、暗号侦测。
brandonhsiao查看英文原文
This started out pretty good (and on the whole was fair and measured), but then at one point included this: > Then you seem to make a giant leap from group differences between men and women on such measures as interest in people rather than things, or systematising versus empathising, to differences in men’s and women’s ability to code. At least that’s what you seem to be doing; you don’t quite say so. Well, if he "doesn't quite say so," how do you know that's what he seems to be doing? If you analyze his essay without searching desperately for subtexts, and if you listen to his clarifications in his interviews, it's fairly clear he's talking about interest, not ability. Unfortunately much of the next seven paragraphs then consists of breaking down their presumed argument as if it were the one he made. It wasn't until this memo that I realized how many people, when presented with a body of text, immediately start performing motive inference, subtext analysis, dogwhistle detection, etc.
领导有责任正面回应并引导讨论；“我本不该写这封信”这种开场反而回避了对方的核心诉求。
“我本不该写这封信：我很忙，你稍微用点心就不必麻烦我”这句实在太过分。如果你是一家公司的领导，给团队写信、纠正他们的错误、把讨论引向有建设性的方向，本来就是你的职责。我不太喜欢这篇文章（仍有50%的谷歌员工认为他不该被开除）。你可以认为他应该被开除，这没问题，但看了他的采访，我觉得他是在真诚地寻求一场讨论。你大可以写封信、具体说明他错在哪，但那些“我们根本就不该有这场讨论”的文章，恰恰回避了他提出的问题——他觉得自己所在的环境根本不允许讨论这个话题。
joelrunyon查看英文原文
> I shouldn’t have had to write this: I’m busy and a little effort on your part would have made it unnecessary This line seems really over the top. If you're the leader of your company - it's your JOB to write to the team, correct them where they're wrong and steer the conversation in a productive manner. Not really a fan of this overall post (50% of Googler's still don't think he should have been fired). If you think he should have been fired - that's fine - but I think if you watch his interviews, he was earnestly looking for a discussion. Feel free to write a letter or explain in real terms why he was wrong if you feel like that - but all these pieces about "why we shouldn't even have to have the discussion" - are sort of missing the point he brought up - which was that he didn't feel they could even have a discussion on this topic.
用“你”轰炸读者（82次）而非陈述“我/我们”的立场，且谬误清单重叠、可被原文直接反驳，驳文因此站不住。
统计：“你”出现82次，“我”（大写）30次，“我们”44次，“pdf”“http”“www”“.edu”“.gov”各0次。我很期待读到《经济学人》对那份备忘录的驳斥，两边的论点我都读了很多，想看看E报怎么说。原备忘录的论证近乎天真，拆解它的论证链并不难。可读到信的中段，整封信就崩了。E报发表这样一封论证拙劣的信，实在丢人。作者列出了原文的6处逻辑缺陷（虽说他声称找到1处加另外6处）。这些缺陷彼此重叠太多，其中3处可以直接用备忘录原文反驳。
guardiangod查看英文原文
"You" - 82 counts "I" - 30 counts (cap letter) "we" - 44 counts "pdf" - 0 counts "http" - 0 counts "www" - 0 counts ".edu" or ".gov" - 0 counts I was very excited to read a rebuttal of the memo from the Economist. I've read arguments from both sides extensively and wanted to see The E's take. The original memo was almost naive in its argument; it's not hard to pick its argument chain apart. Then I got to the mid section of the letter and the whole letter just fall apart. Shame on the Economist for publishing such an ill-argued letter. The author listed 6 logical flaws in the original memo (even though the the author said he found 1 + 6 more flaws). The listed flaws overlap too much, and 3 of them can be directly rebutted using lines from the memo. "First, you ignore many other gender differences, basing your argument only on a few that you think support your conclusion. Second, you’re ignoring everything else that could explain the gender gap. Third, the gender differences you cite differ between countries and over time. Fourth, they don’t even support your argument, because you don’t seem to understand what makes a great software engineer. Fifth, you clearly don’t understand our company, and so fail to understand what we are trying to do when we hire. And sixth, even if you are right that more men than women are well-suited to the job of software engineer at google, you are wrong that taking steps to recruit more women is inherently unfair to men." The rest of the flaws I agree with (depending on the reading of the text), but there's no citation for anything. So even though the conclusion might be correct, the arguments are weak. BTW- "Fifth, you clearly don’t understand our company, and so fail to understand what we are trying to do when we hire." Such a great line. So "inter-dimensional" that I can't put this as mere ironic.
用“外科医生”这一同类对照检验对方论证的普适性，是很有力的反驳手法。
对那些认同达莫尔、一听到“性别歧视”就关耳朵的人，最好的办法是直接说明：软件工程其实并不是一份压力特别大的工作。达莫尔的许多论点即便成立，也几乎适用于世界上任何一份工作。具体来说，可以把软件工程和外科医生比：说外科手术比软件工程压力更大、更要求注重细节、更需要投入，这没什么可争议的。但外科医生的性别比大约是男60女40，远比软件业均衡。如果达莫尔的论点有几分道理，这怎么可能？平权措施解释不了，因为糟糕的外科医生会被起诉、被解雇；而糟糕的软件工程师更容易混过去，不至于被开除。
burkaman查看英文原文
The best way to approach people who agree with Damore and will shut down at the mention of anything like "sexism" or "discrimination" is to just explain that software engineering is really not a particularly stressful job. Many of Damore's arguments, if they were true, would apply to nearly any job in the world. Specifically, you can compare software engineering to something like surgery. It is not controversial to claim that surgery is more stressful, more detail oriented, requires more dedication, etc. than software engineering. Yet the gender ratio of surgeons is about 60-40 male to female, far more equal than software. How can this be, if Damore's arguments have any merit? Affirmative action can't explain this, because if you're a bad surgeon, you'll be sued for malpractice and fired. If you're a bad software engineer, it's much easier to kind of muddle through and do well enough to not get fired.
同类还值得读
好文笔是一种商业优势
Good writing is a business advantage
这是广告人 George Tannenbaum 的一篇博客短文，主张清晰的写作在商业中是实打实的竞争优势——能把事情说明白的人，在会议、邮件、提案里就已经赢了一半。
文案与商业写作2020 · 449 分 · 198 评4 条写作要点编辑精选如何为落地页撰写文案
Writing copy for landing pages
这是 Stripe Atlas 关于落地页文案的写作指南，核心是把文案当成回答读者疑问的工具，而不是自我表达。
文案与商业写作2018 · 416 分 · 84 评4 条写作要点编辑精选我曾是扎克伯格的演讲稿撰写人
I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter
这篇是第一人称回忆：作者曾为扎克伯格写演讲稿，借此复盘在剑桥分析丑闻前后，科技巨头的公开表达如何被构思、修饰和交付。
文案与商业写作2018 · 347 分 · 254 评4 条写作要点编辑精选一句话产品描述写作的艺术
The Art of Writing One-Sentence Product Descriptions
这篇文章讨论如何为产品写一句话描述，核心是把复杂产品压缩成一个能打动人的句子。
文案与商业写作2017 · 335 分 · 57 评4 条写作要点编辑精选Ask HN：为技术岗位写求职信
Ask HN: Writing cover letters for tech jobs
这篇 HN 讨论科技岗位是否需要写求职信、写给谁看、用什么语气和格式。
文案与商业写作2017 · 265 分 · 123 评4 条写作要点编辑精选