Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who is Jordan Peterson and whom did he interview?
Jordan Peterson is great. He's a thoughtful, honest person who is delightfully transparent in his efforts to make sense of the universe. He publicly spoke up in support of free speech, and therefore become a target to be intimidated and harassed by - well, the usual suspects. When he refused to back down, he became a minor celebrity among those who value free speech and who are concerned by the recent rise of totalit…
Outraged about the Google diversity memo?
761–770 of 872 posts
Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?
#762Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's an unreasonable reading. If you read past the tl;dr you see that none of the differences in traits he talks about are about ability, just interest, so interpreting it as "women aren't as good" is wrong.
Can you explain why hiring women who are just as good as, if not better than, men at the job, but who would prefer (on average) to work elsewhere, perhaps somewhere with more women employees, would make the business do worse? And can we note that I replied to someone saying "he didn't say that", suggested a place where he did and got replies from different people saying "yes he did say that, and he's correct" and rep…
Now, imagine a situation: 100 persons (80 men, 20 women - ratio observed by actual HR) are looking for a job in Google, which has 10 open positions for them. Google wants to hire the best possible candidate - and hires 8 men and 2 women; both genders are choosed from top 10% of candidates of a same gender (Assuming their skill does not correlate with their gender). That hiring policy does not reduces observed gender gap between candidates at all. So let's introduce positive discrimination (so called affirmative action), and say, that Google wants to hire 5 men and 5 women (1:1 ratio, but even 7:3 will suffice to show worsening effect, albeit in weaker proportions). Now men are choosed from top 6.25%, and women - just from top 25%. The is no gender gap anymore, but now there is a considerable skill gap - top 6.25% men are having considerable advantage over 25% women. More to that: men are not happy because they think they have struggled much more for the same position than women; women are not happy because they think they were hired not for their skills, but for their gender. Also,both men and women being paid based on their performance alone will result if considerable wage gap.
The original memo stated the same, albeit in less transparent form: personal skills cannot be measured with 100% accuracy, so there is always a chance to hire underperforming person (false-positive) or not to hire well performing person (false-negative). Positive discrimination radically reduces false-negatives, which inevitabely magnifies number of false-positives (see Type I and Type II errors in statistics and Neyman-Pearson criterion). Author proposed not to fight on-enter gender gap with discrimination, which would result in negative effect for company's performance, but to make company's environment to be a more attractive (which may reduce on-enter gender gap, reduce number or women leaving industry permanently and won't compromise performance)
Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?
#763Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let me simplify it for you. People espousing hate because of their trash opinions that have already been consigned to the dustbins of history are not going to have their crappy thoughts entertained by those who have moved beyond that stupidity.
It is obvious that you guys on the left share the same manuals, since you also come up with the "history's dustbin" and "trash opinions". You learn your words and hammer them consistently. At least you get props for that. :) No pressure to exhibit coherent and consistent argumentation.
I could have been referencing chattel slavery and your words would be currently for it.
You can take whatever you like from my statement (and clearly are) but you calling me "the left" and pretending I was indoctrinated by some entity indicates your mind is as closed as you intimate mine is.
Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?
#764Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what I gathered, yes. Unquestionably! In a message board with the name "pc-considered-harmful" What did they think was going to get posted onto that board, if not this memo?
For the record, "go/pc-considered-harmful" is not a message board but is rather an internal URL convenience link that the author (or someone else) created specifically for this document. Anyone can create one of these for anything they like (as long as it's not already taken) but these links only resolve inside the corporate network.
Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?
#765Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can complain about Wikipedia, but you missed the point of me mentioning it. Here's a question I want answered because otherwise he might as well present as such: Do you think the Wikipedia page is missing anything important he's done? Specifically anything of note that has to do with the free market. Otherwise, its basically a "just one goat" situation, except he done like 7 goats. the day to day things are just…
I am trying to figure out what exactly he has done to make him alt-right since they attack him constantly. From the Wikipedia page: > n May 2016 New York Magazine reported: "Shapiro...has increasingly found himself targeted by the so-called alt-right movement, a loose conglomeration of online personalities—many if not most of them anonymous—currently devoted to tweeting and posting their support for Donald Trump and…
"A decade later, however, Shapiro reversed his position. In an article published on March 13, 2013, Shapiro wrote, "Some on the right have proposed population transfer from the Gaza Strip or West Bank as a solution. This is both inhumane and impractical. Moving millions of Palestinians out of areas they have known for their entire lives will certainly not pave the way to peace" and while "both right and left agree that a population separation is necessary," he proposes that Israel "has no choice but to weather [the anti-Israeli propaganda]" until a realistic solution comes to light.[37]"
This however was followed by the UCLA section which I misunderstood. Either way, I don't think there's much point on focusing on Israel. The Don himself is probably more pro-Israel than he is. Opinions like that are less identifying of alt right and more as weapons to be used when the alt reich feel betrayed.
That mistake is also why I'm forgiving you on the whole being attacked by the alt right. I've already said why that doesn't matter, it was also in the paragraph right after that one: "I've experienced more pure, unadulterated anti-Semitism since coming out against Trump's candidacy than at any other time in my political career". If he was alt-right he wouldn't be the first to be turned on like with Milo and the Daily Stormer.
I think there's something I need to clarify here. Another poster here posted how alt right means Nazi now. I DONT believe that, and if you may notice I prefer to say Reich for the Nazi side. I see the alt right as someone who has taken to the right socially, possibly being opposites with libertarians with left economics, but are not evangelicals because they're a revolt on social justice (not against it, but specifically a "what about us?") and, most important here, the reaction to such opinions by colleges, news, and businesses. Also, please remember my second comment before you bring up Wikipedia's own article on the alt right.
Which makes the whole discussion a bit funny but confusing. The guy is definitely alt right, despite what everyone's saying here. A bunch of people here are alt right too but, again, don't want to say so. What happened is history has repeated itself as alt right is to alt reich/Nazi as liberal was to socialism/communism.
It doesn't actually matter in the end how I separate them in the end. Much like the mere mention of redistribution was likened to communism, The fact that alt right can be fiscally left has been taken advantage of to frame everything they believe as Nazi under a simplistic understanding of it. The end result is people seeing a thing as alt right, even if they define it differently somehow.
I'd recommend not replying to this comment as quickly as the last, it had to be long to clarify myself and I won't read the reply till tomorrow anyway.
Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?
#766Earlier quoted context omitted.
Talking assumes reasoning. Or, when you are in a power grab, reasoning is the last thing you want to do. The left does want the power not the talking.
Your statement would be more fair and accurate with qualification, such as "some parts of the left". For example, would you agree that classical liberals are still on the left?
Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?
#767Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Which part of the memo was intimidating, harassing, "Women on average have more neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance)." is one example. Just because something is true or a fact does not give some magical guarantee that people will not feel intimidated or harassed if that fact is presented in a certain way or in a certain context. And perhaps people who have lived an entire life of being discriminated…
Hey, I'd like to challenge your view about advice to "learn people skills" which seems to push responsibility to one group, those who aren't already people skilled enough. There are more extroverts than introverts in the world. The first group is happy with social contact, talking with people and generally score better in empathy. Introverts are the other way around: they prefer to use text, do not like to give in to…
If this guy has any defense at all, it could be that he's a minority somewhere on the spectrum of Asperger's, and that a diverse company also needs to somehow accommodate his inability to understand how his statements could have made others feel.
On the other hand, it's quite possible he's just an angry white male who feels like he's being left out but got it off his chest when empowered behind his computer screen, and with his weapons of scientific fact. Jabs of harassment are often delivered buried within a harmless context.
Perhaps a bit of both. It will be for the courts to decide.
Long term, you gave me some ideas. If my company ever gets big enough to have a mix of introverts and extroverts I wonder if it would be a good idea to pair introverts and extroverts so they can "protect" each other? Extroverts can help introverts from saying really insensitive stuff, and introverts could help train the extroverts about when to leave the introverts alone, and to stop harassing them about "being more social". Just a thought...
Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?
#768Earlier quoted context omitted.
> where is the intimidation or harassment? Many employees felt intimidated and that they now had to prove in a work setting that they are not "more neurotic on average than men". This is about human relationships. If enough people say they felt intimidated, how can anyone dispute that? Can you prove they didn't feel intimidated? Can I prove they did feel intimidated? No to both questions. It's not in the domain of sc…
> Many employees felt intimidated and that they now had to prove in a work setting that they are not "more neurotic on average than men". Since we can't read minds, we don't know how they felt. We only know that they said they felt that way. When you believe it is for a higher cause - like fighting the patriarchy - lying about your feelings is a minor consideration. Witness how many of these identity activists lie ab…
If you don't want to get fired for harassing folks, and you don't have great people skills, you should probably keep your controversial opinions at home. YMMV.
Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?
#769Earlier quoted context omitted.
For certain sports, it is in fact mostly genetics: https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/08/14/kenyans-sweep-... It's interesting how introducing certain attributes into a conversation can disable parts of the human brain, I wonder if a study has ever been done on this.
An important difference is that in the olympics, a fair and objective qualification system exists. Kenyans are disproportionate in the RANKINGS but not the POPULATION. In Google's case, women fare poorly in botrh (with rankings expressed in the axis of pay or leadership positions). That's a significant difference.
Threads such as this are chock full of examples of people who are normally very logical and scientific, but once the subject turns to one of the above, suddenly everything's different, nothing can be determined, observed, or measured, the entire world is completely random with no patterns whatsoever, etc.
I wonder if all cultures are like this or only us in the west.
Re: Outraged about the Google diversity memo?
#770Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's a bit of a popular straw man that a 50/50 split is desired. It's more along the lines of, "There are no obvious artificial disadvantages for people in these groups, and if that happens then the resulting distribution will almost certainly change." If you look at the published #s right now, they're... very striking. It makes the hypothesis that it's just the preference of women and people of various minor…
I'm having a hard time making sense of your first paragraph. As for the second, which published numbers are you referring to ?