291–300 of 1001 posts
More likely your female teammates are creating a hostile work environment by being unable to handle minor ideological disagreement. Or even more likely, you have misinterpreted them and are unaware that they were not shaken or seriously disturbed in any way. Edit: edited to remove the personal attack while still keeping the meaning.
> He claimed that Google’s diversity efforts represent a lowering of the bar. Google has stated many times that its efforts involve focusing more resources on searching for candidates in minority groups rather than lowering the bar for these groups. Such misrepresentation is harmful to those of us at Google who have to overcome the bias that we were hired based other factors beside our skills. This to me is the most…
Even more harm is done by Affirmative Action for women now being implemented in all companies. Feminism has given up on the aspect of competing and turned to shaming all men. There are several professions where women dominate with > 80%. Where's all this fucking outrage in those?
How about:
People are capable of choosing professions they like. Respect their choices and don't second guess them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> why did you feel the need to emphasize this Not the author, but: The psychology research literature is mostly garbage.[0] It's surprising to me that through all this, hardly anyone has dug into the supposedly scientific papers behind Damore's claims. Ultimately they come down to a massive leap of faith that job aspirations of psychology-major undergraduates can be generalized to a somehow biologically-driven prefer…
There are plenty of articles that touch on this. https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/08/10/the-google-memo-what...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> in as conciliatory manner as it could be written Strongly disagree. I think emphasis is a really big deal here. Here's a key line from the memo: > Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story. This runs right into the Jon Snow line, "everything before the word 'but' is horse____." It comes across that the author d…
Relevant to your John Snow callout: https://www.economist.com/news/international/21726276-last-w...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then the correct way to handle it is to drop another refutational evidence bomb attacking his primary points instead of picking the low hanging fruit of claiming it's "too confrontational," "poorly written," "naive," or whatever other secondary problems exist (this is aside from wilfully misrepresenting his claims, which is definitely a bigger problem). Plenty of far more aggressive articles and essays have been writ…
This is addressed in TFA. > [W]hen I go to work, I go to work, and not to a debate club. Some people at Google reacted by saying “well if he’s so wrong, then why not refute him,” but that requires spending a significant amount of time building an argument against the claims in his document. On the other hand, if I remain silent, that silence could be mistaken for agreement. I should not be forced into that kind of de…
Sure. But people on the wrong side of the Google monoculture feel like they have to be closeted at work. They don't want to feel that way either. There has to be a way for everyone to be professional and honest here.
https://www.economist.com/news/21726276-last-week-paper-said...
Wow. I really feel like this was a missed opportunity to close the gap. I feel like some very unreasonable thing are being said in a reasonable/polished way. >> A lot of people have used that argument in defense of what he wrote, as evidence that the memo was not harmful or hostile to the women he worked with. When I walk into my job at a tech company, how do I know which of my colleagues thinks I’m an outlier among…
That's a decent description of Damore's memo.
> I would think hostility would require some form of visible action.
Nope. My dad's tech workplace in the '70s was hostile to black people even though there was almost no visible action.
> Isn't the whole point of science is to move the debate away from opinion to fact.
Yes, but cherry-picking results and selectively quoting articles isn't rigorous science. There is a long history of misusing science to promote preconceived agendas (tobacco industry, new age quantum garbage, eugenics, etc).
I apologize, I just can't understand the last half of your post. It sounds like you're saying the women who wrote this article are part of a powerful in-group-alliance?