491–500 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was fascinating to see how many Google managers operate their own "blacklists". That's got to be legally very dodgy.
Google will be sued for it. It will be too enticing for lawyers to pass up. It'll be open season on Google now, and they deserve it if the blacklists and age blacklist is true.
And everyone maintaining age blacklists or ideological blacklists should be fired.
A common criticism by each four of the female engineers is how the memo effected them in their job and how they had to prove themselves afterward. This strongly reminds me of about a case a year ago when a kindergarten teacher was tried and charged for rape against several children. After a lot of media attention, many male teachers all over the nation reported to constantly having prove to parents and fellow female…
>both the left, the feminist movement, and the right fanned the flame against male teachers I find it hard to believe that this would be generally true. Source? Edit: obviously you're always going to have some twats doing things like that, but that's true for everything. I'm looking for evidence that it's more than average here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think one thing that struck me from the linked article was the point that the memo wasn't structured to invite discussion. It wasn't "let's have a chat", it was "here's an evidence bomb of how you're all wrong". I think advancing points is fine, but if you're after productive discussion rather than an adversarial debate, you need to proactively invite discussion. And if an adversarial debate was what he was after,…
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…
Well from a strategic perspective, that's a losing attitude though. You start in a defensive position in a debate you didn't call. You are stuck in the specific frame the author has decided to limit his own argument. He also restrict the time you have to prepare such a refutal piece as every minute he spend with his argument unchallenged, the weaker the counterarguments look.
Sure the average Google employee is more fact minded than emotionally driven, but it is a loaded subject in general but even more in IT.
What's the best possible outcome of crafting such a reply anyway ? Shutting down one single guy because nobody will engage in a friendly debate after live shots have been fired.
Here's another from an evolutionary scientist who gives a point-by-point response to Damore, using quotes from his text as a launching point for discussion [1]
She mentions that Damore brings up IQ,
"the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ and sex differences)"
IQ has no relevance to a discussion on gender gaps, so, why mention it?
The quote's context is politics. In that context, IQ has recently been used in discussions over racial differences [2].
It begs the question, is Damore being honest about his views on race? If we replace "IQ" with "race", would that change the meaning he meant to convey?
[1] https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-bio...
[2] https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/6/15/15797120/race-bla...
I believe it was just a reason. Not necessarily the primary one.
I should probably go back and reread it, but I also remember the biological points were primarily about interest rather than the suitability of those that are already interested.
It seems most of the disagreement on the memo are things he never said.
Many of the more reasonable criticisms of the memo say that it wasn't written well enough; it could've been more considerate, it should have used better language, or better presentation. In this particular link, Scott Alexander is used as an example of better writing, and he certainly is one of the best and most persuasive modern writers I've found. However, I can not imagine ever matching his talent and output, even…
I think one thing that struck me from the linked article was the point that the memo wasn't structured to invite discussion. It wasn't "let's have a chat", it was "here's an evidence bomb of how you're all wrong". I think advancing points is fine, but if you're after productive discussion rather than an adversarial debate, you need to proactively invite discussion. And if an adversarial debate was what he was after,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or you can just move most of your operations to Asia or Eastern Europe where they don't have these western liberal ideological impediments to business. And Ironically provide a higher percentage of highly qualified Women in STEM professions.
Well what do you know, I think you just proved that the ratio of qualified women in STEM professions in the Western world is due to cultural discrimination or disincentivisation instead of inherent capability!
I would have preferred to be an artist or a philosopher, bu t my family was poor and had bills to pay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He specifically mentions in an interview that minority interviewees get assigned to a second interviewer if one interviewer doesn't like them in the first round. He saw this as a 'second chance' when the committee might just be controlling for interviewer biases. Though, the fact that he jumped to this 'lowering the bar' line of thinking shows to me that he was fishing for a conclusion.
The bar for all candidates at a non-Google company: Pass your first interview. The bar for white male candidates at Google: Pass your first interview. The bar for minority candidates at Google: Pass your first or second interview. Of course it lowers the bar for hiring. Maybe it's justified, but it's certainly not raising it. It's not keeping it the same. Maybe it's still tougher to get hired as a minority candidate…
It's not just minority hires that interview more than once at Google, so there's no bar lowering. There's just trying again, and everyone can try again.
So really it's what you'd expect:
The bar for all candidates at Google: Pass your interview.
> Edith: I disagree completely and utterly that the (yes, real) average differences between men and women map to being better or worse at certain jobs. Interest in certain jobs, certainly. This is, I think, the key. We can all recognize that there are REAL, average differences in interests between men and women, DEFINITELY driven by society/culture, and maybe by biology/genetics... BUT, this has absolutely no correla…
To see it clearly substitute women with race (for example white) and see how immediately racist the policy becomes.