Was it Damore or Kevin Cernekee who quietly joined Apple to work on macos? I’m curious if they continue to be so outspoken there. My guess is their views would have to be kept to themselves. Apple really doesn’t tolerate unwanted attention.
James Damore and three others end Google suit
161–170 of 1001 posts
Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
He skipped over classical liberal and very quickly gave interviews to prominent alt-right figures like Stefan Molyneaux.
He also tweeted during the middle of this, "The KKK is horrible and I don't support them in any way, but can we admit that their internal title names are cool, e.g. 'Grand Wizard'?" So... shrugs
He sounds like he may be on the autistic spectrum, which if treated as a form of social disability would (or should, IMO) grant him some leeway.
If his intent wasn’t sexist then his failure to perfectly negotiate the complex social way those points have to be expressed isn’t a moral failing on his part.
Edit: I’d rather posters took the time to argue against rather than downvote. My point is just that ‘socially colourblind’ people probably shouldn’t be punished for lacking perceptual and expressive subtlety. It doesn’t mean they can’t be corrected or educated, of-course.
Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As someone who actually read what he wrote, I just had to bite my tongue. That's not what he said at all, As someone that also read it, those arent the words he used, but that is very much what he was saying. A facade of misrepresented psuedoscience doesnt change the intent, motivation, or reality.
> but that is very much what he was saying No it's not. Nowhere in the paper did he say that women can't become good engineers. You're literally defaming his work. Either support your accusation with evidence, or don't comment.
> You're literally defaming his work.
His "work" does a fine job of that on its own.
Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit
#164I remember at a previous job, a female engineer talking to other engineers when the Damore story broke. She said "I can't believe he said that women can't be good engineers" and indicated he deserved to be fired. As someone who actually read what he wrote, I just had to bite my tongue. That's not what he said at all , but even making the distinction makes you one of "them" and politicizes the workplace. It's just dis…
She's not wrong. He shared a manifesto about gender differences in the workplace. In it, he calls women neurotic. Whether people's read on the manifesto is reductive of his overall argument isn't the point. He showed a serious lack of judgement writing and posting that in his workplace. He should not have played the part of expert gender/psychology expert. A researcher he cites specifically disagrees with his takeawa…
>He showed a serious lack of judgement writing and posting that in his workplace
Probably doesn't help being autistic.
Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit
#165I remember at a previous job, a female engineer talking to other engineers when the Damore story broke. She said "I can't believe he said that women can't be good engineers" and indicated he deserved to be fired. As someone who actually read what he wrote, I just had to bite my tongue. That's not what he said at all , but even making the distinction makes you one of "them" and politicizes the workplace. It's just dis…
> As someone who actually read what he wrote, I just had to bite my tongue. That's not what he said at all, As someone that also read it, those arent the words he used, but that is very much what he was saying. A facade of misrepresented psuedoscience doesnt change the intent, motivation, or reality.
No, that's your political interpretation of it. You __choose__ to read it that way because then his punishment can be justified.
Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
He interviewed with Dave Rubin and Joe Rogan. Also who on the left would interview him? That's the issue with claiming that he only talked to one side.
As he said in his interview with Peterson, he declined interviews with any centrist media. He filed an NLRB complaint before posting, hired Charles Johnson (who is a professional conspiracy dude and claims to know where MH370 is) to run PR and made a bee-line directly for maximum exposure with people like Molyneaux. That's a very deliberate choice. He's no martyr of rational thought.
Where is the centrist media? Mainstream media is a mix of SJW and occasional attacks on corporations as a diversion to hide the actual exploitative system.
Also, in what world is Joe Rogan alt-right? He's all over the place politically (as one should be).
EDIT: Apparently libertarians are such a great threat to the people who have their snouts in the trough that they have to be labeled "alt-right".
Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's so disappointing to read this. I don't see how his thesis of "everyone needs to be treated by their individual merits because personal variances grossly outweigh any gender bias" can be interpreted as sexist. He was literally preaching for equality. His point was that affirmative action programs do companies a disservice by making minority/women employees seem like they didn't get there through their own merit,…
Focusing on the idea that women are biologically "less interested" (but don't worry, we aren't talking about the good ones you may know, they are just statistical outliers) and trying to twist up scientific "proof" for that does not lead me to trust him or his motives. Being blind to the widespread dismissive, discriminatory, and derogatory behavior that routinely drives women from the industry does not inspire confi…
> Focusing on the idea that women are biologically "less interested"
This is the absolute crux of the entire paper, and it's very easy to view it with whatever politicising lens you want.
So lets try to flippantly and dispassionately break down how he constructed the statement
1) Women in absolute aggregate seem to not like CompSci.
2) We want more women in CompSci.
3) We should make CompSci more attractive to women.
4) What do Women in aggregate seem to like?
5) Is there room in CompSci fields for things that women like?
6) Yes, lots, it would be absolutely amazing if we could promote the things women in aggregate prefer to do in the field compsci. Those tropes of introverted men sitting in the basement should be subverted.
7) The current method of attracting women is harmful, we should instead change our desired behaviour of engineering to incorporate feminine ideals which could easily be incorporated.
Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
He skipped over classical liberal and very quickly gave interviews to prominent alt-right figures like Stefan Molyneaux.
He also tweeted during the middle of this, "The KKK is horrible and I don't support them in any way, but can we admit that their internal title names are cool, e.g. 'Grand Wizard'?" So... shrugs
Can't disagree with that.
Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate Damore deliberately chose to cast doubt on whether the women Google hired were as good as the men. Otherwise, it's easier and less controversial to just argue that any form of discrimination is wrong.
It doesnt cast doubt though.. You cant have so much more women than the rest of the industry without that being true. There literally is not enough women coming through engineering schools to allow for that without you a) discriminating against men based on sex, and b) lowering the bar for women. There is no doubt. It is a mathematical given.
I see what you mean I think but it's really not a mathematical given. If you have two groups where group 1 with size S scores X with variance V==0.4X on average in a given skill (score means competence), and group 2 with size S/2 scores 0.8X with variance V on average; then it's possible to recruit a set of people from group 2 and the same number of people from group 1 so that the average competence level of people hired from group 2 is higher. All you need to do is to pick more carefully (invest more resources, etc.).
So even if we accept that the average female engineer is not as good as the average male, and there are less female engineers than male, and that Google hires more female engineers than other players in the industry (relative to male hires), it is still absolutely possible that the bar is not lower. Maybe they look harder, maybe they pay more to female engineers with a given competence level, maybe there's no difference, etc.
Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit
#170This topic is quickly going downhill in the comments, but I just wanted to clear some stuff up because there seems to be some "what he said isn't that bad!" People wrongly think he said women are bad or stupid but that's not what he did say. He also didn't -just- say men and women are different. He did say a 5-10% difference in certain traits is why there are huge discrepancies of women in leadership and science/engi…
> Hundreds of years of "stay in the kitchen" is what proactive programs to bring women into these positions are trying to reverse. It's not biological.
This is what the debate is about -- can we accept these kind of ex cathedra declarations without data or not.