211–220 of 684 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they acknowledge that our society differs from that of our evolutionary ancestors, and that this context matters in determining social policy, and does not amount to "ignoring evolution".
Postmodernists reject the role evolution plays in human attributes. They reject its effect on intelligence, gender and race.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sexism is a prejudice based on lack of evidence and reasoning. That's not a definition I have seen anywhere. The usual definition is that it's "prejudice, sterotyping or discrimination based on someones gender". If we have different definitions of sexism to begin with, of course we aren't going to agree on whether X is sexist. So if I don't use the controversial S word: I thought his post was stereotyping and comin…
What on bloody earth are you talking about? Take a moment and listen to yourself, because what you say is exactly the hate speech that we are having today, where people take words of someone else and completely flip it around and claim something terrible which did not happen. > something being true doesn't make it not racist (or sexist). The falsehood/lying isn't a necessary condition. Of course it is! Seriously list…
I only argue that there are (or could be) examples of scientific facts being used in racist discourse where an argument or action is racist regardless of whether it's supporting facts are true or false.
Just like libel/slander law in many (most?) places doesn't care whether a defamation is factually correct or not. (In US that's not the case though)
I'll quote an oxford writer:
> Take a simple example. Imagine there was an imaginary newspaper, let’s call it the Mail Daily, which only cited certain facts about immigration – let’s say negative facts. True facts. Facts which might have to do with crime, for example, or housing shortages, or the abuse of the welfare system. Imagine that the Mail Daily never gave any positive facts about immigration – never emphasized any of the enormous benefits that immigration brings.Would it be fair to accuse the Mail Daily of being racist in its coverage of immigration? That’s a rhetorical question.
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2013/08/can-facts-be-ra...
His point (which is counter to Dawkins - who holds your position) is that this tabloid is racist while only reporting facts - simply because of how facts are filtered in res publication and which arguments are made with them.
I have a question to further this debate. Would people consider it sexist to administer a completely automated test of technical and personality questions which was used by an unbiased program to hire only the best qualified candidates? What would you say if the results were essentially the same as the status quo? By the Article's Author's account, she believes that we would probably maintain the status quo with such…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the original memo defends discrimination against women Can you back up this claim with a citation from the document? If not, can you explain your thought (feeling) process?
> Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things > Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be and we shouldn’t deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this).
Serious question: does your mind think they actually do? This might be a good illustration of why people differ so much on the same objective facts, the human brain automatically adds additional context (that isn't necessarily physically present) into perceptions.
This defense of the "manifesto" is flawed just like the others. It picks out a small subset of the claims made in the document, discards the context and all the other claims, and then harangues us for having a problem with "science". I could argue "water is composed of two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule, so women are bad at software development", and my argument would just be a difference of degree worse…
The gross oversimplified claims from the document that attempt to make this leap are textbook stereotypes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But if other countries have more equal representation in tech, India and Malaysia for example, then doesn't the biological argument fall apart? The difference isn't between men and women but between America and other countries.
Not really, the societies are too different to draw such conclusions. In less gender egalitarian societies a women without income is at the mercy of a sexist society. In more gender egalitarian societies, there is more social support and safety for women at lower economic levels. So in these less gender egalitarian societies, the drive to secure income is much greater and thus you would expect women to take lucrative…
"Galpin investigated the percent of women in computer classes all around the world. Her number of 26% for the US is slightly higher than I usually hear, probably because it’s older (the percent women in computing has actually gone down over time!). The least sexist countries I can think of – Sweden, New Zealand, Canada, etc – all have somewhere around the same number (30%, 20%, and 24%, respectively). The most sexist countries do extremely well on this metric! The highest numbers on the chart are all from non-Western, non-First-World countries that do middling-to-poor on the Gender Development Index: Thailand with 55%, Guyana with 54%, Malaysia with 51%, Iran with 41%, Zimbabwe with 41%, and Mexico with 39%. Needless to say, Zimbabwe is not exactly famous for its deep commitment to gender equality."
Source: http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagger...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would think the author would encourage women to apply, but discourage making interview pass rates biased towards one group or the other.
Interview pass criteria are not based on the gender/race of the candidate. The criteria are the same for all candidates for the same role. The goal of diversity/inclusion programs is to find more diverse candidates to interview in the first place. Edit: referring to Google specifically
I used to be at Google. I heard the same thing from recruiters themselves. That a woman could fail an interview but still make it through to the next rounds. Their justification for this was like so:
1. This isn't discrimination because the final hiring decision by the committee takes into account all interviews, so the bar is equal at that point.
2. Our lawyers say this is totally OK.
I heard this many years ago, when I first joined Google and was learning how to be an interviewer. It disquieted me a little but I didn't challenge it - I figured, if the lawyers say it's OK, then it's OK. And the logic that in the end, the final decision was unbiased was something I accepted.
Well, I was young and naive. If men are being dropped and women are not, then more women will make it through to the final hiring decision than would naturally occur, that's the entire point of doing it. This is, in effect, a way to lower the bar for women - literally, men and women can jump to the same height and one will cross the bar and one won't, based on gender.
That's what Damore meant when he said the bar was being lowered by reducing the false negative rate.
Is it illegal? I have no idea. But it's definitely not fair on men.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"He used science to reason out a way to revert to a state of community where he stands to gain more." This is spot on right here and the main difference between the memo and this article. The memo might have cited real science but it arrived at grossly inappropriate conclusions.
This is toxic postmodernist/feminist dogma. It frames everything through a lens of identity power struggles. Therefore, whether an argument is scientific and factual is secondary to what identity group the person making it belongs to, and what their group stands to gain from it. This ideological lens is anti-science, anti-cooperation, extremely racist/sexist and ultimately focused on only one objective: reducing the…
Edit: I appreciate all of the vote downs. Empiricism is as guilty in choosing models according to power dynamics as any ideological endeavor. See phrenology. To suggest science isn't political and ideological is absolutely delusional.
Not much new here. This article is essentially just re-affirming all the scientific statements that were already made in the original memo, backed by links to scientific studies. Only difference being that the author of this article has a PhD in sexual neuroscience (so people might have a harder time accusing her of not knowing what she's talking about) and is female (so some people might have a harder time of accusi…
For the record, the "facts" cited in her post are indeed questionable. A decent sociological analysis has been making the rounds, including https://ifstudies.org/blog/five-facts-about-women-and-men-in... and https://ifstudies.org/blog/what-the-google-engineers-manifes... among others, including a presenter at Google https://twitter.com/histoftech/status/894418661741649920 Even a brief analysis of sociology would reve…
That's the bigger point here. Not that there is a slam dunk argument on the side of biology or society, but that we don't know where the exact truth lies, and we need to be open to discussion about it in order to find out. As scientists have been saying all along, both biological and societal factors matter.
What I hope we can all agree is unreasonable is to fire someone for just trying to discuss this.
I have a question to further this debate. Would people consider it sexist to administer a completely automated test of technical and personality questions which was used by an unbiased program to hire only the best qualified candidates? What would you say if the results were essentially the same as the status quo? By the Article's Author's account, she believes that we would probably maintain the status quo with such…
There's already a number of companies that do blind reviews of resumes, or applicants that intentionally hide or change their names - not sure if it makes a big difference, also because there's just less female applicants in general. Actually, how many female software developers can't get a job nowadays?