531–540 of 872 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, throwaway257157, if I thought you were posting in good faith, I'd certainly engage with you but using a newly created account means you aren't.
No. Assuming someone is posting in bad faith for this reason is an act of bad faith. Your statement reveals hypocrisy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When the Australian public service experimented with blinding demographic data on resumes, fewer women and minorities were hired: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-tria... A blind recruiting process only increases diversity if there exists significant bias against diverse candidates. I wouldn't be surprised if Silicon Valley has a bias in favor of diverse candidates, like Australia's public serv…
You have an excellent point, but your use of the phrase "diverse candidates" misses the concern that the most important diversity is in thought and culture, not just predetermined demographics. A "diverse candidate" in reality may not look like an official "diversity candidate".
This assumption is never discussed and always accepted as true.
Why is that? Why are all the whites (or white males) identical in their thinking?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That argument applies to the general population maybe, but that doesn't mean it also applies to the population of Google employees. Everyone there passed their hiring standards, so everyone has proved their individual merit already.
The population of Google technical employees is I think the equivalent to the population of Olympic athletes in my example. If the general population has a different distribution (again whether you agree or not with that assumption), then there should be a natural imbalance among the cream of the top that made it to Google. And as you said, those who made it are all "Olympic athletes" (in theory, they should have bee…
Well, again, the Google memo started by arguing Google's technical standard was being hurt so James doesn't seem to believe his colleagues all got the same interviews he did.
I'd be more inclicned to this sort of argument for racial and gender diveristy if Google & others didn't have such abysmly skewed distributions towards white men. Go look at Google's diveristy report and then do some Bayes Rule hacking with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sometimes the point of the conversations is reminding each other that we're decent and intelligent humans. Giving up on engaging because you haven't converted people is giving up too soon. Sometimes the changed mind is in how we value political opponents, not whether we agree with them.
Yes, but you can't have a political discussion that is productive if there is a fundamental disagreement about the facts
> That leaked internal memo from James Damore at Google? The one that says one shouldn’t expect employees in all professions to reflect the demographics of the whole population? I don't see how this is an unreasonable argument to make. There is a dearth of male kindergarten teachers, for instance. This doesn't mean the school is being "sexist". It might just mean that certain genders tend to be attracted to certain t…
No, it definitely means there are fields that are biased against men. These include any field in which nurturing and compassion are considered vital traits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This. To respond to that manifesto, to argue, talk, discuss, write a similarly well organised response.
Please try doing that to every internet troll out there, if you have the time. Most of the population don't, and at some point just have to dismiss some ridiculous arguments instead of discussing every single badly researched wall of text. I suggest you start with all the articles on /r/the_donald.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"This google guy" was a self-declared conservative, and mentioned cultural marxism, an alt-right touchstone, in the very memo that is being discussed. His first interviews were with alt-right Youtube channels. I agree with your points about lots of minority groups being socially (and/or fiscally) conservative. It's lucky for the left that the white social conservatives have been driving them away consistently for dec…
Jordan Peterson is alt-right?
So yeah he's definitely in that general area.
People are making way too big a deal of genetic predisposition. Yes, there are genetic predispositions, like how musical talent may run through some families, but what matters way more is how we are brought up, and how we choose to act. If someone is a musical virtuoso, they became that way not because of the talent they were born with, but because of the encouragement of their parents and environment and long hours…
"The diversity memo's failing is not the statistics it cites, it is that it furthers the notion that diversity is a set of statistics to control for. True diversity is about ignoring statistics and instead giving every single person the same chances, regardless of where they came from." Your point is the memo failed because it makes exactly your point - that people should be treated like individuals rather than their…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> He was very clear that he was talking about the group not any individuals. Since when does that excuse anything? If he'd written "Jews are, in general, hateful monsters. Not the Jews who work here, they're great, but most of the rest" does that statement become acceptable? More importantly , Mr Damore does not know all the women at Google personally. He cannot. So when he says "In general, women are less suited to/…
> he cannot possibly implicitly mean "but clearly that does not apply to every woman currently employed at Google, who were all hired because they are the best in the world at their jobs" He clearly can , were it not for affirmative actions - if you assume perfect recruitment based on merit, you can expect everyone accepted to be suitable for the role. But in this case you'll also find, as the memo author explained q…
I...don't think I did misread it? I said "he cannot mean this", and you appear to agree with me: due to the facts on the ground, he cannot have intended to mean that. Therefore, I have to assume he did not mean that.
So if he believes that Google employs discriminatory hiring practices, then he presumably believes that some of his colleagues are not the best possible choice for their role, and do not deserve to be there. That seems like a straightforward reading of his text. Am I wrong?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whether we agree with the memo or not, there was a very good point that guy made and that we should keep in mind, it's the paragraph with the two overlapping distributions. Even if you admit that all genders, races, any way you want to segment the population, do not have the same distribution, that doesn't mean anything to a person as an individual. For instance I think it's fair to say that black people are better a…
> fair to say that black people are better at athleticism/running Is it fair though? Is it supported by metrics of muscle strength and length etc? And does it take into account the differences between blacks (Africans?), west vs south vs central (pygmies!). Also, there's the possibility that whites of equivalent athleticism find better options for their life than being a professional sportsmen, the bottom 80% [1] of…
And I think that's probably what the OP meant by "better at running". The vast majority of people can run to some extent, so the assumption is that someone is "better" at it usually means "faster". And the obvious place to look for evidence of that would be in sporting competitions, rather than trying to look up metrics that you have described. Obviously its a simplification, but if you don't do that then life would be far to complicated and detailed to navigate.