James Damore has filed a class action lawsuit against Google

Post by stale2002 » Mon, Jan 08, 2018, 8:41 PM UTC

ihsw2 wrote: post #294

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #210

Whatever you think of the memo, you have to be a little concerned about the precedent this would set if companies were not allowed to discriminate based on 'political' views. Should I be forced to hire a neo-nazi or a terrorist sympathiser so long as they're up to the job?

Companies can simply have a straight-edged policy of no politics -- from religion to economics, it's all off-topic and out-of-bounds.

Post by beebmam » Mon, Jan 08, 2018, 8:42 PM UTC

mpweiher wrote: post #464

beebmam wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) I'm not saying his logic is flawed. I'm saying what he's basing his logic upon, that these notions of preferences and ability are scientifically measurable, are false. 2) He has an preconceived theory of how "ability" and "preference" work. The science does not point to his conclusions, because the science cannot point to any conclusions: ability is simply not scientifically understood or defined at all in the sof…

> notions of preferences and ability are scientifically measurable, are false. Hmm...as to preferences, there are two easy tests: 1. You ask people When you do, you find that people generally don't like CS. People in developed countries less than in less developed countries. And women less than men, with the gap becoming bigger in more developed countries. And girls less than boys, with the gap becoming larger in mor…

Post by rainbowmverse » Mon, Jan 08, 2018, 8:42 PM UTC

jimrandomh wrote: post #249

This clearly is (or is going to be) a Demon Thread. https://www.lesserwrong.com/posts/BZtAavpsy9WtMYgEL/demon-th... . People seem to be angry about what was said in the past, but don't agree on what was actually said or what those things meant. Attempts to clarify seem to mostly be throwing fuel on the fire instead. None of this is helping.

Post by pm90 » Mon, Jan 08, 2018, 8:43 PM UTC

55555 wrote: post #466

bmelton wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the points are fungible (and they absolutely are) then what is the difference between giving extra points to and giving fewer points to . How are they not functionally identical?

This isn't quite the same thing, but i've always found it annoying how it's generally okay to say, for example, that Chinese people are good at math but it's not okay to say that any other group is bad at math, even though the former claim is a relative claim that is presumably understood to be comparative to other groups of people, who are (on average) worse at math.

Post by josephg » Mon, Jan 08, 2018, 8:44 PM UTC

logfromblammo wrote: post #275

ebbv wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I do see the difference; the second sentence is spelling out plainly the bigotry he's trying to cloak in faux intellectualism. It's always the same kind of crap from bigots. "Women MIGHT be less capable of engineering." "Black people MIGHT be more prone to crime." "Gay people MIGHT be more likely to be pedophiles." and it's always based in bigotry, not in science or evidence.

Neurology and psychology studies have shown differences in the way men and women think. For example, when navigating, men tend to use dead reckoning, while women tend to prefer landmarks. Similar differences may exist with respect to the modes of thinking useful for engineering. With that in mind, consider that our current modal computer architecture and programming paradigms were designed and implemented by men. The…