71–80 of 153 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We already have done the social engineering by creating communities where it's not socially acceptable to reinforce gender roles. Now we're talking about protecting them from you.
You can enforce political correctness but you cannot enforce respect or attraction.
Here on HN you'll be banned if you're not careful too.
Here on HN you'll be banned if you're not careful too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To use single differences to claim men are better at software like the Google guy did is just stupid No. The google author never claims anything of this sort. In one of his minor points, he argues that why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech may be explained through biological causes, backed by statistical studies. He never claims men are better at software, that's something you made up. His core poin…
And I quote. > For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. He clearly believes men are better at the kind of programming google is promoting and believes google shouldn't change because it's bad for business. He thinks women should be casually in the game like doing part time work in p…
>Philosophically, I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principles reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google—with Google’s diversity being a component of that. For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google’s funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged.
That quote does not, in any way, show he "clearly believes men are better at the kind of programming". That section is about the belief that those who work hard should be rewarded, and he does not want Google's culture to change that.
>He thinks women should be casually in the game like doing part time work
This is just plain false. In the actual quote, he says he wants to make Google's culture more inclusive by "endorsing part time work [because it] can keep more women in tech". This does not mean he believes "women should be casually in the game". He is suggesting changes to Google's culture that could support woman's needs (for example, part time would support mothers who want to devote time caring for their children).
Why do you see the need to defend your position with obviously false interpretations? It only takes a casual glance to dispel them. You are reinforcing my point that you are arguing against a phantom of your own invention, not the Google's authors arguments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's why I tried to identify precisely which equality I meant to avoid that issue. By the way, Harrison Bergeron was a critical satire of the position you're describing.
> By the way, Harrison Bergeron was a critical satire of the position you're describing. Of equality-by-outcome? Yes, that was exactly why I cited it.
It's really hard to see how people miss this subtext when the main character of the story declares himself the emperor that all must obey and defies gravity. It's so cartoonishly heavy handed!
Men are, by far, more violent. This is a major weakness, or "defect". Why women shouldn't have their own, peculiar, weaknesses? I think that even psychiatric conditions like depression, borderline, ADD, etc. manifest very differently in men and women.
Statistically women appear to have less deviation physically, mentally or socially. It could be a result of how primates have evolved. For males increasing standard deviation in traits makes it more likely that they are among the few top males that can mate with multiple females. For female being more robust ensures maximum number of children. Women have both glass ceiling and glass floor. There are far less successf…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And I quote. > For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. He clearly believes men are better at the kind of programming google is promoting and believes google shouldn't change because it's bad for business. He thinks women should be casually in the game like doing part time work in p…
Oh golly, a quote taken without context. Now read it with context: > Philosophically, I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principles reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google—with Google’s diversity being a component of that. For example currently those t…
Here on HN you'll be banned if you're not careful too.
My experience on HN is that there exists a small minority of users who might shout you down, but I've never seen or heard of a user being banned for discussing something like this in good faith.
Similarly, some leftists claim that race is a social construct because there is more genetic variation within a race than across them. Except you have genetic tests that easily identify race: https://www.wired.com/2007/12/ps-dna/ and medical studies that indicate the race of patients studied, because it is a medically significant concept: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Different-Races-Are-Genetical... .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And I quote. > For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. He clearly believes men are better at the kind of programming google is promoting and believes google shouldn't change because it's bad for business. He thinks women should be casually in the game like doing part time work in p…
Oh golly, a quote taken without context. Now read it with context: > Philosophically, I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principles reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google—with Google’s diversity being a component of that. For example currently those t…
Question to you is how do you interpret what he said?