James Damore Suing Google for "Reverse Discrimination"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

Avnger:

I'm sorry[1], but was I supposed to know this random journalist's name offhand? Is he on one of the goobergate/t_d/4chan journalist hitlists or something? I went off the pattern of the ridiculous number of youtube videos posted as "proof" of some rightwing point and are full of nonsense.

I put as much effort into my post as you put into yours. If you have an actual argument to make, make it yourself. Unless, of course, you're just trying to play some baby's-first-gotcha game instead of actually talking about the topic?

Actually he's one we goobergators tend to like, in no small part because he has enough integrity and intellectual honesty to call bullshit on his colleagues' part when he sees it - as was the case with the vast majority of mainstream media's so-called "coverage" of Damore and his memo, which was, incidentally, my point.

I wouldn't have expected you to know him, but I do believe there's something about what is commonly said assumptions make of people that is worth keeping in mind; it can reliably help one steer clear of rhetorical traps of one's own making.

[1] I'm not really sorry

Ogoid:

Ogoid:
Trump-voting, women-and-minorities-hating, Russian sockpuppet bot mega-Nazi, etc. etc., Tim Pool

Avnger:

Congratulations! You found another altright idiot on youtube to spout back your preconceived biases at you. Cookie time?

Random asshole on internet makes a video full of shoddy research, confirmation bias, and arguments that sound "powerful" but in actuality can't hold up so much as a feather. This isn't a new phenomenon mate.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Nope. Nice try though.

Catnip1024:

CaitSeith:
What exactly do you expect will incentivize a change?

Well, if there are workplace environmental reasons preventing women from working to their maximum efficiency, one would expect the drive towards greater productivity / increased performance would incentivise said change.

I say if. But the if is worth investigating when you are a company employing millions of people.

And what makes you think that this circus will bring any potential changes?

Saelune:
If you want to fight any percieved sexism in Google, you CANNOT do it via this blatant sexist. He should stay fired and lose this case. If someone else, someone not sexist wants to fight Google on sexism, then we can revisit this, but you cannot support Damore, period, without supporting sexism, which makes fighting 'sexism' void, since really you are just fighting FOR sexism.

And how long does this argument remain valid for?

If it is an issue, it should be an issue irrespective of tossers supporting it. By allowing the issue to be hidden just because a prick is using it to gain some limelight, you are potentially damaging productivity and efficiency in the workplace. I don't care about the case - I think that depending on the exact practices at Google, some of it may stick (classes just for women being discrimination, for instance), but I think the actual outcome is unimportant.

Because whatever the outcome of the court case, there will be no real change.

evilthecat:
Okay. Why?

There are two possible answers to that question.

1) The way that the industry (and the broader culture around that industry) is currently set up is actively hostile to women.
2) Women are just naturally not as good at these jobs and so tend to be selected out in open competition with superior man intellect.

The thing is, one of these represents the acknowledgement of a problem which probably needs to be solved. If something is pushing women out of the tech industry, or out of management positions, then we should probably be viewing that as an issue, even if it's not always subjectively experienced as an issue by those involved (and, newsflash, there is quite a lot of evidence that it is).

The other represents a naturalistic fallacy the purpose of which is to question whether women as a group deserve the accolades of working in said industry or positions.

The two are not mutually exclusive. If an industry is set up wrong, it could be set up in such a way that women struggle to stick around. Look at your traditional manly man industries, for instance - construction, etc. While there'd be no outright hostility, there'd probably be more barriers to managing a construction site efficiently as a woman than as a blokey bloke. Change the culture of the company, change the way things are managed, and the barriers disappear. (Potentially a lousy example, but it's been a long day).

EDIT: For the sake of clarity, the point is that acknowledging the existence of exceptions to a rule does not imply the ability to look past prejudices grounded in that rule. It practically impossible to believe that women as a group are inherently poorly suited for particular positions and yet not have that function as a standard on women who defy the stereotype. Once you have inherently associated femininity (or blackness) with failure, then the slightest appearance of such things will take on a very different meaning when exhibited by the "exception".

But denying that a rule may have some basis may potentially be denying the ability to look at the causes of why that is the case and solve them.

Women tend not to take IT subjects. That doesn't make them inherently inferior at it. If you stopped people thinking of that as a fact because "it made the ones that took IT have to justify their existence", then you can never deal with the underlying cultural issues that dissuade women from studying computing subjects.

On the flipside, the mentioned Google practices of women only classes enforce the prejudices, because they are receiving benefits and training that other employees do not. Surely this is also harmful?

CaitSeith:
And what makes you think that this circus will bring any potential changes?

The current one? It won't. The guys a prick after publicity.

I thought I'd made my stance on that clear.

Catnip1024:
Well, this is the one. You can brush statistics away as stereotypes, but they are at least actual statistics.

I think I have stated clearly many times that Damore is citing iffy science. It's iffy science people in certain political circles are very fond of because it strokes their preconceptions; equally it repulses others because it offends their preconceptions. I simply don't think it's sufficiently strong to make any conclusion either way worth a damn.

I don't actually even think it is important to Google's hiring and promotion policies; Damore is just mistaken to think so.

If changing working arrangements to optimise performance is a possibility, it is worth looking into.

You mean the issue I was trying to avoid was the issue pretty much no-one was discussing for me to even avoid it?

One might argue that perhaps some of Google's policies that Damore potentially objects to are precisely those designed to maximise Google's ability to exploit the (inter-)national talent pool, deliver to customers and develop the skills of its staff. These policies are perceived as discrimination by those who either do not comprehend why they work for Google, or are politically predisposed to dislike them. But I could only speculate.

Zontar:

On an unrelated note though, it is funny to see people trying to take the fact that wasting one's time and money on gender studies will net them a job that pays less then someone who studies in STEM and try and flip use that as an equivalent to an accusation of having been fired for political reasons. There's kind of a reason why the former is only illegal in dictatorships while the latter is an issue in countries worth living in.

It's almost as funny as watching people who haven't spent a single minute studying either one try to take a side on an imaginary "Science versus gender studies" debate. Even funnier when they ignore what scientists actually have to say on the subject of gender. And it's at its funniest when someone with a CS degree (which isn't even a hard science, by the way) thinks that he can dismiss the entire decades-long debate over women's issues with a 10-page just-so story hastily cobbled out of the first dozen studies he found on Google in an attempt to support some biotruth nonsense and then struggle to try to figure out why he was fired for this by a company that was currently being investigated by the federal government for sexist hiring and promotion practices.

The only thing that could have made it even funnier is if a person who did then did a talk show with Stefan Molyneux, I guess to show how rational and not-sexist he was.

Seriously, those of us who are actually in STEM do not need people like James Damore to speak for us.

Yeah, nothing proves "iffy" claims about female neuroticism wrong like all the REEEEEEing by the ladies who refused to show up for work at Google because they were placed in such a grave danger by this guy of all the freaking guys in the world. Even though, you know, he wasn't even going to be there, since he was ordered to work from home pending dismissal.

Oh, and that "visceral" loathing people feel for him? It's what Chad feels when he's stuffing a nerd in a locker after stealing his lunch money. That sweet violent contempt for someone more awkward and beta. It's a classic look for the adolescent Will to Power.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
snip

First I don't think Damore pretended to be an exemplary leader of some sort, so I don't see how using his reaction as an example of bad leadership is relevant.

Secondly, you claim other theorems are better to explain the phenomena Damore addressed, and while there probably are I have noticed that very often the choice is made based on personal biases and as such I doubt that Damore is the only one guilty of using sub-optimal sources to make controversial (or not) claims. And yet I doubt that if anyone made badly supported claims which go along the progressive ideological lines they would receive the same treatment he has.

And I'm actually wondering what you are referring to when saying "For the simple fact that the stuff he uses wouldn't back up what we saw at Google, nor could you use it to explain women in other industries.". Do you have any concrete examples?

Agema:

I have no objections to someone querying discriminatory hiring policies: I'm not defending what Google does or does not do in recruitment policy. I am saying that one needs to be tactful in the way one wishes to express criticism of policy.

How do you propose to do that? Discriminatory hiring practices is a very touchy subject regardless of how you present it.

So what? It's the implication of his memo. Just because he doesn't use that precise word doesn't mean that isn't what he ends up implying.

No, no and no. That's just what you want to read into it.

Some citations:
"I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don't endorse using
stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at
population level differences in distributions. If we can't have an honest discussion about this,
then we can never truly solve the problem."

"At Google, we're regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women
back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the
workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it's far from the whole story."

"On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren't just
socially constructed because:"

"Note that these are just average differences
and there's overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a
women's issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men
without support."

And note that when addressing differences between men and women (in general) he never makes ANY value judgement of these traits. Only on how they may impact trends in employment.

If you raise suspicions about people, they are more likely to feel under suspicion. Obviously.

I don't think he raised any suspicion on any individual. At most he raised suspicion on google's (senior) management for implementing discriminatory practices. Which is only wrong if it's not true and based on unfounded suspicions.

Technically, no they don't always feel they have something to prove, although potentially they are going to be either poor employees, or comfortable employees who feel they have already proved themselves.

Secondly and more importantly, I think someone merely needs to prove they do a good job, which they may do by various means according to their own personal style. If we start throwing around potentially harmful group stereotypes, we risk inducing people to feel they have to disprove the stereotype, which can mean doing different things as they should be doing to do a good job.

That's weird because every single company I worked for used yearly or semi-annual evaluations which are used to judge employees. If you don't feel you have to prove anything you likely work for the public sector or don't care about any career advancements.

But why would they feel they would need to disprove a stereotype? Damore's memo wasn't meant (at least not based on the words he used) to judge all women at google, but to explain why things are how they are and discriminatory practices as allegedly enforced by google are counter productive.

And isn't the opposite side doing the same? By claiming the current gender or racial distributions are reflective of biases you effectively question the ability of white/asian men. And to make it worse the opposite side seems to be eager to implement discriminatory practices to "correct" that alleged under-representation.

Catnip1024:
The two are not mutually exclusive.

When one is specifically used to counter the other, then they are.

Catnip1024:
Look at your traditional manly man industries, for instance - construction, etc. While there'd be no outright hostility, there'd probably be more barriers to managing a construction site efficiently as a woman than as a blokey bloke.

Okay, but why?

So firstly, the tech industry is a very manly man industry, weird as it might seem. Just not traditionally so since it's a new industry, but culturally it owes a lot to mechanical engineering. Heck, if you really want a living example, look at this forum and the kind of attitudes to women you routinely encounter here. "Geeky" men, who you might not think of as traditionally super manly, tend to get irrationally hostile about women in "their" spaces.

But in construction, is the issue that a woman trying to visualise an engineering diagram will suddenly be struck by reduced female spacial awareness and unable to follow it or effectively give instructions? Is the issue that she will suddenly be struck by raging estrogenic hormones and start crying uncontrollably or need to talk about feelings and boys? Or is the issue that before she even shows up on site all of her male co-workers are already expecting these things and won't respect her unless she publicly rebukes or overcomes her own femininity..

In short, who is actually the problem here? Is it the woman for trying to do a job which women are inherently ill-suited for, or is it the cultural expectations of others?

Catnip1024:
Women tend not to take IT subjects. That doesn't make them inherently inferior at it. If you stopped people thinking of that as a fact because "it made the ones that took IT have to justify their existence", then you can never deal with the underlying cultural issues that dissuade women from studying computing subjects.

Right, but noone isn't thinking of that as a fact. Everyone knows that women don't pursue IT subjects with the same frequency as men. The question is why.. is it because women are inherently worse at these subjects, and therefore it's okay that they don't take them, or is it for some other, cultural reason?

Catnip1024:
On the flipside, the mentioned Google practices of women only classes enforce the prejudices, because they are receiving benefits and training that other employees do not. Surely this is also harmful?

How does this enforce the prejudices?

Again? Who is the problem here, and conversely who are we trying to help?

StatusNil:
Oh, and that "visceral" loathing people feel for him? It's what Chad feels when he's stuffing a nerd in a locker after stealing his lunch money. That sweet violent contempt for someone more awkward and beta. It's a classic look for the adolescent Will to Power.

See, this is why noone likes geeks.

There comes a point where it doesn't sound like you're angry that people get bullied or victimized, you're just outraged because you feel like you (in particular) didn't deserve it. After all, you're not gay, you're not trans, you're not black or ethnic minority and you're sure as shit not a feeeeemale.

Then you take this "revenge of the nerds" fantasy out into everyday life and act like you're somehow entitled to shit because high school wasn't what movies and TV told you it was going to be. Goddamn, I wish high school was the worst thing that ever happened to me, I wish I could believe that the fucked-upness of the world could be attributed to a personal failure of masculinity on the part of a few "betas" and the "adolescent will to power" of "Chads" and "alphas" who are probably living in council houses with three kids by now (classism for dramatic effect).

We don't all have that luxury, though.

generals3:
How do you propose to do that? Discriminatory hiring practices is a very touchy subject regardless of how you present it.

He could write basically the same memo, but remove the crap about biological differences. He'd have been fine.

No, no and no. That's just what you want to read into it.

There's a thing you hear people say, sufficiently often it's almost a cliche, "I'm not a racist, but..."

Almost inevitably, the disclaimer of not being a racist preceeds stating a racist opinion. They say it that way usually because they don't think they are racist, and a little bit at the back of their mind is aware what they about to say is potentially problematic, but they want to be able to say it and not take any flak.

Damore's memo is pretty much the same thing. He puts an admirable amount of effort into such reassuring platitudes. But all the platitudes in the world don't actually negate implications of his argument.

I don't think he raised any suspicion on any individual.

Okay. Why does the claim of "privilege" make people feel so touchy?

I put it to you that in many cases it is because they understand that what it's really implying is that they got further than their personal merit alone would justify were others not held back. That dents their pride, and they do not like it.

That's weird because every single company I worked for used yearly or semi-annual evaluations which are used to judge employees. If you don't feel you have to prove anything you likely work for the public sector or don't care about any career advancements.

A professional performance evaluation or professional development review is not the same thing as your co-workers thinking you might struggle to cope with stress because you have ovaries.

But why would they feel they would need to disprove a stereotype? Damore's memo wasn't meant (at least not based on the words he used) to judge all women at google.

You don't get to make statements like "women have a higher predisposition to anxiety" without putting the idea in at least some people's heads that when they come across a specific anxious woman, she's overreacting because she's a woman more than because she has good reason to worry. Sorry, but that's just the way it is about stereotypes and how they influence people's thoughts, and you just have to work with it.

And isn't the opposite side doing the same? By claiming the current gender or racial distributions are reflective of biases you effectively question the ability of white/asian men.

Yes. As above, they don't like that, do they?

And to make it worse the opposite side seems to be eager to implement discriminatory practices to "correct" that alleged under-representation.

If there really are barriers to access to certain people, isn't it discrimination NOT to counteract those barriers in some way? Most people think equality of opportunity is a good thing. But we know full well opportunities are anything but equal. How wrong is it for a company to decide that perhaps some people have been denied certain opportunities others have had, and that although they are weaker "on paper" they are actually the better talent?

There are studies that suggest diversity is a benefit to an organisation; potentially more beneficial than taking the best candidates "on paper". Again, perhaps a company wants more diversity not out of misguided adherence to woolly politics, but because it perceives that as best policy for its own success. How wrong is this?

StatusNil:
Yeah, nothing proves "iffy" claims about female neuroticism wrong like all the REEEEEEing by the ladies who refused to show up for work at Google because they were placed in such a grave danger by this guy of all the freaking guys in the world. Even though, you know, he wasn't even going to be there, since he was ordered to work from home pending dismissal.

Oh, and that "visceral" loathing people feel for him? It's what Chad feels when he's stuffing a nerd in a locker after stealing his lunch money. That sweet violent contempt for someone more awkward and beta. It's a classic look for the adolescent Will to Power.

Dude, you are really not coming off as the mature and sensible side of the discussion here.

"Women who get upset when they are insulted are proving that they're just a bunch of pussies! The real victim is the poor nerds being oppressed by the Chads of the world! You are the Chads! Yooooou!"

Avnger:
I'm sorry, but was I supposed to know this random journalist's name offhand? Is he on one of the goobergate/t_d/4chan journalist hitlists or something? I went off the pattern of the ridiculous number of youtube videos posted as "proof" of some rightwing point and are full of nonsense.

That's Tim Pool. I heard about him a few years ago during the Occupy protests; he was the guy who had the novel idea of live-streaming coverage of the protests using a camera drone and his smartphone.

I'm kinda sad to see that he's ended up on the edge of the whole alt-right pool circle. He's not an alt-righty kind of guy; I think he legitimately believes in calling out news publications that play fast with the facts, but if you're in that line right now you run the risk of ending up a fellow traveler to all sorts of unsavories.[1]

The worst part is that whoever's handling his Youtube account - y'know, I'd be surprised if it's him, but I suppose I can be wrong about people I barely know and have never met - is very clearly pandering to the alt-right viewer base. "Fake News" turns up a lot; the topics generally focus on alt-right trigger buttons; everything's headlined in ALL-CAPS AND RED, you know.

Ogoid:
I wouldn't have expected you to know him, but I do believe there's something about what is commonly said assumptions make of people that is worth keeping in mind; it can reliably help one steer clear of rhetorical traps of one's own making.

I would say that rather than simply presenting a video with little to no context, you could either recommend the video, or summarise its points for us.

I mean, look. The memo was wrong. I don't think Damore deserved to be fired; I think he should've had a sit-down chat with a sociobiologist and had them explain to him why a computer engineer is maybe not totally qualified to speak on the subject of evolutionary psychology. Maybe if he'd taken a night or two to sleep on the memo before posting it he would've ironed out the parts that were condescending and insulting, and then people would've taken it more seriously.

But the memo as published was essentially making a bad argument, and every time an otherwise-reasonable person has to come out in defence of it, they have to grapple with that fact. Otherwise, they end up like Pool, balancing on the edge of a landmine and saying "But look over there! The New York Times called it a 'land bomb' by mistake!"

[1] That's him in the beanie on the left, trying to hide from the camera as everyone makes OK signs.

Agema:

He could write basically the same memo, but remove the crap about biological differences. He'd have been fine.

You say that in the same post where you show exactly why all of his ramble was necessary to support his case against discriminatory practices:

Agema:

If there really are barriers to access to certain people, isn't it discrimination NOT to counteract those barriers in some way?

Agema:

Most people think equality of opportunity is a good thing. But we know full well opportunities are anything but equal. How wrong is it for a company to decide that perhaps some people have been denied certain opportunities others have had, and that although they are weaker "on paper" they are actually the better talent?

There are studies that suggest diversity is a benefit to an organisation; potentially more beneficial than taking the best candidates "on paper". Again, perhaps a company wants more diversity not out of misguided adherence to woolly politics, but because it perceives that as best policy for its own success. How wrong is this?

You don't give people who are unjustly denied opportunities by introducing discrimination. You do that by removing the discrimination which held them back. By simply making "gender" or "race" or whatever a relevant recruitment factor you are not only making it more likely to recruit people who do not deserve the opportunity but also to deny opportunities to people who do. Actually you're doing exactly what some people complain happens against women or some minorities. Not only do you support discriminatory practices but you're also being discriminatory towards which group should benefit from it, that's a nice combo of discrimination...

Let's not forget that regardless of what some fancy statistic shows, implementing such policies affects individuals. I know that people who buy into privilege theory silently adhere to the notion that all whites and/or men are acceptable targets of being discriminated against but by doing that you are fucking over individuals who may not have been as privileged as you want to believe.

And if they believe more diversity would improve productivity than they can just admit so and take responsibility for their discriminatory practices. Although I doubt that you'd accept productivity-related arguments when used to defend discrimination against non-whites or males.

Agema:

Okay. Why does the claim of "privilege" make people feel so touchy?

I put it to you that in many cases it is because they understand that what it's really implying is that they got further than their personal merit alone would justify were others not held back. That dents their pride, and they do not like it.

Why would you, a defender of the use of such concepts, even try to draw a parallel with someone's manifesto which you consider out of line.

But let me point towards the reasons why they are different. First Damore never questioned there should be as many women working at google. Heck he even proposed to make some changes, which aren't discriminatory, to the workplace to be more attractive towards women. This is the opposite of the extremists who throw the privilege argument at everybody's faces at any occasion given. The whole idea behind the privilege theory is that men or white people have too much and they don't deserve it. The ultimate goal is to reduce the amount of men in executive positions, reduce the proportion of men in politics,... That's far worse and assaulting than anything Damore said. And let's not forget that privilege is also touchy because it's being used to belittle anyone who dares to bring up issues faced by groups labeled as being privileged. I don't see Damore saying anywhere that issues women face are to be ignored because "biology".

Agema:

There's a thing you hear people say, sufficiently often it's almost a cliche, "I'm not a racist, but..."

Almost inevitably, the disclaimer of not being a racist preceeds stating a racist opinion. They say it that way usually because they don't think they are racist, and a little bit at the back of their mind is aware what they about to say is potentially problematic, but they want to be able to say it and not take any flak.

Damore's memo is pretty much the same thing. He puts an admirable amount of effort into such reassuring platitudes. But all the platitudes in the world don't actually negate implications of his argument.

Nowadays you need to put 500 disclaimers not to be accused of all sorts of "isms" when you dare to question the progressive agenda. (and still...) And based on the reaction his memo sparked the point proves itself. Off course some people who use that disclaimer will be racist or sexist. But you'll need more to prove that than just the disclaimer and that he dares to oppose your worldview.

And again, what are the implications of his memo? I see only two, that in general, based on his research (as poor as it may be), women and men display different traits which leads to different career decisions. And that google does but shouldn't apply discriminatory practices to increase diversity but instead adapt the workplace as to be more attractive towards women. Honestly I'm still trying to wrap my head around the fact that somehow this got twisted in some kind of horribly aggressive & sexist memo.

I have also just come across this interesting article giving some extra insight on the whole event and Damore:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/16/james-damore-google-memo-interview-autism-regrets

StatusNil:
Yeah, nothing proves "iffy" claims about female neuroticism wrong like all the REEEEEEing by the ladies who refused to show up for work at Google because they were placed in such a grave danger by this guy of all the freaking guys in the world.

Ladies and Gentleman, protesting now equals neuroticism! (even if you have ACTUAL reasons to be protesting!)

generals3:

First I don't think Damore pretended to be an exemplary leader of some sort, so I don't see how using his reaction as an example of bad leadership is relevant.

Why?

For starters he cherry picks studies and makes it a part of his memo. Frankly I find it funny that he's justifying particularly grievous instances of being passed over for leadership when he has personally displayed none of their traits he considers males as having in possession. Is he going to argue in favour for his termination, now?

Secondly, you claim other theorems are better to explain the phenomena Damore addressed, and while there probably are I have noticed that very often the choice is made based on personal biases and as such I doubt that Damore is the only one guilty of using sub-optimal sources to make controversial (or not) claims. And yet I doubt that if anyone made badly supported claims which go along the progressive ideological lines they would receive the same treatment he has.

And I'm actually wondering what you are referring to when saying "For the simple fact that the stuff he uses wouldn't back up what we saw at Google, nor could you use it to explain women in other industries.". Do you have any concrete examples?

Well, for starters, there's a reason why scientists warn using essentialism as a basis foundation for your argument and cherry picking studies as if to validate an idea. Precisely because essentialism of any 'science of difference' is not only missing in behavioural genetics, but it's an outright tautological argumentation in evopsych and nor can it actually examine psychosocial forces that behavioural genetics actually show.

After all the bedrock studies of behavioural genetics argue against his points when we actually examine personality defects and cognitive anomalies of monozygotal twins and family studies.

If anything, behavioural genetics shows the power that environmental conditions can cause in monozygotal twin and family studies. That ultimately monozygotal twins raised apart from birth are likely to have some similarities in personality disorders or 'quirks' solely because there isn't that environmental history they share. As soon as you get genetically similar people and thrust them into confined and interrelated common settings, they begin diverging steadily apart with each and every mutually experienced stressor in that common history... ending up displaying mutually exclusive cognitive and personality qualities/defects in siblings raised together as opposed to those raised apart.

And there's a reason for that... one sibling sees in their sibling problematic behaviour that may or may not be attributeable in part to genetics/womb conditions, and actively avoids psychosocial triggers that might influence or amplify its likely occurrence or magnify its effect.

Regardess of how you go about it, arguing from biological essentialism in these regards is arguing a tautological standpoint that has no basis in being appropriated and isn't being represented in empirical data. After all, monozygotal twin studies into behavioural genetics showonly that genetics informs thoughts, cognition and patterns of neural development ... they do not inform performance, as this is particularly true when you start examining things like direct conflict.

It also suffers from observational bias ... as one can not presume that genetic/womb condition likelihood of a phenomenon, and phenotypal representation of a phenomenon are the same. In the same way monozygotic twin studies show roughly a 50 fold increase in transgender identification if one twin happens to be transgender, and yet still there is a general unlikeliness of shared transgender identification in monozygotic twins.

Instead by assuming essentialist foundation for behaviour and cognition, we begin to prejudice what findings even mean.

Starting to see a problem why you don't playsilly buggers with essentialism? Whether or not there is an essentialist basis for a phenomena, there is never a guarantee of its phenotypal emergence given relatively divergent psychosocial exposure.

Golly gee, it's almost as if our environment shapes how we perform in it through emulation, competition, active avoidance and relative social exposure... who knew? Barring the consensus of the entire psychological establishment...?

We know what the mechanisms are, we can best describe them through psychosocial relations, and that argument is not only backed up by most schools of thought on the matter but actually provide solutions on their nature. This is why we don't cherry pick studies or merely assume an essentialist perspective. Because you're shooting true understanding in the foot, and also torpedoing actual means to truly understand the forces that are at play.

It is not merely ignorance, it is acquiescing to ignorance and masquerading it as scientific inquiry.

There is a reason why they drill this into any person studying the sciences, particularly those that are incredibly complex such as examining human behaviour, to not do precisely what he had done.

After all ... just like in my example of LGBTQ soldiers ... it would be wrong of me to assume an essentialist basis for argumentation as it leads to an uninformed critique of the reasons why we start seeing huge discrepancies of representation in a field of industry.

I could do no less than what Damore has done, use the same argumentation, come away with the same offhand, unscientific comments about the inferior capabilities of straight, cisgender service personnel ...

And you know what? I'd be wrong and pretending like I had a point would also be wrong.

The fact of the matter is the field of industry he was in? Computer science, coding and systems engineering?

Back during WW2 and the first half of the Cold War... Dominated by women. It was only in leadership positions that this altered, precisely because they were often military ventures and the biggest of these organizations that these 'programmers' (hard coders?) signed up on were involved in aspects of a military nature.

It was seen as women's work.

First telco exchange operations? Women. First chained radar technologies and early warning system operators and coders? Women.

The reason why women dominated the arena is precisely because women had dominated precursor industries. That only stopped being a thing when payroll started increasing and women were shunted out of these jobs. Roughly at the same time it began being seen as a 'hard science' (it's not) and could start commanding higher budgets for projects, and right then and there you started seeing a marked decline in women doing somuch of the coding, computer science, and systems engineering.

Suddenly it wasn't just "women's work."

So his argument is bullshit in terms of recent history ... the sociological relationship to computer science had changed, and that informed women's relationship to it.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/computer-programming-used-to-be-womens-work-718061/

Sounding fucking familiar?

I find it funny that Damore seems so willing to fall back on tropish arguments made by pro white male worker associations that programmers need tobe antisocial fuckwits to do the job right... I thought all the internet alt-right winger types hated being called pasty, antisocial nerds? Seem to be following the same playbook as all people that argued women can't program because they're not pasty, antisocial nerds... I keep forgetting all that illustrious history of women writing groundbreaking software that birth the electronics revolution pasty, antisocial males in computer science.

Caustic sarcasm aside...

Moreover it's not even concurrent to other computer science endeavours.

Australia is on the cutting edge of quantum computing research. Australia was the first in creating a cheap silicon dressed qubit and has largely patented the first working means to produce a stable quantum computer.

My university is at the forefront of it ... and the project is headed up by a woman. And the PhD and post-doc researchers and engineers directorship attached to it are also women ... because it turns out producing the world's first quantum computer requires a multitude of different specializations and entirely new forms of theoretical language and hardware infrastructure in the burgeoning new domain of unconventional computing.

And this is particularly true when you take bleeding edge 'biocomputing' fields which are often dominated by women doing interrelated neurosci/neuropsych research in things like early brain dev studies, or examining neural pruning in early childhood.

generals3:
You say that in the same post where you show exactly why all of his ramble was necessary to support his case against discriminatory practices:

"80% of IT graduates are male" is the beginning and the end of all you need to do to argue that Google might expect ~80% of its programmers to be male.

You don't give people who are unjustly denied opportunities by introducing discrimination. You do that by removing the discrimination which held them back.

Yeah, but that often can't be done. For instance...

I work in a university. We know that if we take two students of equal base talent, one who went to a state school and the other an independent, the independent school pupil is on average likely to be two grades higher than the state school pupil (e.g. AAA v. ABB). How do we, as a university, alter the running of the school system to prevent this disparity?

We can't. It's a matter of political and social contention decided by the government and popular vote.

By simply making "gender" or "race" or whatever a relevant recruitment factor you are not only making it more likely to recruit people who do not deserve the opportunity but also to deny opportunities to people who do.

That's just a matter of opinion, though, isn't it? Although to some extent it depends on what the policy actually is. A clumsy quota system is likely to be trouble, but some policies are more nuanced and sophisticated.

Actually you're doing exactly what some people complain happens against women or some minorities.

Potentially, sort of, yes. But they might say why is it so okay that we are soft on rooting out a long-standing, socially embedded discrimination that still goes on today, but so strictly against any other form of discrimination going the other way?

I know that people who buy into privilege theory silently adhere to the notion that all whites and men are acceptable targets of being discriminated against

I think that's prejudging a lot of people unfairly; at minimum it is grossly simplifying a much more complex notion of how things are to the point of inaccuracy.

but by doing that you are fucking over individuals who may not have been as privileged as you want to believe.

As above, potentially true. I'm not going to pretend policies are sufficiently multifactorial they can take into account many different aspects. But then, people are getting fucked over anyway; why not spread the misery more evenly.

And if they believe more diversity would improve productivity than they can just admit so and take responsibility for their discriminatory practices. Although I doubt that you'd accept productivity-related arguments when used to defend discrimination against non-whites or males.

I doubt they're denying such policies exist, and they operate them under relevant national anti-discrimination laws.

As it happens, you're dead wrong that I would intrinsically oppose programs to improve male or white access into areas where their underrepresentation may be problematic. I can in fact think of at least two off the top of my head in terms of males. In terms of whites, it's more conceptual as I can't think of any significant areas where it's necessary in the West.

Why would you, a defender of the use of such concepts, even try to draw a parallel with someone's manifesto who you consider out of line.

Firstly, if you want to say I'm a defender of "affirmative action" policies, please bear in mind I am in fact mostly against them. I do however have some sympathies with the concept, and I am open to exceptions on a case by case basis depending on the supporting rationale.

I think it is always useful to consider why people might feel aggrieved, including the people you might disagree with. Pretending people don't and/or throwing around ideological absolutes is rarely likely to lead to a happy outcome.

This is the opposite of the extremists who throw the privilege argument at everybody's faces at any occasion given. The whole idea behind the privilege theory is that men or white people have too much and they don't deserve it.

That's a crude an unfair caricature of what it is, although undoubtedly some people strongly upset by various ways of the world behave as if that's what it means.

Nowadays you need to put 500 disclaimers not to be accused of all sorts of "isms" when you dare to question the progressive agenda.

Yeah well. Much political debate is spectacularly short on any sort of sensitivity to how other people feel and think. You obviously feel it keenly when it's against you, and so do your political opponents feel that way when they're on the receiving end.

generals3:

Agema:

He could write basically the same memo, but remove the crap about biological differences. He'd have been fine.

You say that in the same post where you show exactly why all of his ramble was necessary to support his case against discriminatory practices:

Agema:

If there really are barriers to access to certain people, isn't it discrimination NOT to counteract those barriers in some way?

Agema:

Most people think equality of opportunity is a good thing. But we know full well opportunities are anything but equal. How wrong is it for a company to decide that perhaps some people have been denied certain opportunities others have had, and that although they are weaker "on paper" they are actually the better talent?

There are studies that suggest diversity is a benefit to an organisation; potentially more beneficial than taking the best candidates "on paper". Again, perhaps a company wants more diversity not out of misguided adherence to woolly politics, but because it perceives that as best policy for its own success. How wrong is this?

You don't give people who are unjustly denied opportunities by introducing discrimination. You do that by removing the discrimination which held them back. By simply making "gender" or "race" or whatever a relevant recruitment factor you are not only making it more likely to recruit people who do not deserve the opportunity but also to deny opportunities to people who do. Actually you're doing exactly what some people complain happens against women or some minorities. Not only do you support discriminatory practices but you're also being discriminatory towards which group should benefit from it, that's a nice combo of discrimination...

Let's not forget that regardless of what some fancy statistic shows, implementing such policies affects individuals. I know that people who buy into privilege theory silently adhere to the notion that all whites and/or men are acceptable targets of being discriminated against but by doing that you are fucking over individuals who may not have been as privileged as you want to believe.

And if they believe more diversity would improve productivity than they can just admit so and take responsibility for their discriminatory practices. Although I doubt that you'd accept productivity-related arguments when used to defend discrimination against non-whites or males.

And what we can do about the (mostly white) man who benefited from (willingly or not) the years and years of discriminatory practices? Fire everyone?
While on this topic, how we tackle the shitty culture resultant of the already cited discrimination?

Of what use is to remove discrimination if the internal tech culture (which is called "tech bro" culture for a season) still creates an hostile work enviroment for minorities?

I haven't seen ANYONE (except the feminazi-stole-my-ice-cream) adress this, including Damore. In fact his whole manifesto bullshit appears to be a simple strategy to silence discussion on this topic.

Heck he even proposed to make some changes, which aren't discriminatory, to the workplace to be more attractive towards women.

Changes which were the equivalent of simply painting all of google in shock pink, because that's what womz like amirite?
Actually hearing them would be too much work!

This is the opposite of the extremists who throw the privilege argument at everybody's faces at any occasion given. The whole idea behind the privilege theory is that men or white people have too much and they don't deserve it. The ultimate goal is to reduce the amount of men in executive positions, reduce the proportion of men in politics,... That's far worse and assaulting than anything Damore said. And let's not forget that privilege is also touchy because it's being used to belittle anyone who dares to bring up issues faced by groups labeled as being privileged. I don't see Damore saying anywhere that issues women face are to be ignored because "biology".

Strawman detected! Strawman detected!

The idea of privilege (in a very simplified way) is that certain groups of people have historically discriminated agaist other groups of people as a mean to maintain their dominance (social and economic) in relation to them, it's not that they have too much power, but that they have taken too much from other groups to be where they are today (as with imperialism, why do you think people from historically explored countries are trying to take refuge on countries that have historically exploited them?).
The problem is that these stragiht cis white people (that in nearly 100% of times have the advantage of being rich or provenient of a rich family to add into the mix) in positions of power (again, willingly or not) take advantage of a system created to benefit them as a demographic. The main objective of the SJeWs (the worst strawman ever invented) is to help minorities to gain space on this system created on the very core to be against them as a demographic.
Most of the criticism SJeWs make in relation to privilege have the premisse that it's easy for a privileged person to desmiss (like Damore) the problems and struggles of the underprivileged.

The concept of privilege (in theory) it's not meant to be a tool to shame anyone, but to encourage reflection and discussion.

generals3:
You don't give people who are unjustly denied opportunities by introducing discrimination. You do that by removing the discrimination which held them back.

After reading this, I looked around and found a big, clearly labeled Discrimination Toggle set to ON. After wondering how I missed that all these years, I flipped it to OFF so we should all be good now. Once again, the triumphant wisdom of the White Man conquers all.

bastardofmelbourne:

I would say that rather than simply presenting a video with little to no context, you could either recommend the video, or summarise its points for us.

I mean, look. The memo was wrong. I don't think Damore deserved to be fired; I think he should've had a sit-down chat with a sociobiologist and had them explain to him why a computer engineer is maybe not totally qualified to speak on the subject of evolutionary psychology. Maybe if he'd taken a night or two to sleep on the memo before posting it he would've ironed out the parts that were condescending and insulting, and then people would've taken it more seriously.

But the memo as published was essentially making a bad argument, and every time an otherwise-reasonable person has to come out in defence of it, they have to grapple with that fact. Otherwise, they end up like Pool, balancing on the edge of a landmine and saying "But look over there! The New York Times called it a 'land bomb' by mistake!"

I've no argument to make regarding the scientific accuracy, or lack thereof, of the memo, seeing as I'm admittedly unqualified to do so - and neither had Tim, as far as I could see. What he and I both take issue with is professional journalists characterizing the memo in patently untrue terms, such as describing it as an anti-diversity (it was, in fact, suggesting ways to improve diversity at Goolag) screed/manifesto (those being, presumably, the only levels of discourse the professionals in question are familiar with) stating that women can't do math or some such nonsense (which so much as a skim of the actual document in question is enough to thorougly disprove).

Now, I suppose one could, if one hadn't been the target of that precise kind of misrepresentation for nearly four years, chalk it up to incompetence bordering on practical illiteracy instead of deliberate malice on the part of said journalists, but even so, I fail to see how their position as purveyors of information would be anything but, shall we say, strongly questionable.

bastardofmelbourne:

Dude, you are really not coming off as the mature and sensible side of the discussion here.

"Women who get upset when they are insulted are proving that they're just a bunch of pussies! The real victim is the poor nerds being oppressed by the Chads of the world! You are the Chads! Yooooou!"

Huh, you'd think I'd care about that. But it kinda feels I don't somehow, not anymore. I guess I'll have to do without the precious respect of my fellow Internet kids ,who've gone #FullJihad on nerds like it was the Epic Battle at the End of Time. I guess they'll call me a poopyfaced nazi now... Oh, wait. They've been doing that for quite a while now.

Thing is, there are no grown-ups anymore, it's just vicious children running wild wherever you look. Why bother? I feel dumb for ever trying. And very old.

Oh, and here are some scientists commenting on the memo, for everyone to snidely dismiss like they knew better:

http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/

Decided to read the actual lawsuit and it is a fucking treasure. It is page after page of some of the most pussyache whining I have ever seen in my life.

https://www.scribd.com/document/368688363/James-Damore-vs-Google-Class-Action-Lawsuit

Like, the following two posts are labelled "Anti-Caucasian."


Apparently thinking Elliot Rodger was an asshole is anti-white...and I think that really says all you need to know about James Damore.

And then there's this nonsense. How the fuck is a thread about being polyamorous evidence of "anti-white/anti-male" bias at Google?

Listen, you can say whatever you like about whether the concept of white privilege is valid and about the equivalence between polyamory and LGBT+ issues (ie coming out). But the arguments that he's making about "anti-white" culture at Google are honestly indistinguishable from the kind of discussion that takes place on white nationalist subreddits.

Everyone's so sensitive, why's everyone so politically correct...but god forbid you be polyamorous or criticize Elliot Rodger, because if you do that then you're the real racists!

StatusNil:

bastardofmelbourne:

Dude, you are really not coming off as the mature and sensible side of the discussion here.

"Women who get upset when they are insulted are proving that they're just a bunch of pussies! The real victim is the poor nerds being oppressed by the Chads of the world! You are the Chads! Yooooou!"

Huh, you'd think I'd care about that. But it kinda feels I don't somehow, not anymore. I guess I'll have to do without the precious respect of my fellow Internet kids ,who've gone #FullJihad on nerds like it was the Epic Battle at the End of Time. I guess they'll call me a poopyfaced nazi now... Oh, wait. They've been doing that for quite a while now.

Thing is, there are no grown-ups anymore, it's just vicious children running wild wherever you look. Why bother? I feel dumb for ever trying. And very old.

Oh, and here are some scientists commenting on the memo, for everyone to snidely dismiss like they knew better:

http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/

Quillette is not an unbiased source. Browsing through their science and politics sections reveals page upon page of right-wing talking points.

And what you'll notice if you actually read between the lines on what those scientists have said, comments about the validity of the conclusion of Damore's essay are conspicuously absent. No one is disputing the premises because the scientific premises and factual basis are sound. It all goes wrong in the conclusion: it does not follow from those studies that the imbalance between men and women in the tech sector is biological in origin.

In any case, four cherry-picked scientists (really only three because one of the researchers supports the affirmative action policies) don't mean anything when it comes to the broader scientific consensus: that the under-representation of women in STEM is overwhelmingly sociocultural in origin.

Legend has is that someday, those who hate James Damore will actually take the time to read what he wrote.

I do not believe the legends.

Zontar:
Legend has is that someday, those who hate James Damore will actually take the time to read what he wrote.

I do not believe the legends.

I was going to make a mirror post suggesting that you and Damore's fans would one day read it, but thats not really the issue. I doubt you read it, but even if you did, the problem is that when he says sexist stuff, sexists nod and go "This is accurate".

Damore is sexist and those who agree with Damore do so because they are sexist.

renegade7:
Decided to read the actual lawsuit and it is a fucking treasure. It is page after page of some of the most pussyache whining I have ever seen in my life.

https://www.scribd.com/document/368688363/James-Damore-vs-Google-Class-Action-Lawsuit

Like, the following two posts are labelled "Anti-Caucasian."


Apparently thinking Elliot Rodger was an asshole is anti-white...and I think that really says all you need to know about James Damore.

And then there's this nonsense. How the fuck is a thread about being polyamorous evidence of "anti-white/anti-male" bias at Google?

Listen, you can say whatever you like about whether the concept of white privilege is valid and about the equivalence between polyamory and LGBT+ issues (ie coming out). But the arguments that he's making about "anti-white" culture at Google are honestly indistinguishable from the kind of discussion that takes place on white nationalist subreddits.

Everyone's so sensitive, why's everyone so politically correct...but god forbid you be polyamorous or criticize Elliot Rodger, because if you do that then you're the real racists!

Something something unconcious bias something.

Playing devil's advocate it does seem Google isn't running a tight ship. Needs more discipline and personal direction. I'd start clipping over ears when people are effectively tweeting rather than working. Seems as if people are far too lax and have too much free time. Something you can solve by having better project management and greater permeable boundaries on individual teams. So you can actively break up fraternization through proactive redeployment of talent over multiple corporate initiatives once individual objectives are met.

It's also a better way of discovering the most fruitful talent and the hardest workers... so long as you create sufficient reasons to reward said workers. Which has other benefits as well.

Google should tighten up its its internal communications. It's a workplace, not a chatroom, and inevitable for reasons of this courtcase alone you don't want people just airing out random crap on open internal memos. Loose lips, etc.

You all need Australian work ethic. Failing that, German.

That being said...

Damore basically filled his reverse racism claim with people talking about polyamorous relationships?

Is he trying to lose his claim?

If that's the 'proof' he has then why even bother? For starters the first amendment doesn't apply to private industry, secondly you have to prove he was fired for being white. Whereas all Google has to say is; "If there was a culture of such... why has it not been entered into evidence?" Moreover the fuckwit doesn't seem to know the difference between 'White' and 'Caucasian'. Caucasian can mean anything from pale to dark brown skin tones. Plenty of Caucasians aren't 'white'...

Caucasian relates to head and facial shapes. Not the colour of your skin.

Usually people research what they're taking about before they go to court.

image

Caucasian.

image

Also a Caucasian...

renegade7:

Quillette is not an unbiased source. Browsing through their science and politics sections reveals page upon page of right-wing talking points.

Well duh, obviously Quillette is biased. In favor of promoting inquiry and debate, that is, which is pretty much its Mission Statement. And isn't it funny how all conceivable objections and caveats to the hegemonic ideology can be dismissed as "right-wing talking points" (like that fawning profile of Inna Sevchenko of Femen, something I'm sure Fox News broadcasts all the time), while that particular ideology is just "the overwhelming consensus"? Why, it's almost as if a hive mind that strives to overwhelm objections by enforcing conformity is by definition an "overwhelming consensus".

renegade7:
And what you'll notice if you actually read between the lines on what those scientists have said, comments about the validity of the conclusion of Damore's essay are conspicuously absent. No one is disputing the premises because the scientific premises and factual basis are sound. It all goes wrong in the conclusion: it does not follow from those studies that the imbalance between men and women in the tech sector is biological in origin.

Say what? First of all, everyone and their pet goat is disputing those scientific premises as "iffy" "pseudoscience", including in this thread. Which premises, by the way, very much include the suggestion that there are biological differences between men and women, something that is increasingly disputed by ideologues, despite being probably the single most obvious thing about our species.

Secondly, the comments about the validity of his conclusions as they pertain to his workplace are so conspicuous in their absence because that's not what these people were invited to consider. They were asked about the validity of his scientific claims, which you might have noticed were widely "reported" to be egregiously erroneous by various Totally-Legit News outlets. Turns out expert opinion doesn't exactly share that dim view.

Anyway, Damore was made out to be the Devil for writing what he did. What would a responsible and inclusive alternative look like? As it happens, I just came across a link to something regarding this subject matter in STEM, so let's take a look. Trigger Warning: This one is actually a "Conservative" site, but they are merely reporting the cutting edge of activist scholarship. Here we go:

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10338

Together, Parson and Ozaki interviewed eight female students majoring in math or physics to learn more about why women struggle in STEM. From their interviews, the professors learned that many women feel pressure to conform to so-called "masculine" norms.

According to the professors, these masculine norms include "asking good questions," "capacity for abstract thought and rational thought processes," "motivation," the expectation that students would be "independent" thinkers, and a relatively low fear of failure.

...

Unfortunately for the female students, many of them indicated difficulty embodying these traits, reporting that they tend to ask fewer questions in class than do their male peers, and have noticed that other women in their classes share the same inclination.

...

Further, the professors contend that the time-consuming nature of STEM coursework also inhibits female success, since a tough course load reinforces "the masculine ideal of working an unlimited number of hours based on the unencumbered male body."

OK, so the "female" students have difficulty with abstract and rational thought, are unmotivated, not independent and cripplingly insecure. And their "encumbered bodies" cannot "work an unlimited number of hours" the way "males" can. That's certainly quite a sociocultural problem. How should we as a woke society address this?

To fight this, Parson and Ozaki spell out a few recommendations for STEM programs, saying for instance that academic departments should "redefine success by changing expectations," such as letting women write down questions instead of asking them out-loud. They also recommended that more women are hired, but notably did not mention any concerns over merit.

They also declare that "an important aspect of changing the masculine nature of STEM is diversifying STEM fields," and suggest that hiring more female faculty members could lead to increased enrollment of female students because "women faculty have been found to increase participation, feelings of inclusion and belonging, and women's perceptions of identity compatibility."

Ooookay... So, we just redefine what it means to be good at this scientisting thing, so as to improve the "feelings of inclusion and belonging". Because, at the end of the day, isn't that what science is all about?

Now, at first glance it looks like these people have a way lower estimate of the capabilities of women than that horrible He-Man misogynist James "Smack Dat Bitch" Damore. But it's all good, because they didn't try to peddle any of that "biotroof" that is the really pernicious part of this "discussion". No, they just suggest that "females" find it hard to "embody" "masculine notions", like thinking and working, presumably for the usual arbitrary sociocultural reasons. And they recommend paying more women to enter the field and transform it into an identity support group, which means sinecures for the socially advantaged. ("Hey, that's us! Three cheers for the doctrine of Sociocultural Female Infirmity!")

So, to recap: Damore suggested that women have, on average, somewhat different priorities and interests than men, and that ultimately this statistical difference arises from difference of biological function and the effective life strategies derived from that fact. Whereas the academic "Pro Women" cheerleaders say that women are frail and confused creatures who can't be expected to function according to the "masculine" standards of basic competence. And the first of these opinions is an outrageous affront to all that is honest and good.

What a time to be alive.

evilthecat:

See, this is why noone likes geeks.

There comes a point where it doesn't sound like you're angry that people get bullied or victimized, you're just outraged because you feel like you (in particular) didn't deserve it. After all, you're not gay, you're not trans, you're not black or ethnic minority and you're sure as shit not a feeeeemale.

Then you take this "revenge of the nerds" fantasy out into everyday life and act like you're somehow entitled to shit because high school wasn't what movies and TV told you it was going to be. Goddamn, I wish high school was the worst thing that ever happened to me, I wish I could believe that the fucked-upness of the world could be attributed to a personal failure of masculinity on the part of a few "betas" and the "adolescent will to power" of "Chads" and "alphas" who are probably living in council houses with three kids by now (classism for dramatic effect).

We don't all have that luxury, though.

Must have missed this earlier, probably because my quote notifications have a habit of turning themselves off these days. I do hate to miss these chances to conspicuously roll my eyes and sigh dramatically.

Look, I'm not a stock character in a teen comedy. My High School experience was markedly different from any of that. It's been a long time, but I guess it was alright in retrospect, aside from dealing with that whole "covering up an untreated mental breakdown" thing. And hey, years later this girl in my class told me she just thought I was cool and didn't give a fuck when I kept walking out of class, instead of being so overcome by angst that I couldn't keep sitting still. So that was nice.

Generally speaking, people simply weren't that openly vicious with each other in my school. And naturally, my friends were the cool kids, even though not everyone realized that at the time. So it was a shock to me to encounter the nastier characters from those movies at a much later point in real life for the first time.

Anyway, keep up the quest to find a rationale for your dislike of "geeks". Everyone needs an occupation.

StatusNil:
Huh, you'd think I'd care about that. But it kinda feels I don't somehow, not anymore.

Well, that's a shame.

Zontar:
Legend has is that someday, those who hate James Damore will actually take the time to read what he wrote.

I love the way you write things like that as if you haven't spent years filling this forum with obviously absurd conspiracy theories and bunkum.

StatusNil:
OK, so the "female" students have difficulty with abstract and rational thought, are unmotivated, not independent and cripplingly insecure. And their "encumbered bodies" cannot "work an unlimited number of hours" the way "males" can.

What the article - I mean the actual article, not the second-hand version you linked - appear to me to be saying is that various traditional means of teaching and measuring competence in STEM are biased to assumed masculine traits.

Imagine it this way. The ability to be good at maths is ability to solve a quadratic equation. Then let's say we make two assessment types, a traditional written exam and an oral exam with the entire class spectating. When we measure the results, we find we have different scores: socially unconfident students have done relatively worse in the oral exam than they did in the written. And perhaps of course they have: because the oral exam is not just a maths test, but also a test of confidence in social interaction.

And thus forms of teaching and assessment can favour various traits that do not truly relate to what we want to measure; or perhaps we could put it that our idea of what competence is is biased to various additional traits that don't actually matter.

StatusNil:

Well duh, obviously Quillette is biased. In favor of promoting inquiry and debate, that is, which is pretty much its Mission Statement. And isn't it funny how all conceivable objections and caveats to the hegemonic ideology can be dismissed as "right-wing talking points" (like that fawning profile of Inna Sevchenko of Femen, something I'm sure Fox News broadcasts all the time), while that particular ideology is just "the overwhelming consensus"? Why, it's almost as if a hive mind that strives to overwhelm objections by enforcing conformity is by definition an "overwhelming consensus".

It's becoming a trend here that when sources are criticised for their (often obvious) lack of balance, the defence complains that the information is being dismissed regardless of the source. And elsewhere in the same thread, the same people have the gall to criticise their opponents for credulity and confirmation bias.

No, the source is just poor, and critiquing the source of information is an indispensable element of critical thinking. It's taught in high school as one of the very first things you do.

To argue that we accept the line of argument regardless of political affiliation of the source, and assume balance, is to argue in favour of gullibility.

StatusNil:

renegade7:

Quillette is not an unbiased source. Browsing through their science and politics sections reveals page upon page of right-wing talking points.

Well duh, obviously Quillette is biased. In favor of promoting inquiry and debate, that is, which is pretty much its Mission Statement. And isn't it funny how all conceivable objections and caveats to the hegemonic ideology can be dismissed as "right-wing talking points" (like that fawning profile of Inna Sevchenko of Femen, something I'm sure Fox News broadcasts all the time), while that particular ideology is just "the overwhelming consensus"? Why, it's almost as if a hive mind that strives to overwhelm objections by enforcing conformity is by definition an "overwhelming consensus".

TIL that liberalism and progressivism are hegemonic ideologies even though the Republican party runs literally the entire government. Okay.

Secondly, the comments about the validity of his conclusions as they pertain to his workplace are so conspicuous in their absence because that's not what these people were invited to consider. They were asked about the validity of his scientific claims, which you might have noticed were widely "reported" to be egregiously erroneous by various Totally-Legit News outlets. Turns out expert opinion doesn't exactly share that dim view.

Actually, a lot of "totally legit outlets" did comment on the factual premises and reached the conclusion that they were valid but also, as I'm pointing out to you, that they weren't sufficient to explain the gender imbalance in STEM. Scientific American and Nature, for instance, both ran articles about it that reached similar conclusions to the point I'm making here.

Because I don't need to be told whether or not the premises are sound, I'm going to assume that the measured differences between men and women exist because they're sourced from the peer-reviewed literature. But, once again, the claim that these differences alone explain the discrepancy that we see in the STEM fields is much more suspect and doesn't appear to be supported by the evidence.

Anyway, Damore was made out to be the Devil for writing what he did.

Actually, now I'm making him out to be the devil because he defended Elliot Rodger in his lawsuit. So if I was in your position I'd take a good long look at whether or not this is really the hill I'd want to die on.

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10338

Together, Parson and Ozaki interviewed eight female students majoring in math or physics to learn more about why women struggle in STEM. From their interviews, the professors learned that many women feel pressure to conform to so-called "masculine" norms.

According to the professors, these masculine norms include "asking good questions," "capacity for abstract thought and rational thought processes," "motivation," the expectation that students would be "independent" thinkers, and a relatively low fear of failure.

...

Unfortunately for the female students, many of them indicated difficulty embodying these traits, reporting that they tend to ask fewer questions in class than do their male peers, and have noticed that other women in their classes share the same inclination.

...

Further, the professors contend that the time-consuming nature of STEM coursework also inhibits female success, since a tough course load reinforces "the masculine ideal of working an unlimited number of hours based on the unencumbered male body."

OK, so the "female" students have difficulty with abstract and rational thought, are unmotivated, not independent and cripplingly insecure. And their "encumbered bodies" cannot "work an unlimited number of hours" the way "males" can. That's certainly quite a sociocultural problem. How should we as a woke society address this?

To fight this, Parson and Ozaki spell out a few recommendations for STEM programs, saying for instance that academic departments should "redefine success by changing expectations," such as letting women write down questions instead of asking them out-loud. They also recommended that more women are hired, but notably did not mention any concerns over merit.

They also declare that "an important aspect of changing the masculine nature of STEM is diversifying STEM fields," and suggest that hiring more female faculty members could lead to increased enrollment of female students because "women faculty have been found to increase participation, feelings of inclusion and belonging, and women's perceptions of identity compatibility."

Ooookay... So, we just redefine what it means to be good at this scientisting thing, so as to improve the "feelings of inclusion and belonging". Because, at the end of the day, isn't that what science is all about?

Sigh. You know, if there's one thing I love about being a physicist who gets involved with these debates, it's people who haven't so much as cracked a single textbook in their life trying to speak for me and tell me what my field does and doesn't need and what the issues facing it actually are.

And I know it's not politically correct to point it out around the people who for some reason really, really need it to be true that women and men have different capacities for math and physics, but we do actually have a pretty serious problem right now with physics being an overwhelmingly male-dominated field.

Now, at first glance it looks like these people have a way lower estimate of the capabilities of women than that horrible He-Man misogynist James "Smack Dat Bitch" Damore.

Actually, it's not James "Smack Dat Bitch" Damore, it's James "Condemning Elliot Rodger is anti-white racism" Damore.

But it's all good, because they didn't try to peddle any of that "biotroof" that is the really pernicious part of this "discussion". No, they just suggest that "females" find it hard to "embody" "masculine notions", like thinking and working, presumably for the usual arbitrary sociocultural reasons. And they recommend paying more women to enter the field and transform it into an identity support group, which means sinecures for the socially advantaged. ("Hey, that's us! Three cheers for the doctrine of Sociocultural Female Infirmity!")

So, to recap: Damore suggested that women have, on average, somewhat different priorities and interests than men, and that ultimately this statistical difference arises from difference of biological function and the effective life strategies derived from that fact. Whereas the academic "Pro Women" cheerleaders say that women are frail and confused creatures who can't be expected to function according to the "masculine" standards of basic competence. And the first of these opinions is an outrageous affront to all that is honest and good.

What a time to be alive.

As someone else here as pointed out to you, Campus Reform is a political group. The actual article that it's butchering makes much more nuanced arguments. That's the kind of mistake you make when your approach to trying to support your arguments is to just head over to Google and search for people saying things that you think are stupid.

renegade7:

Actually, now I'm making him out to be the devil because he defended Elliot Rodger in his lawsuit. So if I was in your position I'd take a good long look at whether or not this is really the hill I'd want to die on.

renegade7:

Actually, it's not James "Smack Dat Bitch" Damore, it's James "Condemning Elliot Rodger is anti-white racism" Damore.

Nothing like getting lectured on "butchering nuanced arguments" by someone who segued into it directly from doing this. I just went over the lawsuit again, and it looks like you're referring to this screenshot on page 130:

image

So, I guess you're saying taking issue with the classifying of the Damore memo under the same "abuse" category as the crimes committed by Elliot Rodger means "defending Elliot Rodger". Hmm. You know, as far as hills go, I think the one where we still have the ability to distinguish between those two things might be as good a one to die on as any. And since you don't think so, I guess you won't be the one taking it.

At least you nailed me with that witty "people who haven't so much as cracked a single textbook in their life" crack. Except that mostly goes for physics textbooks, as it turns out I've cracked a few about things like "Race, Gender and Sexuality in Multidisciplinary Cultural Studies" in my time. See, I know how vapid that stuff is. Via the superior epistemic pathway of "lived experience", no less. The actual sciences, on the other hand, are something I've grown to have a lot of respect for (as opposed to the condescension about STEM eggheads that was endemic in the Humanities, which you appear to be in a process of internalizing), despite never personally having any talent for those fields (so maybe I'm not "male", despite certain anatomic features). But maybe that's my mistake. It's not me, it's the sciences that are lacking talent, the talent to include me!

StatusNil:

So, I guess you're saying taking issue with the classifying of the Damore memo under the same "abuse" category as the crimes committed by Elliot Rodger means "defending Elliot Rodger". Hmm. You know, as far as hills go, I think the one where we still have the ability to distinguish between those two things might be as good a one to die on as any. And since you don't think so, I guess you won't be the one taking it.

No, the issue is that the above sentiments were described by Damore as "anti-Caucasian". Renegade7 explicitly said that was the issue. I'm not sure why you'd invent your own reason.

Silvanus:

No, the issue is that the above sentiments were described by Damore as "anti-Caucasian". Renegade7 explicitly said that was the issue. I'm not sure why you'd invent your own reason.

I take it you're not familiar with the whole massive public discourse regarding "white male culture of entitlement", which the comment referenced, complete with a typical article? Perhaps that's a good starting point towards understanding the operative context. Unfortunately, it is beyond the scope of this forum post to fully explicate, but I'm sure the "Google" brand search engine will be able to find you ample material in this genre.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here