James Damore Suing Google for "Reverse Discrimination"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

Addendum_Forthcoming:
It is when the fact of the matter is that the situation is not shared beyond the German sphere of influence. In fact in places in the world where you do have high migration of talent it seems to be less of an issue. And yeah, we've quite well established people ain't going to move to Germany if they want to make a dollar. As I was saying, you look at something like Oracle's recuitment pool. Mostly foreign labour cued up for the next year. I doubt few industries in Germany could count on such a human resources pool. I can't imagine the skilled labour market is so replete with migrating labour.

I imagine Germany find itself in much the same position as Japan. Even if the government wanted skilled migrants to live there, few are going to learn Japanese to do so.

Sorry, but your knowledge about Germany is severely lacking. Germany does have extremely high immigration of skilled labour.

Also, German is not Japanese. It is a common second language in much of Europe and also the second widely used language in science just after English. It really is not as much a problem as you think it is.

As I was saying, some big arse geoengineering and geoscience research stuff going on in Australia over the next 10 years to try to drought-proof and re-green large areas of the continent.

As you said : In Australia. There hasn't been a worldwide boom in geoscience nor even significantly risen demand. So Australians think now that they need more geoengeneering in the future and import those engeneers from China resulting in importing the Chinese gender distribution with the people ? That might be, but seems neither particularly interesting nor relevant.

Which is why we ran complementary tests to test childhood preconceptions of gender and jobs and roles concerning the workforce.

And when the OECD did the same thing in far more countries they arrived at different results. Sure, they also found that childhood preconceptions would influence performance. But they also found that even after correcting for that influence, boys still outperformed girls on average even if the difference became really small.

And that's not a good sign ... that should be combatted ... because what we found was this enculturation of self-sabotage from pre-high school year brackets was having a long term effect right up until they were leaving school. So I call into question your sources, because frankly even those should come away with an understanding that this is not set in stone. Different educational models and environmental forces are playing a role here.

So you call into question my sources ? Well, that is your right. But i still trust the findings of a big international organisation investigating the gender performance gap in up to 70 countries for several decades no far more trustworthy than what one single country found in a one-time study.
Sorry, i don't trust your sources as much as the PISA findings. I recognize that you are somehow involved in the Australian investigation and i trust that the Australians did proper science here, but that still can't compete in sample size or number of datapoints in time. And even if both were not a problem, it would still only be valid for Australia itself, if findings in other countries provide different results.

Satinavian:
Sorry, but your knowledge about Germany is severely lacking. Germany does have extremely high immigration of skilled labour.

Oh yes, because quite clearly anybody with money is flocking to Germany... minus, you know ... all those people with money not flocking to Germany.

As you said : In Australia. There hasn't been a worldwide boom in geoscience nor even significantly risen demand. So Australians think now that they need more geoengeneering in the future and import those engeneers from China resulting in importing the Chinese gender distribution with the people ? That might be, but seems neither particularly interesting nor relevant.

Really ...? Gee, I'll have to inform my cousin who does surveying and prospecting work for natural gas that this year rather than the 20 years prior he can expect no bonus and no demand for his skills. He'll be devastated. No ... in fact, it's a pretty sweet field to be in. In fact it's probably the number one field I can think of in the sciences guaranteed to make you very, very rich by the time you're 30 if you're into that whole 'money' thing.

Like, filthy rich levels of rich. Dirty rich. Sexy rich.... rich.

And when the OECD did the same thing in far more countries they arrived at different results. Sure, they also found that childhood preconceptions would influence performance. But they also found that even after correcting for that influence, boys still outperformed girls on average even if the difference became really small.

And pray tell, how exactly did they correct the situation we discovered after looking at course selection data vs. performance for high school students? Because frankly, 58,000 in our last test review is not a small sample size. It actually portrays a real element of discussion that deserves reconciliation. And certainly it is specifically to do with the Australian populace, that should also infer the notion that different educational models and different sociological forces deliver different results, and that something is askew when we make nebulous commentary on the merits of women in STEM. Namely, we're not actually seeing a valid reason why beyond preconceptions of gender roles and a documented sense of inadequacy despite actual relative performance to explain the discrepancy.

When you come out with whoppers like; "They corrected for childhood preconceptions..." and yet still cannot deliver a comparable reason to explain discrepancies I brought up, or even address the points I brought up, I have to question your judgment here.

After all, it doesn't seem to find replication in women involved in the natural and physical sciences enrolment in universities. For that we have roughly an 18% increase over the EU average. It's not like these undergraduates are doing poorly in university. By all accounts they seem to be doing great. Nor is it explainable as per total performance of these universities, as Australian universities have always done well in international academic standings.

It's not as if Australia is particularly university driven.

It's not like domestic university attendance is cheaper than most places in Western Europe (actually I'm not sure if that's 100% anymore but at least it didn't use to be after Malcolm Fraser) ...

Shall we just chalk it up to increased direct sunlight exposure, and being the recreational drug use capital of the world? Because that's where we really shine ... pun intended.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

More over it speaks volumes compared to your fun little moral observance of ... what was it ...? A local tv weather woman? Christ. There's a joke in there somewhere but it's too early to be so glib and pithy.

Yet you managed it, despite the early hour. "Weather woman", eh?

evilthecat:
Snipp'd

Ah bollocking bastardy... I'll have you know I had a long, measured response for you. But then I hit some weird combination of keys or something, and the keyboard started making strings of random foreign characters. And then when I tried to make it stop, it dun erased muh entire post. So you'll have to do with a rudely condensed rehash, because no way I'm putting that much effort on this again.

First of all, it's absurd to deny the existence of innate imperatives, like the tendency of life to perpetuate itself. On an individual level, it means creatures great and small taking steps to avoid dying. And healthy organisms have been shown to have an innate system for making them avoid harmful things, known in some technical literature as "capacity for pain". It's a truly tragic horror show whenever someone is born lacking that, which I suggest you take at my word if you're not in a desperate need of harrowing tales of cruel fate for some reason today. So there's an undeniable minimum. Similarly, people don't just like to eat food because "society has turned them into consumers!" Or would you contest this rather basic observation?

Furthermore, as the much wilfully misunderstood Dr. J. Peterson has pointed out, denying the innate nature of sexuality pretty effectively robs sexual minorities of the most powerful moral argument for the defence of their rights. If they're not "Born This Way", as the popular saying was in the ignorant dark ages of a couple of years ago, why should society make any effort to accommodate what are now suddenly some arbitrary contrarian choices against the "heteronormativity" it supposedly so powerfully inculcates in people? Seems like an odd line of reasoning for anyone who presumably cares about those rights.

Now, if we're done with absurdly extreme dogmatism, sure, there is scope to debate the extent of those innate influences on lives. But what we should keep in mind is that the generalizations about things like the "male/female" disparities arising from differences in procreative function are descriptive in nature and abstracted from the whole of human variance in order to understand some underlying trends, rather than prescriptive injunctions on any individual on how to live their life. And they are based on biological function rather than subjective identification because that's what makes a material difference in the aggregate, even though not #every member of a given category is able to perform that function for whatever reason. It's not a judgment on individual performance, designed to marginalize people for whatever conspiratorial reason.

I must have put it more eloquently in my original post, but this whole thing about being marginalized is something I have to comment on. I still recall how the prospect of being indistinguishably average (which I guess would be "central", given a particular spin) was a considerable source of anxiety in itself. Nobody wanted to be that. The margins are where all the action is, where growth happens and value is created. That's where you write your own corrections to the script that you're handed. So it seems a rather one-sided view of this possibility space for individualism to treat it like some gulag people are consigned to for failing some normie test that other people supposedly pass.

In any case, what this Damore affair is about is simply making it stop, the "it" being a pointless and vicious conflict about "systemic misogyny" that only benefits profiteering agitators with nothing positive to contribute to society, not about adopting statistically derived prejudices. Quite to the contrary.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Satinavian:
Sorry, but your knowledge about Germany is severely lacking. Germany does have extremely high immigration of skilled labour.

Oh yes, because quite clearly anybody with money is flocking to Germany... minus, you know ... all those people with money not flocking to Germany.

Well, yes, obviously. But keep in mind that i did talk less about "people with money" and more about "highly skilled people looking for a job".

And pray tell, how exactly did they correct the situation we discovered after looking at course selection data vs. performance for high school students? Because frankly, 58,000 in our last test review is not a small sample size. It actually portrays a real element of discussion that deserves reconciliation. And certainly it is specifically to do with the Australian populace, that should also infer the notion that different educational models and different sociological forces deliver different results, and that something is askew when we make nebulous commentary on the merits of women in STEM. Namely, we're not actually seeing a valid reason why beyond preconceptions of gender roles and a documented sense of inadequacy despite actual relative performance to explain the discrepancy.

I talked about test results and math performance, not about course selection. Comparing course selection behavior across borders is a bit stupid as eduction systems work vastly different.

When you come out with whoppers like; "They corrected for childhood preconceptions..." and yet still cannot deliver a comparable reason to explain discrepancies I brought up, or even address the points I brought up, I have to question your judgment here.

I am not even seure which point you are talking about now as you bring one unrelated tangent after another.

After all, it doesn't seem to find replication in women involved in the natural and physical sciences enrolment in universities. For that we have roughly an 18% increase over the EU average. It's not like these undergraduates are doing poorly in university. By all accounts they seem to be doing great. Nor is it explainable as per total performance of these universities, as Australian universities have always done well in international academic standings.

Yes, you have significantly higher enrolement for undergraduates in regards to women in STEM. We have significantly higher retention for postgraduate education regarding women in STEM.
And i can actually explain the main reason for that : People aiming to be teachers are as female dominated here as in Australia but their university subjects are filed under teaching or pedagogy and not under the subjects to teach later. So our enrolement numbers in STEM consist nearly exclusively of people who want to become scientists. So the situation is not actually that much different.

I'm goin to argue from the place I always like to argue from in this type of discussion, motivation of people involved. Men make more money and move up ladders more often, in my opinion, for sexual reasons. We need to make more money in order to be considered desirable to the opposite sex, making such things more important to men on average.

Higher motivation translates to higher success rates with a large enough sample size.

When was the last time any of you guys refused a sexual relationship with a woman because of her bank statement?

That is my two cents on why this is happening, sorry for triggering everyone

Satinavian:
Sorry, but your knowledge about Germany is severely lacking. Germany does have extremely high immigration of skilled labour.

No, it doesn't.

The proportion of immigrants to Germany with high educational qualifications is low - in fact, below the EU average (although not by much).

Language probably has a lot to do with that. English, French and Spanish (for instance) are widely spoken global languages, so people speaking them can emigrate to the linguistic mother country and easily integrate. Small countries like Switzerland or Luxembourg are small and multilingual and can take professionals from larger European neighbours.

Germany however... okay, the Austrians and Swiss speak German, probably plenty of Scandinavians and the Dutch, and a few places elsewhere in the world have little groups of German-speakers. But it's one hell of a fuss to learn decent German when you can just go to a country where you're already fluent instead.

And the fact that Germany may be the second language of science after English (if it's not been overtaken by Chinese)... pfft. To put that in context, 80% of (academic) scientific literature is in English, including all the highest impact material.

Agema:

No, it doesn't.

The proportion of immigrants to Germany with high educational qualifications is low - in fact, below the EU average (although not by much).

Yes, proportionally. Because Germany also has pretty high immigration of less qualified people. It is an immigration country at the moment. It was already the second most popular migration destination in the world before this whole refugee stuff happened.
The notion that people don't want to come to Germany and that Spain or France are somehow more attractive due to language is pretty ridiculous.

And the fact that Germany may be the second language of science after English (if it's not been overtaken by Chinese)... pfft. To put that in context, 80% of (academic) scientific literature is in English, including all the highest impact material.

Yes, i know, It is relevant enough in certain fields to learn it for science but in most fields English does cover everything important. And no, it is still not overtaken by Mandarin.

I'm pretty late to this conversation, so forgive me if its already been answered in 8 pages, but what is 'reverse discrimination'?
Like okay so discrimination means:
the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

And reverse means:
going in or turned toward the direction opposite to that previously stated

So shouldn't reverse discrimination be a good thing? Like if you're being discriminated against, say for example Google doesn't hire black people. To reserve that, they'd be going against discrimination, meaning they'd be hiring black people.

Like if Google fired a white dude for being white, that's just normal discrimination. If they hired a white dude, that's just hiring a white dude. If they hired a white dude after changing a policy of no white dudes allowed, that's reverse discrimination.

Silentpony:
I'm pretty late to this conversation, so forgive me if its already been answered in 8 pages, but what is 'reverse discrimination'?
Like okay so discrimination means:
the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

And reverse means:
going in or turned toward the direction opposite to that previously stated

So shouldn't reverse discrimination be a good thing? Like if you're being discriminated against, say for example Google doesn't hire black people. To reserve that, they'd be going against discrimination, meaning they'd be hiring black people.

Like if Google fired a white dude for being white, that's just normal discrimination. If they hired a white dude, that's just hiring a white dude. If they hired a white dude after changing a policy of no white dudes allowed, that's reverse discrimination.

Typically it means something like 'discrimination against a group that isn't ussually discriminated against'. So discrimination against white people, men, heterosexuals, etc. It's mostly an unofficial term as far as I'm aware.

Pseudonym:

Silentpony:
I'm pretty late to this conversation, so forgive me if its already been answered in 8 pages, but what is 'reverse discrimination'?
Like okay so discrimination means:
the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

And reverse means:
going in or turned toward the direction opposite to that previously stated

So shouldn't reverse discrimination be a good thing? Like if you're being discriminated against, say for example Google doesn't hire black people. To reserve that, they'd be going against discrimination, meaning they'd be hiring black people.

Like if Google fired a white dude for being white, that's just normal discrimination. If they hired a white dude, that's just hiring a white dude. If they hired a white dude after changing a policy of no white dudes allowed, that's reverse discrimination.

Typically it means something like 'discrimination against a group that isn't usually discriminated against'. So discrimination against white people, men, heterosexuals, etc. It's mostly an unofficial term as far as I'm aware.

That's weird. Outrage culture really needs to clean its language up. Reverse discrimination, reverse racism, safe space. Its just so messy.
You can be racist against white people, and sexist against men. We don't need to qualify the terms!

Very silly if you ask me.

StatusNil:
First of all, it's absurd to deny the existence of innate imperatives, like the tendency of life to perpetuate itself.

A "tendency" is not an "imperative".

It might seem a small semantic difference, but to equate these things indicates a very different and quite weird way of thinking about biological processes. The organisms around us are the descendent of organisms which achieved a form of genetic survival beyond their own deaths, and thus attributes which made that possible or likely were selected for. However, this isn't an imperative, it isn't something life was "designed" to do by a conscious designer, there's not anything resembling the teleological dimension which "imperative" implies. Living things need not be (and very seldom are) in any way conscious of the broader processes of genetic selection.

StatusNil:
On an individual level, it means creatures great and small taking steps to avoid dying.

This simply isn't true. Many creatures willingly seek out individual death in the interests of furthering their genetic survival. A worker bee stings, even though stinging serves no reproductive function and kills the bee.

Darwinian natural selection is not really selecting for individuals at all, but for genes. By stinging a predator and dying, a worker bee may protect the hive and ultimately her mother, the queen, increasing the chance that some royal sister of hers will survive to create a new hive full of bees who share many of our poor workers genes. Her survival is irrelevant to the processes of selection, only the survival of the genes she carries matters.

StatusNil:
Furthermore, as the much wilfully misunderstood Dr. J. Peterson has pointed out, denying the innate nature of sexuality pretty effectively robs sexual minorities of the most powerful moral argument for the defence of their rights. If they're not "Born This Way", as the popular saying was in the ignorant dark ages of a couple of years ago, why should society make any effort to accommodate what are now suddenly some arbitrary contrarian choices against the "heteronormativity" it supposedly so powerfully inculcates in people?

Irrelevant.

It doesn't matter what it would be convenient to believe, it matters what is true (or, if the truth can't be known with certainty, what the evidence suggests). If we can't deal with the truth because it "robs us" of an argument we like, then we may as well give up this truth whole thing and live out the rest of our lives trapped in an elaborate delusion based on dungeons and dragons books. Even being basically familiar with Dr. Peterson's bizarre antics, I'm a little shocked that anyone purporting to be part of the knowledge economy would make that argument. It's a horrible argument which should instantly discredit anyone who makes it.

Now, I would think that Peterson had read Sigmund Freud, who for all his many flaws did conduct some basic observations which anyone can replicate:

1) Children, even very young infants, possess a rudimentary sexual response. If you are cleaning a nappy and accidentally rub a child's genitals, the child can become aroused.
2) This sexual response is indiscriminate. If a male adult is cleaning an infant boy, the baby will not go "dude, what is this gay shit?"

There is very little evidence that any human is born with a sexual response capable of distinguishing between men and women and preferring one over the other. There is, by contrast, a great deal of evidence to the contrary. An infant human's sexual response is not that different to that of most animals, it responds (seemingly unconsciously) to stimuli. It reacts to things which give it pleasure or pain, but does so uncontrollably, without any form of conscious engagement. Early in life, however, a human begins to develop in ways fundamentally different to other animals, and becomes both a physical response and a cognitive state. It is here, during this very early, uncontrollable and unpredictable, that the basis of what will become a person's adult sexuality is likely formed. The way humans are actually "born", as indiscriminately responsive omnisexuals, doesn't seem to matter at all as regards to their adult sexuality.

Now, we can speculate forms of inherited tendency which may impact this process. Some people may respond more acutely to certain pheremones, for example, which may cause them to stand out as prominent. But there is no evidence that these innate processes can create or determine sexuality, and if it did, we would have to ask some very serious questions like why nature adapted certain people to be sexually aroused by shoes, or by cars, or by Sonic the Hedgehog.

Now, let's move on to the more objectionable component of this argument, that acceptance of LGBT people be predicated on the "naturalness" of their state of being. See, you've assumed that heterosexuality is "natural" by default, that no explanation is required there. That is isn't "arbitrary" for men and women to be exclusively sexually attracted to one another, despite the fact that the defining heterosexual sex act is, for women at least, actually not particularly compatible with the basic setup of their (evolved) physiology. Why should "society" (and what the fuck is society, are gay people not part of it) need a reason to accomodate anything. I believe it's more incumbent on our modern day Richard von Krafft-Ebing to explain exactly why it should.

I insult Krafft-Ebing, of course. Even he had the basic foresight and clinical responsibility to advocate for the humane treatment of his LGBT clients, and the excuse of living in a world where imprisonment was considered the norm.

StatusNil:
But what we should keep in mind is that the generalizations about things like the "male/female" disparities arising from differences in procreative function are descriptive in nature and abstracted from the whole of human variance in order to understand some underlying trends, rather than prescriptive injunctions on any individual on how to live their life.

Bollocks.

Descriptive observation of trends involves providing data, it involves clear use of reasoning at every stage and a degree of critical detachment from your own conclusions. Making sweeping generalizations, advocating the use of those generalizations as the basis for official policy and, crucially, providing neither evidence nor sufficient reason to challenge the overwhelming evidence which contradicts these assumptions goes so, so far beyond merely descriptive that to describe it as such is dishonest. Don't pass your convictions off as neutral observations.

StatusNil:
And they are based on biological function rather than subjective identification because that's what makes a material difference in the aggregate, even though not #every member of a given category is able to perform that function for whatever reason.

Evidence this.

StatusNil:
I still recall how the prospect of being indistinguishably average (which I guess would be "central", given a particular spin) was a considerable source of anxiety in itself.

Really? To me that indicates that a person has nothing real to be anxious about.

I'm "anxious" about whether I'll be stabbed just for being the wrong kind of person. That's what not being "average" means.

StatusNil:
That's where you write your own corrections to the script that you're handed.

..because you have no choice. You were never given the choice to follow the script. Doing so won't make everything okay.

A straight person can always get a septum piercing and an undercut and announce that they're "queering heterosexuality" by making a shared online dating profile with their boyfriend for threesomes. That's a choice, it's a choice which comes with consequences and with some absolutely laughable loss of privilege or personal credibility, but it's nothing compared to what the rest of us have to live, you know, the ones who did. not. choose whether to follow the script because there is no fucking script.

We bury our suicidal friends, we counsel our friends who are victims of sexual assault or domestic violence, we look for exit to every room we walk into in case someone there objects to our presence. You worry about whether your work colleagues remember your birthday or whether you're the guy who is "just there" at parties. We are not the same.

Satinavian:
Well, yes, obviously. But keep in mind that i did talk less about "people with money" and more about "highly skilled people looking for a job".

See, where I come from the two are synonymous. About the only place where it falls apart is post-docs, but then again that's a worldwide problem.

Money attracts labour. This is not a new concept. What is in doubt (actually been relatively disproven but requires a lot of baseline environmental factors) is whether more money constitutes an increase in productivity, civility and lawfulness of work, and total workplace engagement.

I talked about test results and math performance, not about course selection. Comparing course selection behavior across borders is a bit stupid as eduction systems work vastly different.

Well for starters, I specifically talked about maths performance AND I also highlighted the problem of the sense of inadequacy despite relative performance. Seems like both of those issues are pretty important.

And yes, you're right. It's almost as if I wrote the very same thing.

Education systems are vastly different... and apparently ours finds no validity in what you're actually saying. After all, these are standardized maths testing ... the problem specifically seems to be the level of one's self-esteem in those capabilities. As in we are actively undermining self-esteem despite the fact that these students are excelling.

That is what we directly observed. That women of superior maths abilities still likely to choose lower-tiered maths courses regardless of their personal performance. An attitude we didn't see in young men who scored worse, but still elected to do Physics and Advanced Maths. Which is pretty fucking tragic. It wasn't even a case these young women didn't want to study this stuff. They just had reduced confidence in their ability to excel despite scoring better than many young men that did these courses anyways.

And this is also something we noted bearing a striking resemblance of women's performance in universities regardless of the subject matter by capita. That women seem to excel in these courses, but then we suddenly lose them to education or the private sector.

Yes, you have significantly higher enrolement for undergraduates in regards to women in STEM. We have significantly higher retention for postgraduate education regarding women in STEM.
And i can actually explain the main reason for that : People aiming to be teachers are as female dominated here as in Australia but their university subjects are filed under teaching or pedagogy and not under the subjects to teach later. So our enrolement numbers in STEM consist nearly exclusively of people who want to become scientists. So the situation is not actually that much different.

I wrote this in my last post. That we were losing women usually upon either after UG or their Masters to either consultation work or primary/secondary education fields. And that's not to say this is somehow awful. It's not, teaching is a fine and noble profession ... but that being said, if we want the best and brightest being pioneers into fields of scientific inquiry, we're not doing enough. An that is clearly represented in our data. These women were doing comparably better than men going into STEM. They were achieving near parity UG completion rates despite slightly lower enrolment rates. By all accounts they seem to thrive in academia and the level of attrition suggests no undue favourable conditions that is assisting them achieve completion rates ... in fact we found the opposite ... numerous instances of direct social sabotage that has been the focus of integrity initiatives to stamp out.

Then we lose them roughly pre or post Masters level. Something's not right there, and if we want an egalitarian society, a meritocracy of interests, we need to do more.

As I was saying, irrespective of actual performance we're not attracting the same degree of talent we could be into research fields. Which is problematic and seems to have distinct environmental factors we could address. As I was saying before, if we want to attract the best and brightest to the research jobs we need ... we're not doing what needs to be done. Quite clearly we're failing would be academicians and that degree of failure is systemic and seems predicated not on actual performance, but rather an increased degree of apathy towards further studies.

An environmental condition of academia that is proven can be reversed depending on the level of social will to do so. And we have everything to gain by continuing that process of equalling the playing field and dispelling the myth of women are somehow less capable of doing STEM. Because by all indications, that was not represented in our findings. What was represented in our findings is women, even at the youngest of ages, already querying their capacity to do maths regardless of their skill.

Once again, purely a matter of environmental forces.

And keep in mind, it's not as if a Masters will keep you out of the STEM fields ... after all, it's not like Damore has a doctorate. But then again, if we want the best and brightest to help govern the country's scientific exploits, we're shooting ourselves in the foot by not encouraging women to achieve those higher levels of STEM study.

Something that we know we can do because we're slowly seeing it in action.

At the very least, addressing this internalized bias against one's skill and fixing that will be good for mental health ... which is another often untalked about aspect of this problem. The mental health costs of people experiencing undue stress and low self-esteem. In a lot of the interviews conducted with young women, those that felt most uncertain in their abilities then went on to display signs of anxiety. Kids at 16-18 shouldn't be having the rates of manifesting anxiety disorders that we're seeing.

So regardless where you are in terms of feminism and self-authenticity, at the very least the mental health problems of persisting this alienating sense of self worth regardless of personal performance is costing the country and the public health service.

And frankly... this cuts both ways. For example, boys wanting to study Design & Tech/Design & Patternmaking associated courses in highschools facing bullying and other sociological and environmental effects that undermine their participation in more creative and aesthetic pursuits related to the intricacies of what is still maths, material sciences and the like. Where Australia has seen burgeoning growth rates of young women and girls participating in agriculture and animal husbandry in high schools, little movement in terms of young men and boys doing D&T... despite one look at the fashion and design industry (as well as the manufacture and design of custom equipment for said industries through experience of using them) and we see clear problems with that transition from the classroom experience to the real world.

Once again... there is copious evidence that schools are not accurately tailoring their course attendance based on merit and desire to learn, but rather there is far too much cultural baggage (something schools should be fighting in the first place) invading the classroom and stifling excellence. This also goes for a range of other subjects. From Commerce, Food Technologies, Languages, etc. Wildly disparate classroom gender gaps despite real world industrial workforce composition. So this cultural baggage and low self-esteem is shunting talent away from aspects of pre-workforce experience.

Obviously not even a tiny minority of people that study D&T are going to get jobs as designers... but then again in highdchool you don't just study one thing. Moreover it's not as if education is purely fot a job. It's also about self-improvement, personal fulfillment and greater knowledge and skills cultivation that have adjacent lifestyle or working solutions to whatever job you might get. School is not merely the exercise of workforce transition, it is about instilling the virtues of higher thought and understanding in all things.

Studying a lot of D&T might aid you producing an eyecatching storefront as well as CAD/CAM experience. Studying food tech will give you the means to improve living quality without spending money at a restaurant. Studying Commerce gives you an understanding of the importance of specific legal terms when it comes to trade, how taxes and the stock exchange works, and an understanding of basic consumer law... When *exactly* is a sale considered finalized? How does franking credits work? What does it mean in terms of tax if I get a job offering 90K a year? How do I get an ABN? What exactly can I call private enterprise? What does securities fraud look like and what constitutes a moral hazard in trading and lending?

Whether it forms the basis of your tertiary study and professional life thereafter or not ... still useful.

evilthecat:
Sigmund Freud

OK then, since you brought him up.

Seems to me this issue very much revolves around what the good doctor called realitatsprinzip, or "reality principle". As in there is this trend of people dissatisfied with, say, the nerdy drudgery of the way science is practiced and technology produced. The urgent question they're asking is "Why can't this stuff be run by cool girls who just come up with the magic out of their inner specialness, like in those Girl Power cartoon shows we were raised on? Like, they could have some nerd underlings to build the machines and shit, but according to the great ideas they get while chilling round their sweet campuses with their gang of rad friends." And the answer that suggests itself is grievous Oppression, to which the only solution is to yell real loud until an Authority comes to fix this injustice. Which it does, because taking on the screaming hordes seems much more difficult than playing along and trying to find them enough token positions as the cost of doing business.

Then along comes this goblin, James Damore, suggesting the notion that it's not all fun and games in the fabulous "Tech Industry", but rather takes some dedication to dull nerdery, and that lots of people simply seem to prefer not to so dedicate themselves. In other words, introducing some realitat into the shared fantasie. That's what was so "threatening" and "dangerous" about his "screed", it was blowing the fantasy for everybody with the siren voice of reality. So they threatened to hold their breath until this "dangerous man" was removed, and promptly he was. The damsels were rescued, and the War in the Magical Land reaffirmed. Stay tuned for the next Epic Battle.

The thing about trying to accommodate to this reality principle is that granted it hurts, everyone to some extent (and let's not make this a contest, reality hasn't been that sweet to me either), but it's the necessary preparation for effective living. And we shouldn't be outright rejecting our knowledge of how things work just because we really want them to work some other way. Now that's not to say people can't experiment with different approaches to practical arrangements. By all means let's have the Stolen Native Land Institute of Alternative Ways of Knowing and Queered Engineering set up and give them the basic resources and time to show how they can build a better bridge than the "patriarchal" institutions have managed. But maybe we shouldn't be abolishing what has been known to produce results until we see how the alternatives perform. And being an obsessive nerd has been demonstrated to produce the kind of results that can be built on, much as it may disappoint those of us not wired that way for whatever reason.

So that's that. As for your dismissal of my proposal of interrogating your narrow perspective on "marginality", I believe there's something more to crises of deindividuation than being slightly bummed by discovering that you're a normie. But be that as it may, I'm not that interested in being castigated like I was tossing rotten cabbages at your particular injuries from the very ramparts of Castle Privilege, where I so obviously reside due to my unimpeachable cultural centrality. Because that's not quite how things stand with me, despite the forceful argument your stereotyped assumptions make. So yeah, I think I'm done.

Satinavian:
Yes, proportionally. Because Germany also has pretty high immigration of less qualified people. It is an immigration country at the moment. It was already the second most popular migration destination in the world before this whole refugee stuff happened.

No, definitely not proportionally. You're even making an argument for absolute rather than proportional there.

Germany takes in plenty more immigrants than (say) France or the UK... but then Germany also has a significantly higher population. Overall, the proportion of Germany's population that are immigrants is comparable to most of Western Europe and Scandinavia. And of those immigrants, a signficantly lower proportion are high skill.

Therefore, whilst Germany takes in plenty of high skill immigrants in absolute terms, it "punches below its weight" compared to many of its peers at attracting them.

Agema:

Satinavian:
Yes, proportionally. Because Germany also has pretty high immigration of less qualified people. It is an immigration country at the moment. It was already the second most popular migration destination in the world before this whole refugee stuff happened.

No, definitely not proportionally. You're even making an argument for absolute rather than proportional there.

What i meant to say was that you are right if you look at proportians instead of absolutes (which was what i was going for). So yes, not actually any disagreement here.

StatusNil:
...it was blowing the fantasy for everybody with the siren voice of reality..

Reality? It's an unproven theory. You just want it to be a reality.

But maybe we shouldn't be abolishing what has been known to produce results until we see how the alternatives perform.

Yes... in which case we need to try out the alternatives. Scientific method 101: form hypothesis, carry out experiment to test hypothesis, analyse results.

You surely cannot miss the fact that you and your ideological compatriots are systematically opposing anyone who even tries to carry out alternatives, because you find them ideologically objectionable. That argument can at least be defensible in numerous forms - there's no reason anyone should be allowed to breach ethics just because it's trying something new. Neither James Damore nor you know whether Google's policies are hurting Google: thus here you're just arguing for the status quo for nothing but the sake of the status quo.

Satinavian:
What i meant to say was that you are right if you look at proportians instead of absolutes (which was what i was going for). So yes, not actually any disagreement here.

Great, agreement is such a nice change - glad we got that cleared up, thanks.

Agema:

Yes... in which case we need to try out the alternatives. Scientific method 101: form hypothesis, carry out experiment to test hypothesis, analyse results.

You surely cannot miss the fact that you and your ideological compatriots are systematically opposing anyone who even tries to carry out alternatives, because you find them ideologically objectionable. That argument can at least be defensible in numerous forms - there's no reason anyone should be allowed to breach ethics just because it's trying something new. Neither James Damore nor you know whether Google's policies are hurting Google: thus here you're just arguing for the status quo for nothing but the sake of the status quo.

Well, let's look at this "experiment": it's being carried out on tens of thousands of Google employees and Google only knows how many applicants, and company representatives are on record plotting the blacklisting of anyone questioning the protocol from the entire "Tech Industry". Not to mention the vast majority of the media, virtually the whole of academia and a number of other institutions (including political and legislative ones) enforcing it as the only morally acceptable way of organizing this kind of influential work. Yeah, that's not "an experiment", that's a total coup.

And please, enough of this disingenuous misdirection about the "status quo", which I'm told translates into "the existing state of affairs". Just how dominant does an enforced dogma have to become to make it as "status quo" in these Big Leagues, if systematic cross-institutional unpersoning of an individual for simply expressing doubts about it doesn't qualify? The mind reels at the prospect of a status more quo than that.

StatusNil:
That's what was so "threatening" and "dangerous" about his "screed", it was blowing the fantasy for everybody with the siren voice of reality. So they threatened to hold their breath until this "dangerous man" was removed, and promptly he was. The damsels were rescued, and the War in the Magical Land reaffirmed. Stay tuned for the next Epic Battle.

Cool story. Maybe don't accuse people of bringing personal fantasies into real social issues just yet though.

So, what you're saying probably sounds really good in your own head, but let's unpack the things which are actually important.

1) Working in the tech industry is hard and often very boring.

Working in any industry can be hard and boring, this is why the vast majority of them (except, of course, those totally rad and exciting things women are supposed to do for free, like wiping up shit) are compensated. That's how the wage economy works, isn't it. You do something you don't always want to do because you earn money which you can use to do the things you do want to do.

Now, I have to read into the rest because your argument seems almost deliberately unclear..

2) Women (and non-white/non-asian people) are somehow less capable of putting in the required ammount of work or are naturally ill-equipped for the drudgery of coding, and therefore tend to avoid it.

Am I fair in ascribing that meaning? I mean, it sounds pretty awful when you put it like that, doesn't it?

It's also completely, completely lacking in any evidence. In fact, it kind of runs counter to much of what we know about behavioural trends and the psychosocial development of men and women. Women, on average, seem to be more tolerant of boredom than men, for example. We are now at the stage where girls consistently outperform boys in school even on "nerdy" subjects. Like, if there was some natural difference of ability or tendency here which radical truthmeisters like Damore have somehow broken out of the femimatrix to discover, why is it impossible to actually evidence?

And simply pointing to social trends and alleging that these trends are "natural", inherent or beyond critical interrogation merely because they exist doesn't count. It's just garbage reductionism (ironically, something Freud himself was no stranger to, and one of the many reasons why we don't take much of what he says seriously any more).

StatusNil:
But maybe we shouldn't be abolishing what has been known to produce results until we see how the alternatives perform.

We know how the alternatives perform.

You're placing the burden of proof on a ship that has long since sailed, rounded the cape of good hope and returned from India with a cargo of exotic spices.

Women can code

Non-white and non-asian people can code

If you have a theoretically coherent reason why the above statements are untrue, then bring it, show it. Do some fucking work instead of lazily pointing to trends that exist and asserting nebulous and unknowable dangers lest we break from the sacred laws and allow the degenerate femmes to mess with our manly technological shit.

If you were a quarter as intellectually honest as you claim to be, you would already have taken this in as a basic, observable reality of the world we live in. There are no mythical dragons beyond the edge of the map, there are no hidden dangers lurking in the unevidenced and unevidencable sociobiological void (a void which becomes smaller and smaller as our knowledge of how the world actually works has increased).

You can disagree with how we should ethically and collectively respond to the world, I'd still disagree with you but I'd accord you the acknowledgement of a valid point, but arguing from unknowns (especially unknowns which aren't actually unknown) just isn't very good.

StatusNil:
As for your dismissal of my proposal of interrogating your narrow perspective on "marginality", I believe there's something more to crises of deindividuation than being slightly bummed by discovering that you're a normie.

If that was meant to be an "interrogation", it wasn't very good. I couldn't even tell what you were supposed to be interrogating.

So, let's be clear this time. What do you mean by deindividuation?

Do you mean the subjection of individual labour to the capitalist system? If so, what does the alternative look like?
Do you mean the general sense of modernist ambivalence about the social interconnectedness of the modern world? Again, what does the alternative look like?
Do you mean a general unease regarding the panoptic arrangement of modern public life as a place of constant observation and judgement?
Or do you simply mean feeling upset that people say you have privilege when life is just so hard sometimes and everyone is really mean to you and won't accept that you're a special and unique person and not defined by anything but your own unique specialness.

I think what I would say to you is that many people were never special. They were never allowed to think they were special or unique, they were always a mere expression of the inherent qualities of their race, gender, disability, whatever. When someone uses a racial slur to describe someone else, do you think they are recognising the person they are talking about as an individual? When someone assumes superiority over a woman because she can't possibly be good at [...], are they recognizing her unique individualness? That is what being on the margins actually looks and feels like, it means never being a person in your own right, it means being a person whose existence is always qualified by an identity of which you can only be an expression. This is not something marginalized people chose for themselves, it's imposed and enforced and continues to be imposed and enforced every time it is referenced in someone's words or actions.

It is only in the centre, only in the unacknowledged space of being a "normal" person, that people get to pretend they were ever individuals to begin with, that nothing about them is predefined or was predetermined, that they get to be whoever they want to be. And yeah, sure, there are "advantages" to some forms of marginalization. There are fewer expectations, because you already failed expectations by being who you are and you have to come to terms with that pretty quickly or kill yourself. There is solidarity, because it's harder to stand alone on the margins without being broken down. You've probably noticed already, however, that these advantages are pretty double-edged.

Agema:
Language probably has a lot to do with that. English, French and Spanish (for instance) are widely spoken global languages, so people speaking them can emigrate to the linguistic mother country and easily integrate. Small countries like Switzerland or Luxembourg are small and multilingual and can take professionals from larger European neighbours.

Germany however... okay, the Austrians and Swiss speak German, probably plenty of Scandinavians and the Dutch, and a few places elsewhere in the world have little groups of German-speakers. But it's one hell of a fuss to learn decent German when you can just go to a country where you're already fluent instead.

And the fact that Germany may be the second language of science after English (if it's not been overtaken by Chinese)... pfft. To put that in context, 80% of (academic) scientific literature is in English, including all the highest impact material.

While I have largely missed the link between this and the OP, I would point out that a huuuuge number of companies in Germany use English as a working language. Most of your multinationals, for instance. Most of your cutting edge engineering firms. Some require a specified level of German as well, but if one really wanted to migrate for a high quality engineering job,there are more than enough with no German language requirements that Germany is a prime choice of destination.

And that's not even mentioning the fact that a number of German universities teach courses entirely in English, and I imagine allow research entirely in English.

And as an English speaker, what English speaking choices do you have? The US, where most engineering tends to be centred in rather unappealing places like Texas, food standards are shite and the people take everything too seriously. Australia, which is finickety about migration and where everything wants to kill you. Canada, possibly, but it still doesn't cry high tech industry.

evilthecat:

Women can code

Non-white and non-asian people can code

Oh for crying out loud. I've said my piece, and what that noticeably did not include was any claim that people with these characteristics couldn't code. And the same goes for James Damore.

So the next time you feel like waving a "bloody shirt" in my face, please at least try to get the dye job right.

StatusNil:
Oh for crying out loud. I've said my piece, and what that noticeably did not include was any claim that people with these characteristics couldn't code. And the same goes for James Damore.

When you wring your hands over the dangers of "abolishing what has been known to produce results" what exactly are you talking about?

Because you haven't left a reader a great deal of choice but to assume that what you're talking about is "abolishing" the protected status of the tech industry as some kind of endangered species sanctuary for white and Asian men, and the only way that would be remotely questionable or dangerous to abolish that would be if these people were the only people capable of producing the aforementioned results.

I can read between the lines, even if you can't. Even if you genuinely want to pretend that what you're claiming doesn't have enormous and highly pejorative consequences for much of this planet's population, what you are actually saying does not allow for any alternative possibility. The deception here is paper thin, and maybe that's enough to deceive you, but it's certainly not enough to deceive anyone else.

Like, maybe if you slowed down, stopped flitting from empty rhetoric to empty rhetoric in a desperate attempt to find one which works and actually took the time to unpack and explain a single one of the ideas or concepts you are trying to use in a detailed and complete way, then people wouldn't have to fill in the obvious gaps and missing pieces in what you're saying. In the meantime, stop using words you don't know the meaning of. Stop trying to "parody" academic language styles you cannot actually back up with academic precision. Just be honest and complete..

So, what exactly did you mean by "what has been known to produce results". What is this thing? Why does it produce results? Why do you think abolishing it will endanger those results? What evidence do you have?

Agema:

And the fact that Germany may be the second language of science after English (if it's not been overtaken by Chinese)... pfft. To put that in context, 80% of (academic) scientific literature is in English, including all the highest impact material.

If we're talking language groupings whereby people are by dint of environment going to learn both, Cantonese and Mandarin combined ... given the shared history of the Literary Sinitic and its simplification over time.

But the thing is, Chinese and Singaporean scientists are going to converse in either Mandarin or Cantonese, converse in Mandarin or Cantonese in presentations, and write much of it in English in their journals and periodicals. Given a lot of the methodology of report writing is mostly using English to begin with, and much of the rest is informal description, informal hypothesising, informal elabouration, informal discussions of the systems of thought and marrying that to findings, and discussing how they picked their participants ... I would say that Cantonese and Mandarin is solidly the second language(s) of science.

And the fact of the matter is Hindi and Urdu is accelerating up there if we include technical manuals and the people that initially write them.

Mandarin is a big language group to learn for Asian scientists looking for collaborative work and research details in the region. Things like engineering teams from around Asia speaking English and Mandarin in terms of projects discussion, and work details ... technical field manual transliteration for specialized products now exported to another country. One of the reasons why there's been a persistent push, at least here, to get students understanding spoken Mandarin given that is the interpersonal discourse of many collaborating scientists Australia has immediate dealings with in terms of collaborative research work.

Naturally this changes where you are in the world, but if we're just talking sheer volume of collaborative engineering and scientific exploits ... you'll get more work knowing Mandarin than you will German.

German is important for European-based scientific research ... not as important to the wider world given China and India are the world's future centers of trade and industry and are growingly more conscious of the need of international collaborative works with foreign universities. To put it bluntly, Europe no longer has a monopoly on the laboratory... and Hong Kong and Singapore (and now Beijing) are centers of research, and few if any are going to be collaborating in German ... and that isn't going to change anytime soon.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Given a lot of the methadology of report writing is mostly using English to begin with, and much of the rest is informal description, informal hypothesising, informal elabouration, informal discussions of the systems of thought and marrying that to findings, and discussing how they picked their participants ... I would say that Cantonese and Mandarin is solidly the second language(s) of science.

It is not but might be in the future. Depending on how many other countries beside China start using it and thus if and to which extend it will enter the sphere of journals and conferrences.
Also Cantonese and Mandarin are two entries, not one. You can't simply add them.

But my statement was not about Chinese vs. German, it was about your comparison of German to Japanese. German is still a pretty common second and foreign language, the most common in the EU after English, the most common in the US after French and Spanish and quite popular in the rest of the world. It is especcially popular in Eastern Europe. Which also is a region which is, while having proper education systems, quite poor and thus still experiencing severe brain drain. So no, the effect of the language barrier on immigration job market is not even remotely comparable to Japan. As if the EU freedom of movement rules would not have made that comparison stupid anyway.

That it is also important in some sciences makes it just more likely for certain scientists to have choosen it as additional second language over French or Spanish.

To put it bluntly, Europe no longer has a monopoly on the laboratory...

Which no one claimed. In fact i think the Chinese have better chances to build the first useful Quantum computer than the Australians.

StatusNil:

Well, let's look at this "experiment": it's being carried out on tens of thousands of Google employees and Google only knows how many applicants, and company representatives are on record plotting the blacklisting of anyone questioning the protocol from the entire "Tech Industry". Not to mention the vast majority of the media, virtually the whole of academia and a number of other institutions (including political and legislative ones) enforcing it as the only morally acceptable way of organizing this kind of influential work. Yeah, that's not "an experiment", that's a total coup.

And please, enough of this disingenuous misdirection about the "status quo", which I'm told translates into "the existing state of affairs". Just how dominant does an enforced dogma have to become to make it as "status quo" in these Big Leagues, if systematic cross-institutional unpersoning of an individual for simply expressing doubts about it doesn't qualify? The mind reels at the prospect of a status more quo than that.

I think you're confused about what's going on here.

The tech industry is still chock-a-block full of the "obsessive nerd" types (as you put it) that you proposed as the traditional great achievers, and those types are still hired in large quantities. All these policies you are raging at have, so far, done little more than tinker around the edges of core gender and race disparities in many of the industries you're talking about. The question is whether a diverse workforce is an improvement over a homogenous one. If your industry is still 80% white males or 90% Asian women or whatever, much like it has been for the last 50-100 years, I think it's fair to say you've never seen much in the way of what diversity would do for your industry.

You might rage that large sections of society have moved towards diverse-friendly policies. I can assure you though, if it ends up being less successful, then eventually most to all those policies will be quietly shot and dumped into an unmarked grave.

Catnip1024:
While I have largely missed the link between this and the OP, I would point out that a huuuuge number of companies in Germany use English as a working language. Most of your multinationals, for instance. Most of your cutting edge engineering firms.

Okay, but you're talking about a small proportion of professional jobs. Think about any job that involves communication with the general public rather than a rarefied group of colleagues: teaching, healthcare, etc. You can't speak the local lingo, you're no use to hire. And that constitutes the vast majority of professionals in the average country.

Some require a specified level of German as well

Exactly. I know, for instance, that as much as degree courses may be delivered in English, you are NOT going to get a job in academia in Germany without decent German [1] - you've got to do a damn sight more in academia than deliver lectures.

[1] actually, I suppose if they really want you they may give you a job with probationary conditions of raising your German to an adequate standard

Agema:
The question is whether a diverse workforce is an improvement over a homogenous one. If your industry is still 80% white males or 90% Asian women or whatever, much like it has been for the last 50-100 years, I think it's fair to say you've never seen much in the way of what diversity would do for your industry.

It is worth noting that some of the most sought after entrepreneur consultants, like Eric Ries, think that Silicon Valleys problem is that the homogeneous work groups are not conducive for the kind of entrepreneurship and innovation that the tech field requires. Eric Ries argues that his own experience in guiding innovation start ups and the current scientific consensus is that innovation blossoms in highly diverse work groups. Not unexpectedly, Ries thinks Damore's manifesto is 'frightening', because it goes against what Google needs to retain its' innovative edge.

Gethsemani:

It is worth noting that some of the most sought after entrepreneur consultants, like Eric Ries, think that Silicon Valleys problem is that the homogeneous work groups are not conducive for the kind of entrepreneurship and innovation that the tech field requires. Eric Ries argues that his own experience in guiding innovation start ups and the current scientific consensus is that innovation blossoms in highly diverse work groups. Not unexpectedly, Ries thinks Damore's manifesto is 'frightening', because it goes against what Google needs to retain its' innovative edge.

To be fair, I don't think the big silicon valley companies are that interested in entrepreurship at all.

They're huge, well-established, and interested in consolidating, and that's by using their enormous financial clout. They're all basically Microsofts now: it's about integrating their products into packages that make users more dependent on the whole, and after that they'll just buy out minnows who do the real innovating as and when they need to.

Agema:
Okay, but you're talking about a small proportion of professional jobs. Think about any job that involves communication with the general public rather than a rarefied group of colleagues: teaching, healthcare, etc. You can't speak the local lingo, you're no use to hire. And that constitutes the vast majority of professionals in the average country.

Yes, but I thought we were talking about highly skilled jobs, rather than general "professional" jobs. Healthcare I would give, but I wouldn't have put teaching under that category, personally. But minor quibbles...

I admit, the proportion is lower than I initially expected (a quick google search giving a 3.4% across the board of jobs in Germany), but still not that bad. When you consider how much lower the situation would be were the positions reversed.

Catnip1024:
Yes, but I thought we were talking about highly skilled jobs, rather than general "professional" jobs. Healthcare I would give, but I wouldn't have put teaching under that category, personally. But minor quibbles...

How exactly does one teach if they lack effective communication skills? Moreover it usually takes 5 years at the minimum to become a school teacher. That sort of education and training I would classify as both 'highly skilled' and professional, all without quotation marks. If it takes you twice as long to communicate complex ideas with the necessary clarity to a student that lacks that information and experience entirely .... you ain't going to go very far whether in terms of addressing a student's questions nor the efficiency of time to complete the breadth of a curriculum.

Both of which are the very foundational principles of pedagogy.

Satinavian:

Also Cantonese and Mandarin are two entries, not one. You can't simply add them.

Really, it's almost as if I wrote that in the first paragraph... that being said, Mandarin >>> German in terms to actually getting a research collaboration job. As in knowing Mandarin is a pretty good thing to put on one's resume.

But my statement was not about Chinese vs. German, it was about your comparison of German to Japanese.

No, I compard it to the sociological state that Japan finds itself. An aging population, one that needs gross amounts of skilled labour in all areas of industry (as Agema wrote, Germany punches well below its weight in this), and one that has distinct social forces within it that are entirely negative about expanding the cultural basis to make it a more welcoming place to foreign labour.

Namely, politicians complaining specifically how people in Berlin are speaking more English now than they used to. Which is raising some red flags. Like, literally red flags concerning the rest of their rhetoric ...

A German is still a pretty common second and foreign language, the most common in the EU after English, the most common in the US after French and Spanish and quite popular in the rest of the world. It is especcially popular in Eastern Europe. Which also is a region which is, while having proper education systems, quite poor and thus still experiencing severe brain drain. So no, the effect of the language barrier on immigration job market is not even remotely comparable to Japan. As if the EU freedom of movement rules would not have made that comparison stupid anyway.

Such as?

The only people I've met speaking German are German ex-pats, tourists and business people. Hell, I want to learn German ... but that is predicated solely on the basis that much of the old archaeological journals and the like are written in German. As well as some of the earliest discussions of (then) recently deciphered cuneiform and the initial discoveries of deviations of language use in the fields in Assyriology between the various incarnations and evolutions of cuneiform throughout antiquity. Which were often identified by German researchers.

It's one of the few fields of science where knowing German is a prerequisite ... and I'm thinking of studying Assyriology in my mid to late 40s ... I have other stuff I want to study first, however. I'm not going to study German solely for my current studies in neuroscience. Yet arguably that's one of the most 'Germanic' influenced (I guess you could call it?) of the sciences ...

Which no one claimed. In fact i think the Chinese have better chances to build the first useful Quantum computer than the Australians.

Well they're working at a disadvantage given we're about 6 years in front of them. And yeah, so would I ten years ago... given the Chinese beat the U.S. Army's computer processing speeds despite attracting huge amounts of money and resources, all through using a handbuilt computer designed by one person... I'm pretty sure I also wrote up a small profile on her that you seem to now be poaching from.

Came up with advanced principles of computer information pipelining? Something we still use...? Gets little to no credit (at least outside China) of basically making it possible to own and cheaply build a computer? She died only 3 years ago, and we probably lost the greatest academician in terms of computing ... and utterly unmourned or unrecognized outside of China.

It's a tragedy, but not an uncommon one.

Not only was she a gifted mind, but she was a phenomenal teacher. Upholding the highest principles of pedagogy. Singlehandedly cultivating an army of computer technicians and scientists that would revolutionize a country and lay the groundworks for its massive thrust into telecommunications. Her impact will be felt, for better or worse, for decades to come.

Satinavian:

renegade7:

Which companies have empty board seats?

Several of those newspaper articles mention that some companies leave seats open because of the quote. Do you really want me to look up current board compositions of DAX companies now ? If you really want to know the details you can do that yourself.

And this was the sort of the point I was trying to make.

We've backpedalled from "Companies are being forced to hire unqualified women for the sake of filling diversity quotas" to "Companies in Germany are being forced to hire unqualified women to fill diversity quotas" to "Some companies in Germany are being fined for not employing enough women" to "Some of the very largest German companies are being given a directive to put in place a plan to attempt to attract more female talent at the highest levels of management on penalty of being given what basically amounts to a slap on the wrist".

That seems like a stretch. The fine, apparently, is at most 50,000 Euros. But a 5% salary raise for these board members amounts to much more than that. And the small companies don't seem to be affected.

There seems to be a misunderstanding

The fine is 50000 Euro for not having a viable plan to reach the quota. But independent from this the law includes a total hiring stop for male board members until the quota is fullfilled. So it is either hiring a women from a small company for a lot of money or leaving the position open until a better female candidate comes.

Hold on, in your first paragraph you said that the hiring stop was being done voluntarily? Which is it?

Addendum_Forthcoming:

How exactly does one teach if they lack effective communication skills?

In my experience, they teach physics.

StatusNil:
Like, they could have some nerd underlings to build the machines and shit, but according to the great ideas they get while chilling round their sweet campuses with their gang of rad friends."

What exactly is the accusation here? That the popular girls have all the nerds lashed into serfdom to build machines for them?

I have so many questions but unfortunately no time to answer them since the sorority girls and cheerleaders are threatening to put me in a Laogai if I don't finish building the Cuckotron 9000 by the end of the week.

By all means let's have the Stolen Native Land Institute of Alternative Ways of Knowing and Queered Engineering set up and give them the basic resources and time to show how they can build a better bridge than the "patriarchal" institutions have managed. But maybe we shouldn't be abolishing what has been known to produce results until we see how the alternatives perform.

What do you mean "see how the alternatives perform"?

But to play at taking this seriously, I'd point out that it's historically been the more "patriarchal" governments that tended to start wars and genocides and all that, and that the last half-century of increased female participation in politics has coincided with the most peaceful and prosperous period in human history. That signals to me that patriarchal institutions have failed.

And being an obsessive nerd has been demonstrated to produce the kind of results that can be built on, much as it may disappoint those of us not wired that way for whatever reason.

Not nerds like you, of course. I've yet to see you assert any sort of technical or scientific education or work experience.

renegade7:

In my experience, they teach physics.

In my experience, they pretend to teach and a whole lot of adolescents fail or the timeline of getting through a curriculum is thrown out of whack. Effective communication skills is something we stress. It's the whole reason we monitor new teachers like hawks and make sure they can engage with their pupils.

This thread... What is it even about anymore?

Silentpony:
That's weird. Outrage culture really needs to clean its language up. Reverse discrimination, reverse racism, safe space. Its just so messy.
You can be racist against white people, and sexist against men. We don't need to qualify the terms!

Very silly if you ask me.

I'm inclined to agree that the qualifier 'reverse' doesn't do much here. Especially given the context where a guy is suing for it (rightly or wrongly). I would caution that communication is a two way street. Yes, some people could work on getting their point across better and sometimes language is needlessly confusing. On the other hand, if you are listening to somebody you should at least try to understand what they mean.

 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