Slashdot Mirror
Google Engineer's Leaked 'Gender Diversity' Essay Draws Massive Response (medium.com)
An anonymous reader writes: An engineer at Google's Mountain View headquarters circulated a 3,400-word essay internally that argued a "moral bias" exists at Google that's "shaming dissenters" and silencing their voices against "encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies." It attributes the gender gap in technology to biology-based differences in abilities (such as "speaking up" and "leading") and different personality traits (including "neuroticism"). Its suggested remedies include "Stop alienating conservatives" (calling it "non-inclusive" and "bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness"), and it also suggests as a solution to "de-emphasize empathy" (which "causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases").
As the essay leaked over the weekend, former Google engineer Yonatan Zunger identified its anonymous author as "not someone senior," saying the author didn't seem to understand gender -- or engineering -- or what's going to happen next. "Essentially, engineering is all about cooperation, collaboration, and empathy for both your colleagues and your customers. If someone told you that engineering was a field where you could get away with not dealing with people or feelings, then I'm very sorry to tell you that you have been lied to... It's true that women are socialized to be better at paying attention to people's emotional needs and so on -- this is something that makes them better engineers, not worse ones... You need to learn the difference between 'I think we should adopt Go as our primary language' and 'I think one-third of my colleagues are either biologically unsuited to do their jobs, or if not are exceptions and should be suspected of such until they can prove otherwise to each and every person's satisfaction.'"
The leaked internal essay is now being discussed in literally dozens of news outlets. Click through for some official responses, including leaked reactions from Google's VP of Engineering, from Google's new VP of Diversity, Integrity & Governance -- and from Slashdot's readers.
Google's new VP of Diversity, Integrity & Governance -- who started just a few weeks ago -- responded internally that the document "advanced incorrect assumptions about gender," saying it's not a viewpoint Google endorses or encourages, and adding that "Changing a culture is hard, and it's often uncomfortable."
Zunger seemed to agree in part, writing sympathetically that "One very important true statement which this manifesto makes is that male gender roles remain highly inflexible, and that this is a bug, not a feature. In fact, I suspect that this is the core bug which prompted everything else within this manifesto to be written."
Google VP of Engineering Ari Balogh also responded internally that "we want to continue fostering an environment where it's safe to engage in challenging conversations in a thoughtful way. But, in the process of doing that, we cannot allow stereotyping and harmful assumptions to play any part. One of the aspects of the post that troubled me deeply was the bias inherent in suggesting that most women, or men, feel or act a certain way. That is stereotyping, and it is harmful."
Long-time Slashdot reader Lauren Weinstein believes that leaking the internal memo to the outside world was a major breach of trust that will do more damage. But he also links to an earlier essay which argues "The men of computer science and the computer industry are misogynous jerks. Not all of them of course. Likely not even the majority. But enough to thoroughly poison the well."
As the essay leaked over the weekend, former Google engineer Yonatan Zunger identified its anonymous author as "not someone senior," saying the author didn't seem to understand gender -- or engineering -- or what's going to happen next. "Essentially, engineering is all about cooperation, collaboration, and empathy for both your colleagues and your customers. If someone told you that engineering was a field where you could get away with not dealing with people or feelings, then I'm very sorry to tell you that you have been lied to... It's true that women are socialized to be better at paying attention to people's emotional needs and so on -- this is something that makes them better engineers, not worse ones... You need to learn the difference between 'I think we should adopt Go as our primary language' and 'I think one-third of my colleagues are either biologically unsuited to do their jobs, or if not are exceptions and should be suspected of such until they can prove otherwise to each and every person's satisfaction.'"
The leaked internal essay is now being discussed in literally dozens of news outlets. Click through for some official responses, including leaked reactions from Google's VP of Engineering, from Google's new VP of Diversity, Integrity & Governance -- and from Slashdot's readers.
Google's new VP of Diversity, Integrity & Governance -- who started just a few weeks ago -- responded internally that the document "advanced incorrect assumptions about gender," saying it's not a viewpoint Google endorses or encourages, and adding that "Changing a culture is hard, and it's often uncomfortable."
Zunger seemed to agree in part, writing sympathetically that "One very important true statement which this manifesto makes is that male gender roles remain highly inflexible, and that this is a bug, not a feature. In fact, I suspect that this is the core bug which prompted everything else within this manifesto to be written."
Google VP of Engineering Ari Balogh also responded internally that "we want to continue fostering an environment where it's safe to engage in challenging conversations in a thoughtful way. But, in the process of doing that, we cannot allow stereotyping and harmful assumptions to play any part. One of the aspects of the post that troubled me deeply was the bias inherent in suggesting that most women, or men, feel or act a certain way. That is stereotyping, and it is harmful."
Long-time Slashdot reader Lauren Weinstein believes that leaking the internal memo to the outside world was a major breach of trust that will do more damage. But he also links to an earlier essay which argues "The men of computer science and the computer industry are misogynous jerks. Not all of them of course. Likely not even the majority. But enough to thoroughly poison the well."
Talk about a useless position.
It's going to be a bumpy ride
Includes what is purported to be an internal survey at Google:
http://voxday.blogspot.ca/2017...
...when people attempt to link legitimate engineering or technical points-of-view with misogyny, *-phobia, microagressions, or God-knows-what other kinds of SJW evils, it's hard to then claim that alternative views can't bring up what progressive social folks are doing and how it might affect things back.
e.g., " Anti-Systemd People ":
(Also, like many others, I'm curious why Gizmodo (of all outlets) presents the essay while removing all hyperlinks and charts, as if somehow that is doing a service to its readers by removing context from what is obviously going to involve strong reactions. Nice going, guys.)
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
Stupid leftists defeat straw man, claim victory.
This is the problem in all engineering circles, and unfortunately, much like how nerds are depicted in movies as being socially awkward but smart, and jocks being socially popular but dumb meatheads, it will only be propagated as such until we stop letting sociopaths into management.
The sociopath is the one who pits their staff against each other for their own amusement, the sociopath is the nerd or jock who pushes competition instead of cooperation when they are in a place of power. Once we stop and realize that the nerd and the jock are in fact the same sociopath, and start pushing them to stop being a bully/troll, to stop "be a man"/pissing/dick measuring/sexual prowness contests, then things will stop being so craptacular. Google et al have a lack of diversity because the white man is afraid of a woman being in position of power over them, or a brown person being in a position of power over them.
Hence the core bug is that men are inflexible, and white men doubly so. Anything that makes them think that "their" (entitled) job is being taken by a diversity directive is used to excuse their lack of promotion instead maybe their lack of social skill.
Those that are criticizing the essay seem to be missing the points it makes. Primary among them is that males and females have different interests and therefore tend to pursue different careers which could account for a lot of the so-called gender gaps in the tech sector. And the author is right, there are relationships between personality traits and political leanings. Jordan Peterson has written a lot about this and his YouTube videos are well worth watching. He makes the case that the notion of equity or equality of outcome in all sectors is a dangerous one. It doesn't mean females can't be good engineers, rather than few females might be going into engineering cause they have different interests and hiring so you always have 50% male and 50% female may not lead to the best outcomes.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Rebuttal? I see what you did there.
One point where the author is spot on is the overwhelming efforts to silence any other viewpoints. Loom no further than the response to this memo. On twitter, a prominent tech entrepreneur said he thinks the real problem isn't the memo's content but that the author thought it was okay to share it at a place like Google. Isn't that exactly the point the author makes?
I also found interesting his point about how we feel differently about seeking 50-50 gender representation in manual labor occupations and work related deaths.
These topics are worthy of discussion. The "we must get girls to code" push always seemed worthy of skepticism. But there is no real debate in this area, and raising questions gets you labeled unfairly and possibly fired.
One thing is for sure: this guy's career is over. He will be doxxed by some news org who apparently does remember how to do investigative journalism when it comes to random civilians expressing a politically incorrect opinion. And the pitchforks will come out from the SJWs and no company -- certainly google -- wants to get mixed up in that PR nightmare. Game over, bro. Hope it was worth it.
Ever moved into a new apartment or house and after a while wondered "why the fuck did they engineer this this way, this is stupid?" If so, then you just answered your question.
You can make aerodynamics your top priority, or you can make power-to-the-pavement your top priority, or you can make speed your top priority, but you can only have one top priority.
Yup. It was SJWs that nearly killed Microsoft and did kill DEC. Not stubborn idiots with too much power, protecting their fiefdoms.
Google VP of Engineering Ari Balogh "One of the aspects of the post that troubled me deeply was the bias inherent in suggesting that most women, or men, feel or act a certain way. That is stereotyping, and it is harmful."
Feminist idiot Lauren Weinstein : "The men of computer science and the computer industry are misogynous jerks. "
Deal with the sexist feminists, realise that when people use factual arguments to prove them wrong, they are not being sexist.
Men and women are different and enjoy doing different things. FACT.
Well, technically, protecting one's in-group is protecting one's in-group, be they Management or SJWs or any other group. . .
He should never have included the bit about IQ. That was pointless and discussions of IQ in any context are never productive, only hot with flame and fury.
It still would have been railed against but there would have been less traction to do so.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Bullshit. Empathy doesn't fucking enter into it. You know what's good for cooperation and collaboration? Effective leadership. You know what Valve doesn't have and why we'll never see Half Life 3? Effective leadership.
their new VP of Diversity, Integrity & Governance
identified its anonymous author as "not someone senior,"
Documents that are written and released have a paper trail that managers can can take to HR Immediately after they are 'released'. The fact that this has 'circulated' organically are suspect.
I smell a false flag.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
This is the sort of thing that lands in history books as an example of the backwardness of previous generations.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Engineers generally don't work that low level. If you were able to move into the apartment/house at all the engineer has done their job as it hasn't fallen over. Interior designers and just plain builders do the work you'd generally go WTF about, and in particularly serious cases ignore the engineering good sense (like deliberately not implemented build code to save a buck or such). Now if the house falls over, or burns down then you can bitch at the engineer.
That somewhat depends on what you call "Christian values". It seems to me (from Europe) that a lot of the views put forward by so called "Christians" in America are the exact opposite of what Jesus was arguing for.
As to "preserving your culture" being a valid viewpoint, well, I would argue that if your culture is one of violence against people because they threaten your own criminal activities, and bullying minorities, then, no, probably not.
In another country, you would be an ISIS supporter - bear that in mind.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
The VP released a memo to media publically doxxing him.Proves one of his points attempt to silence dissent or different opinions.
Let's assume that there is genuine prejudice in US hiring. This means that there is a group of potential employees that - because of prejudice - are receiving lower offers than their skills and talent would warrant. If you are a company like Alphabet (Google) and you identify such a systematic prejudice, you should introduce an explicit effort to recruit people from the discriminated group. You can poach them from other companies, where they are undervalued and underpaid. You have data that give you a good reason to expect that on average, such hires will contribute more to your company than they cost.
Now I don't pretend to know which group or groups fit this category, though I would be shocked if there weren't any. Maybe the undervalued group consists of older engineers. Maybe it US blacks. Maybe it's people with humanities Ph.D's. Maybe it's immigrants with low-prestige foreign accents. Maybe it's women with leadership experience, or repentant former blackhats, or chess masters, or transsexuals. I'm sure there are people in Google who have enough data to answer the question.
Assuming that Google identifies discriminated groups, they may not want to trumpet their findings, and simply hire these people quietly. After all, if rumor gets out that Google is out to poach South Asian female mathematicians, these will become more expensive to hire.
Unless Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc. are too stupid to read the data they have, they have already folded information about discrimination into their hiring practices. Insofar as they are these companies are demographically different from the rest of the country, we would be reasonable in assuming that discriminated groups are already overrepresented in their ranks. And if for some political/social justice reason they don't treat HR issues with this kind of sobriety,, then their competitors should. Hiring discriminated groups and making them feel comfortable at your company will maximize the merit of your workforce. You'll be paying less for better workers. If you identified a prejudice in hiring and you have data to back it up, transfer to HR and build your company around these people, the way the Detroit Red Wings once built their team around former Soviet hockey stars.
Mostly I'm just laughing at my naivete for buying into "Don't be evil" for so long. It's been clear for years that the google's REAL motto is "All your attention are belong to us", but I just didn't get it until much later.
About that mission statement? That was just a delusion of grandeur. All of the world's knowledge is obviously overwhelming, plus the metric of "useful" was never clear. However, by attacking and simplifying the problem along the dimension of access and following the money, we can see (with our 20:20 hindsight) how it devolved to making the advertisers' paid info accessible for the suckers. Not saying that everyone's a sucker (though I think we all are, just more or less), but there are certainly enough suckers to make the google rich.
What we're REALLY seeing in this discussion is an internal struggle within the google about whether or not anything else matters. Is making more money the answer to life, the universe, and everything? The heck with 42 when there's always 43 and bigger numbers for the profit. I think a problem with no solution is meaningless, which means the problem of bigger profits is a FAKE problem. No solution because there is no biggest number.
Oh yeah. Back to the Subject: question, though now I'd prefer to reword it as "If profit is gawd, is it the google's fault?" Simplification of the problem yields an easy "No" insofar as the google is just playing by the rules of the game as defined by the most easily bribed politicians.
However, insofar as the google has become a leading briber of politicians, the answer is switching to "Yes". Overwhelming evidence that cheaters DO prosper in today's America, and you can't cheat harder than making the refs change the rules YOUR way. If Sinatra was still alive the google would hire him to sing to Congress? "Do it OUR way!"
Oh year, the original article's topic was diversity, wasn't it? That's a secondary objective, and we're living in a 1-D universe, remember. Profit is gawd, and the soulless corporate monster known as the google could not care less about actual human beings except for identifying the most profitable human cogs for its machines.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Power to the pavement is optimized by a bigger engine. Aerodynamics is optimized by smaller drag area and thus a smaller engine compartment. Try again.
No. But since that's what popped into your head and out of your fingertips, you seem to want to be.
This forum is blessed with a simply *massive* brains trust, with technical skills and experience contributed regardless of age, ethnicity or gender. Unless a contributor selects a user name which explicitly identifies them by age, gender or background, the way that Slashdot operates actually promotes equality. In other words, as Slashdot shows, equality is possible, it just needs to be implemented thoughtfully...
Having read the email/document that forms the subject of this article, one of the things I observe is that the document itself discusses both conscious and subconscious bias as it can be applied in a workplace [and for this post I'll group together *all* forms of bias, not merely gender bias].
So let's think about this for a moment. Most of us probably work for organisations which claim [publicly at least] to be a meritocracy. But how objective are the performance review procedures? [ Or recruitment, for that matter? ] Here are a few points to consider:-
If your recruitment process gives hiring managers application forms with the age and/or name of the candidate included, then your organisation has an open door for selection bias.
If your appraisal process includes a ranking process that is susceptible to tactical voting ["I'll give your promotion candidate the nod if you do the same for me", then your organisation has an issue with performance review bias.
If your organisation allows a single manager - *any* single manager - to make recruitment, promotion and/or disciplinary decisions in isolation, then your organisation is at risk of allowing "individual bias" to harm your employees.
Creating a truly neutral, inclusive and meritocratic workplace is *HARD*. It requires leadership, sponsorship [from the top], honesty, integrity and commitment. But it also requires something that large, modern organisations have gradually sacrificed. As individuals are pushed ever harder, as we move into more and more of a "performance culture", acts of mutual support and inclusiveness are not merely not helpful for the giver, but they are detrimental - they help someone else to succeed to the giver's loss.
These two things, then, are not mutually exclusive, but they are rarely found in the same organisation in full and effective health.
I'm concerned at the way that the author of the original piece chose to express their views. I do not believe that the author did themselves or their suggestions any favours. I also worry that some of the issues a rooted far more deeply, insidiously and tenaciously than we might yet be willing to accept.
we will punish you the hardest possible way and ostracize you till it hurts real bad.
In the corp I work for nobody speaks up anymore when justice warriors do their rants. There is no point and the only thing that can happen is being called to HR to receive your warning (second and they can fire you immediately with compensation).
Thank heaven we have the Google VP of Diversity, Integrity & Governance to challenge the old-fashioned idea that engineering is about stuff like mathematics, metallurgy, tolerances, formulas, algorithms, etc. That sort of thinking is so old-school!
Keep your "math" there, old-man Hitler. Progressives know that real engineering is all about empathy!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Engineers are just as capable of irrationality as anyone else. Re: the Salem Hypothesis.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
making poor technical or unethical decisions just to "win", and a winner-takes-all attitude where being anything less than the champion, the alpha-male, is failure and shameful.
That doesn't sound anything like masculinity, which is about inherent strength and self-reliance and has nothing to do with notions of victory or dominance.
What it does sound an AWFUL lot like is projection, as you have outlined the very basis of thought for the modern left. No person of differing ideology can every win against the group-mind, and nothing can ever be shared from the Great Bounty Of the State, it is only for those that belong to the club.
The only thing being rejected is a straw-man, so that you can worship the new straw-man propped up by a different farmer.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
To circulate, agree with, or repeat crimethink is volunteering to unperson
DoublePlus Love,
Danielle Brown
Commissar of GoodThink
ThinkPol, Google Corp
Indeed. There is a _very_ clear line between "stereotyping" and statistical observations. The second happens to be facts. But SJWs are not mentally equipped to understand that. These morons basically destroy everything they take over, because they have an invalid model of reality.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I get where the rage comes from (because if you think there isn't HR-approved, SJW-approved injustice in a lot of corporate environments... well, actually, you're probably not worth talking to), but the retaliatory ignorance is always amazing.
I mean, how do you get from "HR did a 'diversity' hire and is paying someone based on their sex/gender/sexual orientation/ethnicity/whatever and I resent that as someone who had to earn their spot" to "All people of that sex/gender/sexual orientation/ethnicity/whatever are my inferiors and their presence is an affront not to be tolerated"?
Then again, the response to the angry ignorant outburst is almost always over the top condescending propaganda that just stirs more rage.
FFS, it's like nobody can accept that people with different characteristics can have slightly differing other characteristics that result in different Bell curves for the second characteristic based on that first characteristic. Nope, everybody starts shouting either "We're all the exactly same, accept it!" or "We're all absolutely different, and everyone else is in a lesser class as a result".
Nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
Empathy doesn't fucking enter into it. You know what's good for cooperation and collaboration? Effective leadership.
Understanding where your people are coming from and etc (ya know, empathy) is what makes it possible to lead effectively.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I'm expecting that the author will be hounded out of his job by the end of next week, and Google will have a major witch hunt against anyone who fails to denounce him angrily enough.
Then, he'll sue for wrongful termination, google will settle for a mid six-figure sum and get a gag order.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
It's obvious that the google forgot about "Don't be evil" years ago. I thought the new slogan was "All your attention are belong to us", but I have a new proposal:
"There is no gawd but profit, and the google is his prophet! Apple is a FALSE prophet!"
(You might prefer to swap the companies or add others, though I hope you'll keep the google in one of the top two slots. For example, I was thinking the last part could be "Apple's profits are FAKE and Apple is a FALSE prophet!")
P.S. This is really a feeble bid for a funny mod, though I'm not sure what the joke is. Maybe the entire topic area is just unfunny? Or maybe it's just today's humor-impoverished Slashdot?
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
I believe in free speech, so I'm certainly not going to be moving to Canada anytime soon, thanks.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I misread the memo, my comments about him being outed by VP were wrong. It was low ranked manager. Please mod down my incorrect comments about the vp. Though come to think of it, her memo isn't very smart.
That was an interesting essay. Based on some of the reported reactions, I was expecting an alt-right anti-women screed. But the essay was IMO thoughtful and fairly well-considered. I don't necessarily agree with parts of it or even most of it, but I do think the motivations of the author were not harmful.
Have you read Work Rules! Insights from Inside Google ? It addresses many of the issues you raise, and perhaps should be foundational reading for any discussion of diversity within the context of the google. Published in 2015, but I'm pretty sure it's still highly relevant and helped me understand what is really happening within the google from the higher perspective of Power, Inc.
Usual gross oversimplification here, but we started with competition between tribes and cults that evolved to a struggle between church and state (or religions and nations, if you prefer). Not clear if the church has lost yet in America, but in the rest of the world the struggle has progressed to one between corporations and nations, where the largest corporations may now be more powerful than the largest states, and they are certainly more influential and powerful than most nations, which tend to be rather small. Yes, corporations' gross sales look much smaller than GDP numbers in some ways, but corporations are more "rational" and focused and don't have such overhead as philosophic principles like "fostering diversity".
Today's modern mega-corporations are soulless monsters, inclined towards EVIL while seeking immortality and infinite profits. Human beings are meaningless cogs, and the only corporate goal is to find the cheapest cogs that can do the necessary work. The only gawd is profit.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
This is what I was talking about. Music to my ears. Keep struggling, you magnificent bastard.
You are welcome on my lawn.
As long as ultra-liberals make views like in this essay taboo to express, then these ideas will simply be driven under ground, and people who hold those views will just feel unfairly suppressed. I think it’s a problem that people who hold these views feel the need to express them anonymously, because they know that the reaction will just be one of unmitigated vitriol. Seriously, if that Google employee openly expressed those views, they would just be fired.
Now that this anonymous essay is out, this is an opportunity to critique it carefully. For instance, there are indeed lots of people who think that men and women and people of difference “races” have such significantly different intelligences that it’s okay to utilize stereotypes as part of hiring decisions and such. Well, now we can take this opportunity to revisit the scientific evidence. Surely there ARE differences, but what differences are genetic, and what are the result of culture and socialization? And for any of these differences, what impact do they have (statistically) on engineering talent? And how much does “talent” matter when combined with hard-earned skills?
We do not want to turn gender and racial equality into dogma. First, we should be completely honest and open about scientific research on this matter. Let’s say it became taboo to talk about skin color. Then if you really liked the skin tone of some person of African descent, then you might risk backlash from just complementing someone. Or more neutrally, if you’re trying to make someone look really good in their clothing, then we need the ability to be matter-of-fact about it; the color of your skin, hair, and eyes and the shape of your body do have a real impact on what clothing styles are best for you. Or biologically, it’s important to recognize the relationship between melanin content and sun exposure.
But establishing that diferences do exist an it’s okay to talk about them, what impact do those differences have on things like job effectiveness? Let’s say we unfroze a population of early humans from 500K years ago. They were not quite as intellectually advanced as us, but they had language and other characteristics that we would recognize as human. How should the be treated? Should they be enslaved? Or just relegated to the menial jobs? What if one wanted to study engineering—should we stop them? Why? And what harm would it cause you if one of them went to college, got a degree, and got hired? White men vary in engieering talent VASTLY and are not hired on the basis of simply being white men, so why should a woman, a black man, or a Neanderthal be excluded simply on the basis of one of these labels? And why the hell would you care to try to force people to be judged on those bases?
Although I haven’t met any neanderthals, I have met people with mental disabilities who were capable enough at math and engineering skills that they could hold down an engineering job and be *productive*, without “special treatment.” And of course, I have known lots of downright brilliant people who were female and/or with skin color darker than a norwegian. Are they less common than brilliant white men? If so, that’s interesting for the anthropologists, but not something that HR people should worry themselves with. BESIDES, even if there were some genetic bias that made them “10% less likely to be at skill level Z,” or something like that, the artificial prejudices from our society’s past have a FAR greater impact. We have a long way to go to get those people up to parity with their true underlying abilities. And the longer we take to do that, the longer we keep shooting ourselves in the foot for not benefitting from their ability to contribute.
I believe a lot of the criticism that women and minorities face often comes from confirmation bias. People make mistakes in their jobs or are sloppy. For some reason, when white men make mistakes, t
It looks like the argument against those advocating in favor of the original paper's author are reducing the issue to one of diversity vs. autism. Like, gee, if you don't have diversity then all you get are autistic, dysfunctional people. Like no basic standards of conduct exist in workplaces outside of the diversity shit. Give me a break.
I've been in tech in some way for almost twenty years now, from programming and IT heavy classes in high school through today. The way I see it, we bred this attitude, and should all have a little compassion for this writer.
In the late 90s and early 2000s, I never heard anyone suggest the all male or nearly all male CS and IT classes I was in were full of sexist men keeping the women out. Just the opposite, I constantly heard they were full of loser boys, women weren't there because they had better ways to spend their time. These guys were nerds, and were on the fringes where they belonged. (The notion that "nerd" and "geek" were positive words was just barely beginning to become a thing.)
Fast forward 15-20 years, and that time they thought they were outcasts? They're now being told that no, quite the opposite, they were being privileged jerks. That whole time they thought they were being ostracized, they were actually gender bullies who now must take responsibility for all the women they've been keeping out of the field. The shift should be enough to make anyone's head spin, but It was a slow burn with no clear demarcation. It's easy to miss. It's not surprising some people who've been in this system feel unhappy, betrayed, angry, or a number of other things.
Twenty years may seem like a long time, but what other profession has changed so fast? "Changing a culture is hard, and it's often uncomfortable." Indeed.
I'm not saying this guy is right. I'm not even saying he's wrong. I'm saying we shouldn't be surprised quite a few of him exist. I'm surprised there aren't a lot more.
I just got a little shiver. You've made my day, friend.
You are welcome on my lawn.
That's pretty vague.
Should have stated "inherent physical strength". And just because self-reliance can apply to both genders, does not dismiss it as being a part of masculinity.
But I would argue self-reliance is not inherently a female trait as women are more prone to seek others for companionship and assistance, more likely to work on things as a group... if you run across true loners they are almost always men. Men are also more likely to keep silent about something that bothers them (for good and ill).
I think masculinity is more about sprouting vast thickets of hair from all over.
Except that statement equally applies to "people of both genders", its just the cultural norm for women to get rid of more of it. :-)
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Indeed. I seem to know more and more pretty smart ex-Googlers that just could not stand it anymore.
Incidentally, "feelings", or rather analysis of said on your customer comes into play when doing engineering consulting, at least in the younger tech industries like IT where your customer may be incompetent, superstitious, insecure, inexperienced, etc. and, in fact, not really an engineer and only partially or not at all able to judge the merits of your proposed solutions. I would expect that for mature disciplines like yours, the situation you describe is the common one.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Except that statement equally applies to "people of both genders", its just the cultural norm for women to get rid of more of it.
Nope. Men are on the whole hairier. I suspect from your whiny tone that you have little chest hair and so are not very masculine. I strongly suspect that I have much more hair than you.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
It's sad to read many of the comments on this thread. It is clear that many do not want to step up and put those words against their account name.
I know for a fact Google works on serious Engineering problems. Unfortunately, they're not always successful. In the case I'm referring to, Google wasn't the main fuck up.
In all fairness, they just weren't big enough yet when DEC bit the dust.
Give them a chance, I know they can fell Google. I do believe in them!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Typical case of eye splinter and log blindness...
There are two rules for success:
1. Never tell everything you know.
Passive-aggressive-progressive rent seeking diversity apparatchiks in high paying make work jobs create problems, worsen existing ones, offer solutions, news at 11.
One of the aspects of the post that troubled me deeply was the bias inherent in suggesting that most women, or men, feel or act a certain way. That is stereotyping, and it is harmful
Statistical trends between men and women are science. Stick to your search engine snapper-head.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
He did not say this is how it should be, he said this is how it is. And yes, this is how it is.
If you want to change it, change the people but don't kill the messenger. Then nobody talks about it anymore, but you still have the same condition at hand. Just because you close your eyes doesn't mean it goes away.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The cardinal question is whether the genders are different because they are different, or because we teach boys and girls to behave differently and solve their problems in different ways.
Nurture vs. Nature, round 63...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
At one point it goes into a full paragraph about Communism and how gender politics is the new version of class warfare - i shit you not.
Uh, because that's what it is? I don't understand how you could see it as anything different.
Unbelievable. Soon it will be a crime to point out that females have vaginas and males have penises.
In one corner, we have the traditional right and the alt-right --including the idiots who voted for Trump. We have science and whatever is left since the 1990's of the religious right and some Libertarians and defecting working-class Democrats. We believe that women and men are genetically, anatomically, and psychologically innately different. We are aware of oddballs who don't get that, but whatever, to each his own, live and let live. It should be a free country and you should not be required to believe, or forced to express, facts which make you feel uncomfortable. Like evolution and the moon landing. And you should be free to endorse whatever nonsense you want, from Creationism to Keynes. We might feel Caitlyn Jenner is creepy, or sympathize with his psychiatric disorder or just disagree that it is possible to be a woman trapped in a man's body. But we do not bear him any ill-will, we are not out to shut him up or cause him harm.
In the other corner, we have the sanctimonious leftist ideologues, among them the leadership of Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, universities, colleges and federal bureaucracies. They are convinced that gender is a social construct and that any statement of perceived difference between genders (it's not reality, it's just your perception) is necessarily either the outcome of socialization or an expression of sexism. It is impossible that men and women have different genes and that genes influence behavior. Anyone who mentions the possibility must be ridiculed, ostracized and fired, be made to pay a price, be made to suffer for their heresy. Their downfall must serve as an example to others who would dare question official belief.
So it's not just one bunch of people's opinion against another's. It is asymmetric warfare. The leftists are a small minority with all the power. They control the largest, most profitable corporations in the country, they run the education system, they control the mainstream media. And they are completely intolerant of differing opinions; they use public shaming to destroy the reputations of those who dare question. They destroy careers by firing and blacklisting. They use the force of law to arrest, fine and harass dissenters.
The opponents of the left are those who resent compulsory ideological indoctrination. Primarily backlash against leftist fascism, not left-right differences in social and political beliefs, shifts American voters against the Democrat party. Social and political differences count for little: The alt-right is not powerfully attracted to the ideology of its own leaders. How could they be? Trump either has no ideology, or one that changes daily. He is a thoughtless blowhard. His supporters apologize for him daily. His sole genuine quality is not being Hillary Clinton. Nor is what the left endorses destructive to their opponents; I am not pained by Kristen Beck wearing a dress or a woman writing a computer program.
The fundamental driver of the American political insurgency is revulsion to authoritarianism of the left; It is not what you leftists believe that pisses us off so much that we go the polls and vote. What pisses us off is the fascist elites imposing their ideology on the rest of us using the power of government, the education system and corporations. Followed by your allies in the media pronouncing that we "hate government," "oppose education" and "deny science" because we are incensed by corruption of those institutions and endeavors to serve your own ideological and political ends.
Leftist ideology is unpopular yet dominant because leftists have co-opted the resources of institutions chartered to serve the public good so to impose their ideology on a majority which disagrees. Leftism thus depends on public corruption for sustenance.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Every family is different, but I had 2 brothers and 1 sister. My brothers and I often cooperated by making make-believe miniature villages out of blocks, Legos, and Tinkertoys where together we fought off a common enemy, be it Russians or space aliens or killer robots.
My sister on the other hand liked to stir things up and pit one of us against the other: conniving politics. She's much nicer as an adult, but I'd hate to be on her bad side. I've also encountered some conniving females at work. Women can and often do have a competitive streak, but it tends to be less overt than male competition: you may not even know it's happening.
Table-ized A.I.
Architecture is a kind of engineering, and arguably more akin to what software engineers do than the kind of engineering you are talking about. But of course what I just described happens there too: badly designed plumbing, stupid placement of electrical outlets, HVAC that meets the specification but has hot spots or cold spots in places where you want to be. There really aren't a lot of jobs delivering something that's of value to an end user where empathy for the end-user doesn't make it more likely that what you produce won't suck.
Trump is more popular than ever
Not sure where you get that. He has the lowest average approval rating of any president ever, and he hasn't even gotten out of the honeymoon period yet where the approval rate is traditionally the highest.
The same crew that claims traditional religion is horseshit has created their own called secular humanism. And it will brook no dissent.
The asshole SJWs today differ only in their detailed views from the bible-thumping televangelists of the 70s and 80s. The utter intolerance and willingness to use political force to get their way is identical.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Every poll by every polling institution, including Fox News. They are fake news too now? Better tell the president because he spends 5 hours a day watching them.
I suspect from your whiny tone that you have little chest hair and so are not very masculine.
I have altogether too much actually, yes men have more hair but women have more than you realize living in modern times.
From your need to be arrogant, I can discern I am in fact the more masculine between us, and could quite easily best you in a match of fisticuffs
I strongly suspect that I have much more hair than you.
I'm not at the Robin Williams level... but close. Take that as you will, which will naturally be with disdain.
I'll let you have the last word, as the truly strong are comfortable with the babbling of lesser men and do not feel the need to go on correcting them once properly rebuked.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
We need common sense restoration. Enough Kafkaesque absurdities.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
I really don't care if there's an ideological echo chamber at Google. I'd guess he's probably right, but if it pisses him off so badly, he doesn't have to work there either.
However, we can't be hypocrites.
If we are ok with Google stomping its ideology into its employees, then we should be equally ok with other ideologues pushing their private causes onto their employees, or inviting them to leave if they don't like it, such as Chik Fil A.
If it's ok for Google, it should be ok for Hobby Lobby, no?
-Styopa
Here's a funny thing: Medicine, Law, and Engineering were also fields that were over 90% male - women had to "break in". And don't imagine they didn't have to push past a lot of sexism and belittling and interrupting.
There was one woman in my 50-man engineering class of 1980; I saw the first woman hired as P.Eng. in my workplace in 1993. By the time I left, five of my last six bosses had been women (2003-2017), and in two cases, THEIR bosses had been women; I'd say they're now a third of the shop. I think this generation has to put up with much less prejudice and belittling (from their women boss, for sure).
Medicine and Law have been half women for a while now.
Then there's IT. Happens I also got a CompSci degree, 1985. A third of my class were women and it was widely assumed it would hit 50% by 1990 or so. And it WAS doing pretty well in the 1990s, then the female participation rate plummeted after the dot-bomb and has never really recovered.
The driving force here, I think, is not poisonous culture, but money. Medicine and Law were rapidly integrated because they are the best-paid jobs in society, and women kept pushing, hard; they had cause. Engineering is mostly better-paid than IT, at least the actual coding jobs.
It's the same as that thing about women not going in to drywall; obviously the best-paid, relative to work pain, jobs will be the most attractive. Coding has become way less attractive lately. Oh, and it's not a licensed profession, like medicine, law, engineering...that may have something to do with both its attractiveness and stability, too.
This guy should have known better then to speak his mind, even *if* he is correct about everything, and still has all those sources. Sure we all have freedom of speech (in the USA) but speaking the truth is still a bad idea if the mob disagrees. When Baghdad was a center for science and learning, it was the stupid mob that started executing people for speaking truth.
I have altogether too much actually
Soundslike not only are you not very manly, but you'd anti man too.
I'm not at the Robin Williams level... but close. Take that as you will, which will naturally be with disdain.
Indeed! Disdain at your unmanly lack of hair. I bet you're palms are bald too.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
As a conservative I believe in free speech, so I don't care if you say merry Christmas or happy holidays.
I'm not a butthurt leftist trying to control the speech of others.
Free speech includes things you don't like, deal with it KID.
The general public does not need a new $1200 iPhone every year, and I doubt Apple will provide the public with what they need.
Put the label on the pile back there with the others that people tried to slap on me in the past decades. I think there should be some space left between "Pinko commie" and "Fuckin' Nazi".
The question is only, and I'm dead serious here, how long corporations will tolerate it. As long as this only affects people and not the bottom line, they'll simply play along, but should that ever start to cut into profits, you'll see this sink pretty damn quickly.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Solution: Work on speed so you can get more power out of a smaller engine.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Yeah. I can see this would go over REAL big with the authoritarian touchy-feelies at Google...
And I'm shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU, that they simply dismissed it.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
A clumsy essay gets totally hysterical reactions
Snowflake, slang :
2016, an overly sensitive person, incapable of dealing with opinions that differ from their own.
2008, a person who thinks they are unique, but is in fact just like everyone else (possibly from Fight Club, 1996).
1970, a derogatory term for Caucasians or African Americans who were perceived as acting 'white'.
1860, a person who was opposed to the abolition of slavery.
The first engineer that comes to me with his feelings about a project and how we should empathize with his viewpoint will get summarily fired. Engineering is about what you can calculate, prove and do or not do. The rest just gets in the way of true engineers.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
You forgot
Snowflake, slang (1995): an underachieving or misbehaving student with highly engaged parents, as in "Mrs Smith demands that her special snowflake deserves full credit for '2+2=5' because he was using a non-Euclidean basis."
No, I learned I can get in their pants more by complimenting their looks rather than flattering their inability to do algebra.
...isn't to say that men and women are different. On average, they are different.
Sexism is when you say that all men are the same and all women are the same, judging the individual man or woman after what you think the average man or woman is. Saying "A woman can't do this or that because statistically women are worse at that" -- this is sexism.
The same is true for racism.
Because other people might believe it, like the pedo witchhunts on Tumblr because someone supported the wrong Steven Universe ship.
You think you have the right social status to avoid the accusation, and maybe against an anon on Slashdot you do, but you're a bloody idiot if you think false accusations in the right hands cannot destroy someone's reputation.
Those numbers are also largely overinflated. People like a place to put the blame, an infant that has recently died to SIDS after receiving a vaccination will be reported as caused by vaccination. Also consider that most that die or have adverse reactions to vaccination would have had the same reaction to the actual live virus.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Aren't good with people, just ask Tom Smykowski. He had people skills.
Take it away, Ernie!
"Essentially, engineering is all about cooperation, collaboration, and empathy for both your *colleagues and your customers*" What a boatload of inane platitudes from this willing idiot.
I hope they walk they guy before he kills half of the office. Yet another entitled psycho who pissed that other people get a a chance too.
You have attacked our taboo, and we will not miss your heresy. (at least not this century martyrdom)
Every day, in every way, they slip further and further into the Silicon Valley "I got mine, you get nothing" attitude.
I expect riots in the streets next year.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
We need to stop this gender bias crap where it starts: birth. We need to make sure that 50% of all births come from female mothers and 50% come from male mothers.
I think I got a bad mod in part for associating conservatives with racism, but my long experience in political debate forums is that a good many conservatives do indeed hold racist or quasi-racist viewpoints. Even conservatives who don't outwardly admit it seem to condone statements by other conservatives holding racist viewpoints. It sounds like shocking claim, but I stand behind it.
Conservatives often have a belief that protestant evangelical "culture" has proven superior and they wish to defend it. I'll call these "culturists". Some go further and believe whites are simply genetically superior, using Africa as "evidence" that blacks cannot run successful civilizations. I'll call this group "racists" as a working term.
There are many in-between-er conservatives who may not claim to know whether it's a genetic or cultural issue, but still defend white evangelical culture and what they see as an attack on it by the left and "multi-culturism".
The issue of genetic-versus-culture is secondary to defending their way of life. An attack is an attack in their mind and the details of the cause is secondary. They may indeed suspect it's genetic, which the in-between-ers hint at, like this Google writer, but usually don't dwell on that issue intellectually because it doesn't really change the facts of the "war" on their way of life as they see it. They see the US as founded on a certain way of life and think it's obligated to stay that way because it has been so successful, at least economically in the past century. They see the left as meddling with success AND their culture by "polluting" it with foreign people and ideas.
Table-ized A.I.
No, those numbers (per the CDC) are greatly *under*inflated by as much as 10 to 1 (again, per the CDC on their vears page).
The area needs a lot of formal study.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Indeed. Christ was largely apolitical, and the few political things he said have multiple interpretations. Conservatives often accuse the left of trying to legislate practices which should be voluntary, such as helping the poor. But Christ (as written in the Bible) does not seem to condone nor condemn the practice of institutionalizing alleged Christian practices: he simply ignores that issue and focuses on individual relations. (He would probably have been jailed much earlier if he had.)
Ironically, the right wants to pass laws that forbid or hamper certain "bedroom" activities such as homosexuality. Thus, they play both sides of the "legislate morality" angle. In the end its a matter of personal interpretation, not written scripture. Thus, to say "our side better fits the Bible" is dubious from either side. However, the right appears to claim that far more often than the left by my observation.
Table-ized A.I.
Seems to me that if there are fewer conservatives in the humanities or in the tech sector, it must be because of some biological constraint. There are differences between liberals and conservatives, according to (among others) Dr. Gail Salz. As much as I would love to see more conservatives in tech, it might just be that they are incapable of the kind of focused, nuanced thinking required in that sector. According to Jonathan Haidt, conservatives are more obedient to hierarchy, obsessed with purity, and adherent to prior modes of action and thought, to truly be innovative.
See how easy that was?
"Changing a culture is hard, and it's often uncomfortable." Have you given any thought to the possibility that people may not want their culture changed? What gives you the right to shove your brand of morality down everyone else's throats? You're pushing people to the breaking point, eventually they will push back. This will not end well.
Scott Alexander, a center-left blogger, also argues against misguided attempts at gender balancing:
Gender Imbalances Are Mostly Not Due to Offensive Attitudes
I worked at Google for 3.5 years as a software engineer, and I am not at all surprised that a Googler would write this pap. During my time there it was clear that there were some employees who were completely blind to the reasons there were so many white men in computer science. It's ironic that the mandatory unconscious bias training could have led to this: privileged white male conservatives convincing themselves that they suffer from comparable levels of discrimination.
(insert witty/esoteric/dumb quote here)
The problem with politicians is that they never lose. If they fail to win an election then they almost always find a way to blame it on someone else. Either hordes of people bused up from Mexico to vote, or the campaign advisor made a mistake, or a third party entered the race without getting permission, or the voters were misled by confusing ballots, or whatever other thing they can point a finger at.
1) Women & Men are inherently equally endowed with all the important skills, traits, abilities, and preferences that contribute to successful careers in Engineering, hard or soft. Therefore, all selections for employment (hiring/firing), promotion, compensation, etc. should be, indeed MUST be gender-blind. Selections shall be made on technical merit alone, without regard to gender (or other innate native identifying characteristics, e.g.: height, weight, hair color, blood type, skin pigmentation, etc.) Affirmative action that favors any group based on non-technical qualities for the purpose of meeting "diversity" goals is wrong and discriminatory.
2) Women have been historically disfavored, and the prevalent social and cultural context has programmed them to avoid STEM career paths in favor of historically more "traditional" choices.
Conventional academic environments reinforce gender stereotypes, and raise barriers to entry for women disproportionately higher than for men. In order to compensate for historical imbalances that have distorted free market forces, extra incentives, encouragement and support for women is only fair, and should be universally available. Equal opportunity employment is only possible if the candidates for employment have had equal preparation for the demands they will be expected to satisfy. As has been famously stated, "separate is inherently unequal".
3) Women have a unique role, superior to men, due to their reproductive capacity to conceive, nurture, and give birth to future generations. Only women carry the burden of pregnancy, and their safety, health, and well-being is more important than that of men who, after the instant of impregnation passes, are free to wander off and live unencumbered lives. This does, and must, confer on them a special protected status in society. The primary function of men is, and should be, the protection of women and the provenance of food, clothing, shelter, and whatever other necessities are required to allow women to perform their primary mission: propagation of the species. Some women self-select technical career paths, either instead of or in addition to taking on the substantial and demanding responsibilities of child-rearing, with all that entails.
In recognition of those stalwart individuals who choose to make greater positive contributions to society than would normally be expected, extra compensation is appropriate and should be required. Two jobs, two paychecks is a fair standard.
4) Status quo: this is a tempest in a teapot, much ado about nothing...a gigantic, and apparently successful, troll of the G-Plex and all its inhabitants, PC or not.
5) The infamous "else" case: "D: None Of The Above"
ya pays yer money and ya takes yer choice...
(T)he (O)ld (M)an
So, "fast, good, cheap: pick any two" has been replaced by "smart, fair, profitable: pick any *ONE*" ?
Really?
(T)he (O)ld (M)an
It is at the core of the debate, and unfortunately, there's no easy way to answer that question—mainly because taking a bunch of infants out into a forest and letting them be raised by wolves to see what happens turns out to be child abuse. Who knew? :-D
But in all seriousness, the actual answer to the question is probably that both nature and nurture play a role. If we assume that biology plays some role, then it stands to reason (at least in the absence of evidence to the contrary) that we would get more equal results if we teach boys with the learning styles that work best for them, and girls with the learning styles that work best for them, and whether those are or are not the same styles for any particular boy or girl is largely irrelevant. But it also stands to reason that many of the differences are likely compounded by early childhood development differences—boys playing games that involve more spatial reasoning and girls playing games that involve more socializing, in which case we might get better results by doing the exact opposite—teaching boys with approaches that girls would find easy, and vice versa.
I think the potential for experiments should be obvious here, but we should be sure to feed the wolves first. :-D
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
This isn't just about women or gender issues either, it is the same kind of attitude the underlies all situations where there is an unwillingness to address problems with prejudice and unjust discrimination.
I agree. However, I think this unwillingness to address the problems is even more evident when attempting to "solve" the problems. Typically identifying and addressing the problem goes like this.
Perform a simple bean-counting experiment to get the numbers in social groups A and B in a career. If the ratio of A to B is lower than it is in the general population take this as evidence of unjust bias against A. Then, to fix this unjust bias introduce programs which deliberately discriminate against group B in favour of group A while, at the same time, telling those in group B to be very careful not to discriminate against those in group A.
At no point in the above process is anything done to identify the cause of the bias which is the first step to determining whether there even is a problem let alone how you might fix it. Even worse the "solution" is likely to cause more bias against group A by some in group B who see programs deliberately biased against them and act, as they perceive it, to rebalance the books. This is clearly not how you identify and correct prejudice. However, it is a cheap and easy way to make it look like you care and are doing something about it.
So attributing "the gender gap in technology to biology-based differences in abilities" is "allow stereotyping and harmful assumptions", but it's somehow OK to write that "male gender roles remain highly inflexible, and that this is a bug, not a feature"? The way that whole thing is playing si a good example of applying a ridiculous amount of social pressure to ignore actual data or belittle minority opinions.
-- Did you try Tao3D? http://tao3d.sourceforge.net
Google cares about tapping foreign workers and the 60% of the population that have female genetals to flood the labor pool and weaken the bargaining position of their technical staff. The same reason they pretend there is a talent shortage in technology.
That means that any study conducted by the government which shows any vaccine in a bad light will never be published.
Source: http://www.vaccinecourse.org/s...
That is just awesome. Going to use that elsewhere. I'm for rational attitudes on vaccination and rabid anti-vaxxers drive me crazy.
BUT so do rabid irrational pro-vaxers.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Personally I have nothing against the idea of vaccines, but the problem is the ones we have are dangerous. They also are not held to the same standards for safety and efficacy testing that other drugs are. But the most terrifying aspect of them is that the companies who manufacture them have absolutely zero liability for harm caused by them. No other industry in the world has that kind of protection short of a completely state run business.
Well, for DPT, the D and T are pretty safe. The P has issues.
D has almost no adverse reactions and without it, we were losing 14,000 children a year with a much lower child population.
P has issues as common as 1:350,000.
If you just do the math and are willing to sacrifice a few so many may live, then vaccination makes sense. For each vaccination I've investigated, we had a known number of deaths over 10,000 per year. Vaccination stopped that. That's a clear benefit.
But at a cost of 100 dead children per year and another 1000 or so hospitalized or with severe reactions that had permanent effects (Ignoring autism which I think the data is really muddy).
I think we should have a larger budget for developing tests to determine which children not to vaccinate with particular vaccinations. I think there will often be a detectable genetic component. Just like for blood pressure medicine- there are some drugs you don't give to people with certain genetics. And I think we need a *much* better system for collecting adverse reactions.
"Willful ignorance" is not a good system. A voluntary and (per doctors) "onerous" system is not a good system.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
If you just do the math and are willing to sacrifice a few so many may live, then vaccination makes sense. For each vaccination I've investigated, we had a known number of deaths over 10,000 per year. Vaccination stopped that. That's a clear benefit.
That's exactly the same argument used against seat belts:
"So what if they save tens of thousands of lives each year.
My cousin's brother-in-law says he might have been trapped in a burning car if had been wearing a seat belt".
And it was the same argument used for motorcycle helmets.
Which ended up going the other way.
But addressing your point, there are few real stories where people were trapped in a car by a seatbelt. When validated, the stories turn out to be fictional.
Ann Landers in 1994 and Dear Abby in 1991 both quoted a policeman whoâ(TM)d seen his share of accidents: âoeIâ(TM)ve never unbuckled a dead man.â
That's the difference. Vaccination problems *are* much more common than people trapped by a seatbelt burning to death in a car incidents.
Much more likely is, "thrown from the car and killed", "Crushed against the dash and killed" stories. Also, vaccination problems affect children- so everyone else at their school probably hears about the vaccination problem. Trapped by a seatbelt would probably be adults. And only a few people would hear about it.
And you don't have adverse reactions just for putting on a seatbelt. Children *do* have adverse reactions, bad ones, just from getting their first vaccination shot.
Encephalopathy: (Disease, damage, or malfunction of the brain) is a recognized side effect of Pertussis vaccinations that by the odds happens multiple times every year in the U.S. alone.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
At least according to some experts... (but I know *everyone* here on /. is an expert)
http://quillette.com/2017/08/0...
The VP's statement is a caricature of self-contradiction. He wants challenging discussion, just so long as it doesn't challenge any of his PC assumptions. Step over the (undefined) line, and you're fired; no warning or nothing. With management like that, who needs enemies?
NHA
Interesting thoughts, usefully debatable, and maybe worth writing down IF it's incidental to your job - or discussing with your wife (if you dare). But otherwise a huge fail in engagement with today's Office Politics, anywhere. 'Internal Memo'? Just WHY?
those occupations. The thing about science and tech is that being good at it (and I mean _really_ good. As in somebody who will advance the field) is more or less being a freak of nature. Being good at watching kids is just being really, really patient. We're not afraid of losing out on a few good kindergarten teachers. They might do good work but they're not going to advance the species the way Einstein did. We _are_ afraid of missing out on the next Einstein because a bunch of the other kids teased her for being good at math.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
because the pay is crap. My dentist is a man and digs around my mouth twice a year (three times if I have a cavity). Men have other, better paying options.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/