The second half of the problem is that the "journalists" doing these lists aren't really journalists and not trained to actually find stuff out. This is not the online presence of Consumer Reports.
BBC cited evolutionary psychologists who agreed with teh author, and others who disagreed with the author Which probably means that it's a silly academic field.
Liberal and conservative are just meaningless words now. They basically mean "my side" and "your side", there's no deeper ideology than that. Instead of thinking about an issue, their first impulse is to figure out what their peer group thinks and then parrot that.
Some technical oriented males can't recognize any social cues whatsoever, and some non-technical people are great and putting themselves at the center of the conversation. Being technical or not is irrelevant in what you're saying.
Although some people think the reason that Obama kept his "ummmm...." pauses going so long is so that others wouldn't think he was done and try to interject. Ie, control the conversation. It's a people skill. It's also a people skill to refrain from butting in and be patient, which some people can't help doing.
Most of the people who but in and start objecting are very often people who don't know what they're talking about anyway, they just want to seem important. They may know their tiny corner of the project but not the big picture, or they're defending their turf ("but your idea means more work for me!").
And of course, the "mansplaining" stereotype is there because people do this. Whether by men or not, there are people who seem compelled to paraphrase what someone just said moments before and thus becoming the center of the conversation again.
Yup women are just as good at men at programming. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. Go back to 1987 and there was a much larger percentage of women in programming than there are today (and it's not so bad today if you look in certain fields). The technology has changed since then, but not so much, the same languages in wide use in 1987 are still around and in use. Programing today is not that different, except that there are much larger teams working together on software, it's more reliant on pre-built components so lots of programming is more about connecting modules together, but essentially the same the same. At the same time there has been zero change in biology.
So the only reason for the decline in interest in computing from women is sociological. Anyone arguing about this as a biological effect or that "girls aren't good at tech" is misguided or outright lying.
There is nothing whatsoever "manly" about programming, other than the locker room smell coming from some people in the basement.
Except he never really said that. He does definitely say that he does want a diverse workplace - he does want both men and women doing programming at Google. He just disagrees with how this is being done at Google and offers different approaches to increasing diversity.
So both the alt-right women haters as well ast the politically correct left have jumped on this manifesto apparently without reading it for comprehension and just latching on a few lines here and there. You can end up agreeing or disagreeing with it certainly, but it does help to read it first before reaching a conclusion.
My take: he's a liberal as he claims (though politics is not a binary thing) but he's also a nerd and geek and is naive in assuming that if you just explain things in a logical way that everyone will agree with you. And he wasn't totally logical either, but that's where you expect the reader to respond and argue back and forth. Except that didn't happen, his being too logical (a little bit on the asbergers side?) overlooked the highly emotionally charged atmosphere.
Yes, if the job requires upper body strength then test for that during the interview. There are indeed biological differences *on average* between men and women here. But women and and do become firefights and *many* women have more upper body strength than the average man.
Now go to computing. If there are differences in the average ability between men and women here then they are still much closer together than the differences in upper body strength. So if we can have women firefighters who can outperform men, then why argue about biological differences with respect to computers (especially since women have had many decades of proving they are highly capable in the field).
Arguing about the differences in averages between men and women is an irrelevant side issue, especially at a company that prides itself on hiring people who are above average. The manifesto author never once accused Google of lowering standards to allow more women and minorities in.
Go back a long time to when "computer" meant a person doing a simple calculation as part of a large group all doing simple calculations. Ie, to create navigation tables, artillery charts, and so forth. Anyone with any aptitude at basic arithmetic and attention to detail could do well in that job (though menial and tedious). In time this was considered an appropriate job for women. Ie, look at Bletchley Park. When electronic computers came out, this idea was kept around and women very often became computer operators and technicians because it wasn't seen as "men's work".
I've got some old documents. An invitation list to a lecture about Unix in 1972, 9 men, 5 women. I've got a PDF of the ILLIAC system, 1956, and the photos all have a woman in them. I find it interesting in pictures of EDVAC and such tend to show all men when the photo has them building the system, but women appear more often than not when the photo shows the computer being used.
Actually, it was pretty long and rambling. It could have used some good editing. That's the problem with manifestos, they authors tend to put in too much stuff.
The biological differences between men and women have extremely little to do with aptitude or competence in the jobs that Google has. The only reason that "women don't like computers" is sociological. When I was in college in the early 80s, the balance of men and women in computer science was pretty good, but over time that has steadily dropped. The biology has not changed during that time. What has changed is the attitudes in the public and at work and especially the attitudes of parents. Once the public has an idea that a certain job is for boys and not girls, or vice versa, there's a lot of subtle pressure that makes it come true.
It's not really a liberal vs conservative issue. It's just that in the screwed up American mindset there are two and only two political stances and every issue must fit into one camp or the other.
Yup. The author has a lot of cheerleaders who haven't actually read what was written except for a few snippets. His main issue is against enforced diversity and uniformity of thought. He gets a lot of his "facts" wrong and could have been vastly more mindful of some of the things he wrote, and that's what got him in trouble.
There are no biological differences that matter in that workplace. There are huge mental differences between two men, you can have one far more alpha than the average amongst all men, and you can have one far less assertive than the female average. That is, the average of men and women are closer together than the extremes within the male or female populations. By the author's logic, you could say there are clear biological differences between blondes and brunettes, or tall and short people, etc.
If you read what the author actually said, it's that the differences are good and you want those differences within the workplace and even in the same types of jobs.
The religious dogma aspect explains so much. Like how Trump was totally reviled by the social conservatives, who later became his best friend when he won the primary. Trump does go to church a lot, once for each marriage. But he's most certainly never going to be the post boy for good Christian social values. He had a lot of baggage, but once he was the candidate the Republicans mostly joined two camps - those cheering for him, and those keeping quiet and keeping their heads down.
Similar with Clinton, she had soooo much baggage, but accepted as the pre-ordained candidate. Bernie enters the race and there's this collective gasp at the heretic, with lots of pressure to just drop out and endorse Hillary. Again it's either cheer for the candidate or shut up and keep your head down.
There is a huge overlap in skills and aptitudes. If the average of women is different from the average of men, it still makes no difference because there is so much overlap. What we should be doing is not telling our daughters stupid things like "computers are for boys", and don't tell our sons "only girls become nurses".
So what if most mathematicians are men, we still have one Field's Medal winner that was a female who is better than the vast majority of all male mathematicians out there. Anyong who tells their children that only boys do well at math needs to have their parenting license revoked.
Why don't people talk about the huge biological differences between men and men? We're not all identical, some are really good at math and computers and some really really suck at it. But in my 30+ year career I have always seen men in computing and engineering and science who have no aptitude in it and no real desire to work in their fields other than to get a paycheck. I don't see why they should be given priority over women.
Look - no one is asking for quotas here. So why is it so wrong to encourage more girls and women to not give up and push through to make it in STEM fields? Why is there such an instant defensive wall put up anytime some dysfunctional bro culture feels threatened?
Affirmative action should be about encouraging participation, not requiring it. Ie, outreach programs. But some people are just so angrily hung up on the issue that they resist even that. Those are the sorts that think there's an inherent biological factor keeping women and minorities out of some job segments, rather than the socialogical factors.
Where does this happen? How do you know of the "token" is really a token or actually worked hard to get there? I don't think I've ever worked with a "token" in my life, except for maybe some token "relatives of a VP who can't get fired despite being a screwup".
More women makes the workplace easier to work with. It's really terrible to work in a bro culture.
I do agree with parts of the statement, that some workplaces make it uncomfortable when there's political talk all the time. Doesn't matter what your political view is, someone is going to feel uncomfortable if you start blabbing about it. A good rule is to not talk about sex, politics, religion, or the details of your last doctor's visit.
The rest of the statement was just lot of whining. Telling people to listen to facts while reciting a list of myths and stereotypes.
But startups seem to be different. Everyone does everyone else's job because there's no money to hire anyone good at all the stuff that needs to be done.
I have definitely seem developers move into marketing roles. Sometimes they just turned out to like the schmoozing and networking more than programming; other times the people were just lousy developers in the first place but because they were founders no one has the guts to tell them how bad they are, but then they start shining once they start bringing in the paying customers.
But in real life it doesn't work like that. Incompetent people are hired at a very high rate. Look around at your work place and see if every single person was the best candidate for that job. Chance are that a big chunk of them are either just good enough or not quite good enough but can pass if an executive is watching. And they manage to keep the jobs for a significant amount of time in my experience.
Now with all these incompetent people being hire, why are so many of them male? Why does a female have to jump through so many extra hurdles to prove she's a good as a guy, when very mediocre men get hired all the time?
Any place that says they only hire the best is lying.
Slashdot Mirror
4. Lists about lists.
The second half of the problem is that the "journalists" doing these lists aren't really journalists and not trained to actually find stuff out. This is not the online presence of Consumer Reports.
BBC cited evolutionary psychologists who agreed with teh author, and others who disagreed with the author Which probably means that it's a silly academic field.
Liberal and conservative are just meaningless words now. They basically mean "my side" and "your side", there's no deeper ideology than that. Instead of thinking about an issue, their first impulse is to figure out what their peer group thinks and then parrot that.
Some technical oriented males can't recognize any social cues whatsoever, and some non-technical people are great and putting themselves at the center of the conversation. Being technical or not is irrelevant in what you're saying.
Although some people think the reason that Obama kept his "ummmm...." pauses going so long is so that others wouldn't think he was done and try to interject. Ie, control the conversation. It's a people skill. It's also a people skill to refrain from butting in and be patient, which some people can't help doing.
Most of the people who but in and start objecting are very often people who don't know what they're talking about anyway, they just want to seem important. They may know their tiny corner of the project but not the big picture, or they're defending their turf ("but your idea means more work for me!").
And of course, the "mansplaining" stereotype is there because people do this. Whether by men or not, there are people who seem compelled to paraphrase what someone just said moments before and thus becoming the center of the conversation again.
Yup women are just as good at men at programming. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. Go back to 1987 and there was a much larger percentage of women in programming than there are today (and it's not so bad today if you look in certain fields). The technology has changed since then, but not so much, the same languages in wide use in 1987 are still around and in use. Programing today is not that different, except that there are much larger teams working together on software, it's more reliant on pre-built components so lots of programming is more about connecting modules together, but essentially the same the same. At the same time there has been zero change in biology.
So the only reason for the decline in interest in computing from women is sociological. Anyone arguing about this as a biological effect or that "girls aren't good at tech" is misguided or outright lying.
There is nothing whatsoever "manly" about programming, other than the locker room smell coming from some people in the basement.
Thanks for mansplaining the previous comment.
Except he never really said that. He does definitely say that he does want a diverse workplace - he does want both men and women doing programming at Google. He just disagrees with how this is being done at Google and offers different approaches to increasing diversity.
So both the alt-right women haters as well ast the politically correct left have jumped on this manifesto apparently without reading it for comprehension and just latching on a few lines here and there. You can end up agreeing or disagreeing with it certainly, but it does help to read it first before reaching a conclusion.
My take: he's a liberal as he claims (though politics is not a binary thing) but he's also a nerd and geek and is naive in assuming that if you just explain things in a logical way that everyone will agree with you. And he wasn't totally logical either, but that's where you expect the reader to respond and argue back and forth. Except that didn't happen, his being too logical (a little bit on the asbergers side?) overlooked the highly emotionally charged atmosphere.
Yes, if the job requires upper body strength then test for that during the interview. There are indeed biological differences *on average* between men and women here. But women and and do become firefights and *many* women have more upper body strength than the average man.
Now go to computing. If there are differences in the average ability between men and women here then they are still much closer together than the differences in upper body strength. So if we can have women firefighters who can outperform men, then why argue about biological differences with respect to computers (especially since women have had many decades of proving they are highly capable in the field).
Arguing about the differences in averages between men and women is an irrelevant side issue, especially at a company that prides itself on hiring people who are above average. The manifesto author never once accused Google of lowering standards to allow more women and minorities in.
Go back a long time to when "computer" meant a person doing a simple calculation as part of a large group all doing simple calculations. Ie, to create navigation tables, artillery charts, and so forth. Anyone with any aptitude at basic arithmetic and attention to detail could do well in that job (though menial and tedious). In time this was considered an appropriate job for women. Ie, look at Bletchley Park. When electronic computers came out, this idea was kept around and women very often became computer operators and technicians because it wasn't seen as "men's work".
I've got some old documents. An invitation list to a lecture about Unix in 1972, 9 men, 5 women. I've got a PDF of the ILLIAC system, 1956, and the photos all have a woman in them. I find it interesting in pictures of EDVAC and such tend to show all men when the photo has them building the system, but women appear more often than not when the photo shows the computer being used.
Actually, it was pretty long and rambling. It could have used some good editing. That's the problem with manifestos, they authors tend to put in too much stuff.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse...
The biological differences between men and women have extremely little to do with aptitude or competence in the jobs that Google has. The only reason that "women don't like computers" is sociological. When I was in college in the early 80s, the balance of men and women in computer science was pretty good, but over time that has steadily dropped. The biology has not changed during that time. What has changed is the attitudes in the public and at work and especially the attitudes of parents. Once the public has an idea that a certain job is for boys and not girls, or vice versa, there's a lot of subtle pressure that makes it come true.
Having sex on the internet isn't quite the same as having sex.
It's not really a liberal vs conservative issue. It's just that in the screwed up American mindset there are two and only two political stances and every issue must fit into one camp or the other.
No one used that phrase until this year. What is this, some new phrase introduced on Infowars that the Infowarriors are now reciting?
His was not a conservative voice.He was arguing for diversity, just not enforced diversity.
Yup. The author has a lot of cheerleaders who haven't actually read what was written except for a few snippets. His main issue is against enforced diversity and uniformity of thought. He gets a lot of his "facts" wrong and could have been vastly more mindful of some of the things he wrote, and that's what got him in trouble.
There are no biological differences that matter in that workplace. There are huge mental differences between two men, you can have one far more alpha than the average amongst all men, and you can have one far less assertive than the female average. That is, the average of men and women are closer together than the extremes within the male or female populations. By the author's logic, you could say there are clear biological differences between blondes and brunettes, or tall and short people, etc.
If you read what the author actually said, it's that the differences are good and you want those differences within the workplace and even in the same types of jobs.
The religious dogma aspect explains so much. Like how Trump was totally reviled by the social conservatives, who later became his best friend when he won the primary. Trump does go to church a lot, once for each marriage. But he's most certainly never going to be the post boy for good Christian social values. He had a lot of baggage, but once he was the candidate the Republicans mostly joined two camps - those cheering for him, and those keeping quiet and keeping their heads down.
Similar with Clinton, she had soooo much baggage, but accepted as the pre-ordained candidate. Bernie enters the race and there's this collective gasp at the heretic, with lots of pressure to just drop out and endorse Hillary. Again it's either cheer for the candidate or shut up and keep your head down.
There is a huge overlap in skills and aptitudes. If the average of women is different from the average of men, it still makes no difference because there is so much overlap. What we should be doing is not telling our daughters stupid things like "computers are for boys", and don't tell our sons "only girls become nurses".
So what if most mathematicians are men, we still have one Field's Medal winner that was a female who is better than the vast majority of all male mathematicians out there. Anyong who tells their children that only boys do well at math needs to have their parenting license revoked.
Why don't people talk about the huge biological differences between men and men? We're not all identical, some are really good at math and computers and some really really suck at it. But in my 30+ year career I have always seen men in computing and engineering and science who have no aptitude in it and no real desire to work in their fields other than to get a paycheck. I don't see why they should be given priority over women.
Look - no one is asking for quotas here. So why is it so wrong to encourage more girls and women to not give up and push through to make it in STEM fields? Why is there such an instant defensive wall put up anytime some dysfunctional bro culture feels threatened?
Affirmative action should be about encouraging participation, not requiring it. Ie, outreach programs. But some people are just so angrily hung up on the issue that they resist even that. Those are the sorts that think there's an inherent biological factor keeping women and minorities out of some job segments, rather than the socialogical factors.
Where does this happen? How do you know of the "token" is really a token or actually worked hard to get there? I don't think I've ever worked with a "token" in my life, except for maybe some token "relatives of a VP who can't get fired despite being a screwup".
More women makes the workplace easier to work with. It's really terrible to work in a bro culture.
I do agree with parts of the statement, that some workplaces make it uncomfortable when there's political talk all the time. Doesn't matter what your political view is, someone is going to feel uncomfortable if you start blabbing about it. A good rule is to not talk about sex, politics, religion, or the details of your last doctor's visit.
The rest of the statement was just lot of whining. Telling people to listen to facts while reciting a list of myths and stereotypes.
But startups seem to be different. Everyone does everyone else's job because there's no money to hire anyone good at all the stuff that needs to be done.
I have definitely seem developers move into marketing roles. Sometimes they just turned out to like the schmoozing and networking more than programming; other times the people were just lousy developers in the first place but because they were founders no one has the guts to tell them how bad they are, but then they start shining once they start bringing in the paying customers.
But in real life it doesn't work like that. Incompetent people are hired at a very high rate. Look around at your work place and see if every single person was the best candidate for that job. Chance are that a big chunk of them are either just good enough or not quite good enough but can pass if an executive is watching. And they manage to keep the jobs for a significant amount of time in my experience.
Now with all these incompetent people being hire, why are so many of them male? Why does a female have to jump through so many extra hurdles to prove she's a good as a guy, when very mediocre men get hired all the time?
Any place that says they only hire the best is lying.