If a 150 pound man eats 5000 calories, and doesn't gain a pound, we don't call that "overeating".
If a 150 pound man eats 2000 calories, and gains two pounds, we call that "overeating".
So "overeating" has nothing to do with how much we eat, but what happens *after* we eat.
I think the more important thing to pay attention to is "overfatting" - what causes your fat cells to grow, and what causes them to shrink. Of course the biggest player is insulin, but anything we come up with has to actually address the fat cell, not the mouth.
I remember back when I was on a low-fat, low-calorie diet, and I would wake up in the middle of the night, starving. I would go to the fridge, and eat a bunch of carrots (healthy, right?), and end up so full that it felt like there were carrots crawling up my esophagus. And I'd still be starving. Why? Because my muscles *were* starving. My stomach was full to the brim, but because I'm sensitive to carbohydrate, all those "healthy" carrots were doing was being digested, and then being shunted into fat cells. It is really such a frustrating experience to be full, but still hungry - I'm not sure if people who aren't insulin resistant can actually imagine what that's like.
Anyway, my latest thing has been intermittent fasting - let the body go through a bit of hunger, get into "starvation" mode every once in a while, and schedule eating to just 6 hours a day (mornings from 8am-2pm are butter coffee only, "real" food from 2pm - 8pm). It seems to help adjust some of the hormonal responses so that hunger and overall caloric intake decreases in the long term.
A few problems - one of the studies took ten healthy males. I think that excluding people with insulin resistance problems makes that study difficult to rely on.
Further, that same study asserted a temporary decrease in hunger sensations - which again, if you're insulin resistant, and your fat cells are starving you, may not apply as cleanly.
The study for 17 overweight men is a bit more interesting, but I'm not sure if the magnitudes they found were terribly significant (they were statistically significant, but again, limited by a 70 minute time-span of observation afterwards and an actual 10 hour fast before hand, and an "all you can eat" of standardized oats - not the tastiest snack food). I'm a big fan of HIIE (slow burn is my current regimen), as well as intermittent fasting, but I would have liked to have seen data on the glycemic load of their standardized liquid meal as well.
And you're right - it wasn't my intent to discard exercise, although I see exercise as a path to strength rather than weight management. The stronger your muscles are, the more efficient they are, the easier it is to do anything. The fact that this can improve metabolism is a wonderful thing, but my direct experience has been that no amount of exercise can combat excess carbohydrate intake for me.
Imagine you've been invited to a gourmet meal. The host tells you to "bring your appetite!" What might you do to make yourself hungrier?
Maybe skip a meal or two earlier in the day? (less calories)
Maybe go out for a brisk run, or workout? (more exercise)
So, we know, categorically, that less calories and more exercise creates increased hunger.
How does this help a fat person eat less?
Now, if you understand the biochemistry, and how for a fat person, their fat cells are stealing all the energy from their muscle cells, then you understand the thing driving them to 5000 calories a day is starvation (from the muscle point of view). You don't need to focus on getting them to put less calories in their mouth, you need to focus on getting them to put less calories in their fat cells.
How do fat cells get bigger? Under the influence of insulin.
How do insulin levels get higher? Under the influence of blood sugar (literally to keep you from dying of sugar poisoning - it's a feature, not a bug).
How is blood sugar raised? High glycemic foods, like carbohydrates.
So if you want the fat man to stop being hungry, so he'll eat less calories, and therefore lose weight, you have to focus on the root cause, not just the proximate cause. It's the fat cells that are "overeating" - the fat man is eating 5000 calories because given the glycemic load of whatever he's eating, he needs that much to keep his muscle cells fed.
Reduce the glycemic load, you'll reduce the hunger, and *that* will reduce caloric intake.
tl;dr - getting hungrier doesn't help you eat less.
Here's another fly in the soup - not everybody is as sensitive to insulin (or resistant to insulin) as other people. Different people may be able to tolerate different diets.
I, for one, cannot tolerate apples well. The fructose in a single apple, even if eaten whole rather than juiced, causes me health problems.
I'm sure there are some people who can tolerate lots of refined sugar. But I'll tell you this - those people who have obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, or other chronic diseases are of the body type that should significantly reduce carbohydrate intake. If your biomarkers are great, and all you eat are pop tarts, bully for you. If you are having problems, 99% of the time carbohydrate restriction will benefit you.
I was thinking the other way they could implement would be with some port knocking sequence to the friendly ISP - that crap is hella hard to notice, even with DPI. I wish there were more useful implementations of it, but my bet is the deep state is intent on suppressing that kind of tech.
Read the paper, but it wasn't terribly clear either - they seemed more interested in scalability than operations.
Anyway, so the trick is you need to make sure that end users behind the firewall can get your public key...which, if they're doing DPI, they can filter out, so that someone has to send it via snail mail, or otherwise stego it somewhere. Difficult, but not impossible.
I guess the other problem is if the censors shove you behind an encryption terminating firewall (i.e., they insist you instantiate a valid TLS connection to *their* front end, which will only establish a TLS connection beyond it if they approve of the contents they see. Make SSL/TLS/etc illegal behind the censor firewall, and that'll put an end to any sort of hiding of the protocol.
Asserting that you're literally lying, and defaming Damore is a calm, logical argument, when I show you that you're literally lying and defaming Damore through demonstration of his exact words, and their contrast to your claims.
Besides, your "research", if it was accurate, would show that women are a better fit than men for office jobs
Well, they certainly prefer office jobs, rather than the more dangerous jobs that men typically take. You do realize that 93% of all workplace fatalities are male, right? That usually isn't because someone got a paper cut or their clothes stuck in a copy machine:)
I think you're really emotionally tied to the idea that women and men must be exactly alike - but it seems like if that's true, than any benefit from "diversity" is illusionary. And if it's false, there's no reason to expect equal representation in a world of free choices. Damore alludes to this paradox of diversity in two places:
"Philosophically, I don't think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principled reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google—with Google's diversity being a component of that. For example, currently those willing to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google's funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged."
"Note that contrary to what a social constructionist would argue, research suggests that "greater nation-level gender equality leads to psychological dissimilarity in men’s and women’s personality traits." Because as “society becomes more prosperous and more egalitarian, innate dispositional differences between men and women have more space to develop and the gap that exists between men and women in their personality traits becomes wider.” We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism."
Yeah, but something doesn't smell right - if friendly ISPs can recognize this protocol and aid and abet the bypassing of firewalls, then censoring entities can *also* recognize this protocol.
Where's the method for preventing interception of the initial handshake?
"Research in large samples has shown that levels of N are higher in women than men. This is a robust finding that is consistent across cultures (Costa et al., 2001). This is especially the case dur- ing the reproductive years, but is also visible in children and elderly (Jorm, 1987). Sex differences may also be of relevance in N-related arousal, psychophysiological, neuroimaging parameters (Davidson et al., 1996). With regard to brain function, Jausovec and Jausovec (2007) showed clear differences in EEG brain responses between men and women with high scores on N. Neo and McNaughton (2011) observed a relationship between N and frontal theta power (as measured with EEG) during aversive processing, but the rela- tionship differed for men and women."
Now, hey, maybe you're a neuroscientist, and can explain where they got things wrong, but it looks legit to me.
As for #Goolag being low stress, I wonder how serene your life most be:)
In any case, he's clearly got an NLRB case, if #Goolag is implicitly or explicitly instructing their hiring staff to discriminate by race or gender, as corroborated by other sources (http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/07/the-google-rebels-diversity-first-technology-second/).
"Witch hunts are a well-known cultural problem at Google. The company is currently facing a Federal complaint filed by the National Labor Relations Board in April for interfering with employees’ legal right to discuss “workplace diversity and social justice initiatives.” The complaint alleges that Senior Vice President Urs Holzle and numerous managers in his organization actively stoked up witch hunts in 2015 and 2016 intended to muzzle low-level employees who raised concerns about the company’s practices. The trial is set for November."
Was there anything in that quote that you've got a problem with?
I noted this in particular:
"I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize illegal discrimination."
And if #Goolag is telling people to reject candidates based on race until they get to certain "diversity" targets, then they have crossed over the line. And Damore's whistleblowing is why we know.
"On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:
They’re universal across human cultures
They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males
The underlying traits are highly heritable
They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective
Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions."
Actually, the whole complaint to the NLRB is that #goolag was treating people unfairly. Damore actually specified what could be done to stop this unfair treatment:
"My concrete suggestions are to:
De-moralize diversity.
As soon as we start to moralize an issue , we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”
Stop alienating conservatives.
Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.
In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility . We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.
Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness , which is required for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.
Confront Google’s biases.
I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.
I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.
Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.
These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined. Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs.
Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.
There’s currently very little transparency into the extent of our diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo chamber.
These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives.
I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize illegal discrimination.
Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.
We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination.
We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity.
Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX.
De-emphasize empathy.
I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases . Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.
Prioritize intention.
Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offence and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging unintentional transgressions.
Microaggression tra
...they were violating the ToS for their email provider, and were shut down because they were emailing about topics not approved by #Goolag and the other alt-left service providers:)
Go ahead. Quote your dictionary definition of "something real" that is "worth whistleblowing". We'll see if #goolag implicitly or explicitly instructing staff to discriminate by race and/or sex in order to meet racial and sex quotas counts in that dictionary definition:)
Or, you can exercise your insult simulator machine, and dodge again:)
Because, of course, if you were to admit that such implicit or explicit instructions from #goolag *did* exist, and Damore observed them, then his response to the NLRB was obligatory for anyone with a moral compass. So far, you refuse to entertain the notion that such instructions existed (convenient that unlike all other #goolag meetings they weren't recorded), and you seem to discount Damore's testimony out of spite.
"The harm of Google’s biases
I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:
Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race 5
A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination 6
These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions . We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology 7 that can irreparably harm Google."
I can't believe they haven't figured this out - godaddy, google, and cloudflare have essentially claimed liability for anything offensive on their networks. They might as well just impose sharia law, german nazi censorship, and the great firewall of china on anything that runs over their infrastructure. The only thing left is going to be prayer calls, kittens, and advertisements for hair care products.
Point blank, yes or no, if #goolag told people in a meeting to discriminate by race and/or sex when hiring to meet diversity quotas, is that "something real"?
Why do you keep dodging that question? It's simple. You don't even need to have James Damore around to answer that question:)
So exactly what would you consider whistleblower worthy?
Would suggesting that someone should discriminate based on race and/or sex in order to hit an arbitrary quota goal rise to the level of whistleblower worthy?
If you don't want things put in your mouth, be clear with your words:)
It seems silly to take someone's exact words, and then insist that you can read their mind and they just missed the/sarc tag:)
"People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document 2 . Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no means the complete story, but it’s a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google."
I believe that if Google was implicitly or explicitly telling their hiring managers to discriminate based on race or sex, that would be a real illegal activity, and whistleblowing on it would be a moral action.
You say what is "real" to you is "The same as to everyone else obviously."
So, I'll take it that you agree that if Google was implicitly or explicitly telling their hiring managers to discriminate based on race or sex, then Damore did the right thing to call it out, and call the NLRB to complain.
What if the baker would sell a custom made wedding cake to a homosexual couple...for their friend's straight wedding?
But that same baker would refuse to sell a custom made wedding cake to a heterosexual couple...for their friend's gay wedding?
Refusing to bake a "White PPL Rule and Blacks Should Be Slaves" custom cake is just as reasonable as having a religious thing against homosexual marriage. That is to say, both are stupid refusals, but at a certain point, you gotta stop poking the bear.
When less than 50% of the responses to this question are female, we should investigate what slashdot can do to make the site more balanced, with an equal number of male and female users.
Because obviously any disparity is due to the inherent sexism of slashdot.
Maybe refuse to add male accounts until we have an equal number of females?
It's like asserting his memo said you need a vagina to have a good work/life balance.
"I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes... Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions."
Slashdot Mirror
I just think "overeating" is a tautology.
If a 150 pound man eats 5000 calories, and doesn't gain a pound, we don't call that "overeating".
If a 150 pound man eats 2000 calories, and gains two pounds, we call that "overeating".
So "overeating" has nothing to do with how much we eat, but what happens *after* we eat.
I think the more important thing to pay attention to is "overfatting" - what causes your fat cells to grow, and what causes them to shrink. Of course the biggest player is insulin, but anything we come up with has to actually address the fat cell, not the mouth.
I remember back when I was on a low-fat, low-calorie diet, and I would wake up in the middle of the night, starving. I would go to the fridge, and eat a bunch of carrots (healthy, right?), and end up so full that it felt like there were carrots crawling up my esophagus. And I'd still be starving. Why? Because my muscles *were* starving. My stomach was full to the brim, but because I'm sensitive to carbohydrate, all those "healthy" carrots were doing was being digested, and then being shunted into fat cells. It is really such a frustrating experience to be full, but still hungry - I'm not sure if people who aren't insulin resistant can actually imagine what that's like.
Anyway, my latest thing has been intermittent fasting - let the body go through a bit of hunger, get into "starvation" mode every once in a while, and schedule eating to just 6 hours a day (mornings from 8am-2pm are butter coffee only, "real" food from 2pm - 8pm). It seems to help adjust some of the hormonal responses so that hunger and overall caloric intake decreases in the long term.
Thanks for the cites!
A few problems - one of the studies took ten healthy males. I think that excluding people with insulin resistance problems makes that study difficult to rely on.
Further, that same study asserted a temporary decrease in hunger sensations - which again, if you're insulin resistant, and your fat cells are starving you, may not apply as cleanly.
The study for 17 overweight men is a bit more interesting, but I'm not sure if the magnitudes they found were terribly significant (they were statistically significant, but again, limited by a 70 minute time-span of observation afterwards and an actual 10 hour fast before hand, and an "all you can eat" of standardized oats - not the tastiest snack food). I'm a big fan of HIIE (slow burn is my current regimen), as well as intermittent fasting, but I would have liked to have seen data on the glycemic load of their standardized liquid meal as well.
And you're right - it wasn't my intent to discard exercise, although I see exercise as a path to strength rather than weight management. The stronger your muscles are, the more efficient they are, the easier it is to do anything. The fact that this can improve metabolism is a wonderful thing, but my direct experience has been that no amount of exercise can combat excess carbohydrate intake for me.
Anyway, thanks again for the specific references!
Imagine you've been invited to a gourmet meal. The host tells you to "bring your appetite!" What might you do to make yourself hungrier?
Maybe skip a meal or two earlier in the day? (less calories)
Maybe go out for a brisk run, or workout? (more exercise)
So, we know, categorically, that less calories and more exercise creates increased hunger.
How does this help a fat person eat less?
Now, if you understand the biochemistry, and how for a fat person, their fat cells are stealing all the energy from their muscle cells, then you understand the thing driving them to 5000 calories a day is starvation (from the muscle point of view). You don't need to focus on getting them to put less calories in their mouth, you need to focus on getting them to put less calories in their fat cells.
How do fat cells get bigger? Under the influence of insulin.
How do insulin levels get higher? Under the influence of blood sugar (literally to keep you from dying of sugar poisoning - it's a feature, not a bug).
How is blood sugar raised? High glycemic foods, like carbohydrates.
So if you want the fat man to stop being hungry, so he'll eat less calories, and therefore lose weight, you have to focus on the root cause, not just the proximate cause. It's the fat cells that are "overeating" - the fat man is eating 5000 calories because given the glycemic load of whatever he's eating, he needs that much to keep his muscle cells fed.
Reduce the glycemic load, you'll reduce the hunger, and *that* will reduce caloric intake.
tl;dr - getting hungrier doesn't help you eat less.
Here's another fly in the soup - not everybody is as sensitive to insulin (or resistant to insulin) as other people. Different people may be able to tolerate different diets.
I, for one, cannot tolerate apples well. The fructose in a single apple, even if eaten whole rather than juiced, causes me health problems.
I'm sure there are some people who can tolerate lots of refined sugar. But I'll tell you this - those people who have obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, or other chronic diseases are of the body type that should significantly reduce carbohydrate intake. If your biomarkers are great, and all you eat are pop tarts, bully for you. If you are having problems, 99% of the time carbohydrate restriction will benefit you.
Mod parent up.
There are essential proteins you'll die without, and there are essential fatty acids you'll die without.
There are no essential carbohydrates because your body can create glucose from proteins and fats.
Carbs are cheap, but it's healthier to feed them to animals, and then eat the animals.
Yeah, that makes sense.
I was thinking the other way they could implement would be with some port knocking sequence to the friendly ISP - that crap is hella hard to notice, even with DPI. I wish there were more useful implementations of it, but my bet is the deep state is intent on suppressing that kind of tech.
Read the paper, but it wasn't terribly clear either - they seemed more interested in scalability than operations.
Anyway, so the trick is you need to make sure that end users behind the firewall can get your public key...which, if they're doing DPI, they can filter out, so that someone has to send it via snail mail, or otherwise stego it somewhere. Difficult, but not impossible.
I guess the other problem is if the censors shove you behind an encryption terminating firewall (i.e., they insist you instantiate a valid TLS connection to *their* front end, which will only establish a TLS connection beyond it if they approve of the contents they see. Make SSL/TLS/etc illegal behind the censor firewall, and that'll put an end to any sort of hiding of the protocol.
I think you're projecting there, friend :)
Asserting that you're literally lying, and defaming Damore is a calm, logical argument, when I show you that you're literally lying and defaming Damore through demonstration of his exact words, and their contrast to your claims.
Well, they certainly prefer office jobs, rather than the more dangerous jobs that men typically take. You do realize that 93% of all workplace fatalities are male, right? That usually isn't because someone got a paper cut or their clothes stuck in a copy machine :)
I think you're really emotionally tied to the idea that women and men must be exactly alike - but it seems like if that's true, than any benefit from "diversity" is illusionary. And if it's false, there's no reason to expect equal representation in a world of free choices. Damore alludes to this paradox of diversity in two places:
"Philosophically, I don't think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principled reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google—with Google's diversity being a component of that. For example, currently those willing to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google's funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged."
"Note that contrary to what a social constructionist would argue, research suggests that "greater nation-level gender equality leads to psychological dissimilarity in men’s and women’s personality traits." Because as “society becomes more prosperous and more egalitarian, innate dispositional differences between men and women have more space to develop and the gap that exists between men and women in their personality traits becomes wider.” We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism ."
Yeah, but something doesn't smell right - if friendly ISPs can recognize this protocol and aid and abet the bypassing of firewalls, then censoring entities can *also* recognize this protocol.
Where's the method for preventing interception of the initial handshake?
Wow. It's almost as if it hurts your eyes to look at a calm, logical argument presented with a fair and balanced tone :)
Now, I'll agree, most of the "social" sciences are voodoo, like most of "climate science", but it's all we have, and he does cite it properly.
http://sci-hub.io/10.1016/j.ne...
"Research in large samples has shown that levels of N are higher in women than men. This is a robust finding that is consistent across cultures (Costa et al., 2001). This is especially the case dur- ing the reproductive years, but is also visible in children and elderly (Jorm, 1987). Sex differences may also be of relevance in N-related arousal, psychophysiological, neuroimaging parameters (Davidson et al., 1996). With regard to brain function, Jausovec and Jausovec (2007) showed clear differences in EEG brain responses between men and women with high scores on N. Neo and McNaughton (2011) observed a relationship between N and frontal theta power (as measured with EEG) during aversive processing, but the rela- tionship differed for men and women."
Now, hey, maybe you're a neuroscientist, and can explain where they got things wrong, but it looks legit to me.
As for #Goolag being low stress, I wonder how serene your life most be :)
In any case, he's clearly got an NLRB case, if #Goolag is implicitly or explicitly instructing their hiring staff to discriminate by race or gender, as corroborated by other sources (http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/07/the-google-rebels-diversity-first-technology-second/).
"Witch hunts are a well-known cultural problem at Google. The company is currently facing a Federal complaint filed by the National Labor Relations Board in April for interfering with employees’ legal right to discuss “workplace diversity and social justice initiatives.” The complaint alleges that Senior Vice President Urs Holzle and numerous managers in his organization actively stoked up witch hunts in 2015 and 2016 intended to muzzle low-level employees who raised concerns about the company’s practices. The trial is set for November."
Was there anything in that quote that you've got a problem with?
I noted this in particular:
"I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government
accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize
illegal discrimination."
And that's the rub - racial discrimination is illegal. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/type...
And if #Goolag is telling people to reject candidates based on race until they get to certain "diversity" targets, then they have crossed over the line. And Damore's whistleblowing is why we know.
"On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:
They’re universal across human cultures
They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males
The underlying traits are highly heritable
They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective
Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions."
Actually, the whole complaint to the NLRB is that #goolag was treating people unfairly. Damore actually specified what could be done to stop this unfair treatment:
"My concrete suggestions are to:
De-moralize diversity.
As soon as we start to moralize an issue , we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”
Stop alienating conservatives .
Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political
orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people
view things differently.
In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like
they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility . We should empower those
with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.
Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business
because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness , which is required for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.
Confront Google’s biases.
I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and
inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.
I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and
personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.
Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.
These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.
Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs.
Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.
There’s currently very little transparency into the extent of our diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo chamber.
These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives.
I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government
accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize
illegal discrimination.
Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.
We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination.
We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity.
Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our
products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX.
De-emphasize empathy.
I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases . Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.
Prioritize intention.
Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases
our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offence and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging unintentional transgressions.
Microaggression tra
Did they include the Facebook Live Torture case as a hate crime?
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/...
Black on white crime is hateful too.
...they were violating the ToS for their email provider, and were shut down because they were emailing about topics not approved by #Goolag and the other alt-left service providers :)
Wow, that was a particularly emotional dodge :)
Go ahead. Quote your dictionary definition of "something real" that is "worth whistleblowing". We'll see if #goolag implicitly or explicitly instructing staff to discriminate by race and/or sex in order to meet racial and sex quotas counts in that dictionary definition :)
Or, you can exercise your insult simulator machine, and dodge again :)
Because, of course, if you were to admit that such implicit or explicit instructions from #goolag *did* exist, and Damore observed them, then his response to the NLRB was obligatory for anyone with a moral compass. So far, you refuse to entertain the notion that such instructions existed (convenient that unlike all other #goolag meetings they weren't recorded), and you seem to discount Damore's testimony out of spite.
"The harm of Google’s biases
I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:
Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race 5
A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by
decreasing the false negative rate
Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same
scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal
discrimination 6
These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions . We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology 7 that can irreparably harm Google."
I can't believe they haven't figured this out - godaddy, google, and cloudflare have essentially claimed liability for anything offensive on their networks. They might as well just impose sharia law, german nazi censorship, and the great firewall of china on anything that runs over their infrastructure. The only thing left is going to be prayer calls, kittens, and advertisements for hair care products.
You still refuse to define "something real".
Point blank, yes or no, if #goolag told people in a meeting to discriminate by race and/or sex when hiring to meet diversity quotas, is that "something real"?
Why do you keep dodging that question? It's simple. You don't even need to have James Damore around to answer that question :)
So exactly what would you consider whistleblower worthy?
Would suggesting that someone should discriminate based on race and/or sex in order to hit an arbitrary quota goal rise to the level of whistleblower worthy?
If you don't want things put in your mouth, be clear with your words :)
So tell me, what are you not saying? :)
It seems silly to take someone's exact words, and then insist that you can read their mind and they just missed the /sarc tag :)
"People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document 2 . Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no means the complete story, but it’s a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google."
I am part of "everyone else".
I believe that if Google was implicitly or explicitly telling their hiring managers to discriminate based on race or sex, that would be a real illegal activity, and whistleblowing on it would be a moral action.
You say what is "real" to you is "The same as to everyone else obviously."
So, I'll take it that you agree that if Google was implicitly or explicitly telling their hiring managers to discriminate based on race or sex, then Damore did the right thing to call it out, and call the NLRB to complain.
What if the baker would sell a custom made wedding cake to a homosexual couple...for their friend's straight wedding?
But that same baker would refuse to sell a custom made wedding cake to a heterosexual couple...for their friend's gay wedding?
Refusing to bake a "White PPL Rule and Blacks Should Be Slaves" custom cake is just as reasonable as having a religious thing against homosexual marriage. That is to say, both are stupid refusals, but at a certain point, you gotta stop poking the bear.
When less than 50% of the responses to this question are female, we should investigate what slashdot can do to make the site more balanced, with an equal number of male and female users.
Because obviously any disparity is due to the inherent sexism of slashdot.
Maybe refuse to add male accounts until we have an equal number of females?
Bad analogy.
It's like asserting his memo said you need a vagina to have a good work/life balance.
"I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes ... Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions."
obvious
adj. See: obvious
I think you've got a memory leak there.
This is me agreeing with you as hard as I can.