He wasn't trying to open a dialogue. He was replying to a dialogue actively initiated by Google. Everything else applies. They solicited him for ideas concerning this topic. He responded.
He read the memo. He is intentionally lying about the contents. He can't attack the memo on the facts so he lies, diverts, creates other issues, and floods misinformation and dissent.
This is the same thing that got the poor kid fired. People that lie. People who won't discuss facts in the realm of reason. People who have some skin in the game and don't want to lose what undeserved advantage they already have. They aren't concerned for women, or minorities, just themselves and what they can get for themselves. They are pushing for more, and to get what they want they need to have everyone either believe the lie or knuckle under to fear. It is by their tactics that you can know completely that they are terribly misguided and broken people.
It is obvious that you are not arguing against biological essentialism. The proof of which is that Damore does not appeal to biological essentialism nor does he espouse it. This is abundantly clear in his writing that he does not feel that biology is the sum of what a person is. Biology is merely a component that should be considered, especially when there are solid scientific studies that point toward a biological origin for abundance or prevalence of traits in a certain group.
This should be obvious when he states that males and females of this particular species have behaviors and traits that exist on a spectrum. This means very specifically that for every male with a high level of attribute X, there will be women both with higher and lower levels of attribute X, though there may be more that are higher or lower. So, as a result of this spectrum it is expected that you will end up with males like myself that like singing show tunes, dressing in drag, and gardening who are married to a woman that enjoys martial arts, rough hand to hand combat, shooting her gun, climbing and cutting down trees, using a chainsaw and various other power tools, and working on cars. The idea of a spectrum guarantees that people like us will exist, and wouldn't you know, we do! That being said, we are both outliers, and it remains up for debate how much of those characteristics are biological and how much are social and how much are self determined. Even with the outlier status that we both express, if you completely deny and biological underpinnings to any of this you are just putting you head in the sand.
By mislabeling what he says it becomes obvious that you are not concerned with fighting biological essentialism, but more concerned with any use of biology at all. Your communication seems to say that any reference to the biology of a group of people is wrong, cannot be used legitimately, is not a factor, and is without merit. No, I am not putting words in your mouth. I am interpreting your reaction to what is certainly not biological essentialism as biological essentialism. By lumping what is certainly not that into that category you "show your hand."
So, if your assertions about biology and you reactions to discussions containing the biology of humans and how their behaviors might be related in part to their biology are required for participation in these ideologies,then all of these ideologies are based explicitly on a denial of the facts, and a strict rejection of specific science, and ultimately of what it is to be human.
I had no idea that every one of these movements was predicated on ignoring reality at such a deep level that they have to reject science and common sense for their underpinnings to be valid to the people that supported them. I always supported them because we are all the same. Under all of the stuff that is not us, like our skin, our brains, our blood, our experiences, our conditioning, our imprinting, our memories, or misunderstandings about out world and our selves, we are exactly the same. Put me in your body at birth and I will be you. Now you're telling me that if I take into consideration the biological story of what took place in your life that I am somehow slighting you? That if I somehow make concessions, or design in accommodations because of differences in our biology that this is wrong? Even acknowledging that there could be differences in biology that lead to predictable outcomes seems to be off limits as well by how you have pigeonholed this guys missive. I have to be misunderstanding you, your words, or your reaction to this essay completely here.
I would have paid good money to see those six and seven figure employees all sitting silently like a bunch of scared schoolchildren. Staring straight ahead, focused on not offending anyone, not standing out, not being seen at all for fear of getting axed. Terror and disdain barely concealed on their faces, the sham of participating without really interacting weighing on their conscience.
God how glorious it would be. Sigh...
Sadly some guy at Google realized they had already sent a message to their employees to "shut the fuck up when we ask you questions." Is this really the best leadership you can get in a company with the near immeasurable resources of Google?
The memo in question states, in a quietly understated way, that women are not the problem. Androcentric job structures are the issue, at least in tech. Teaching and nursing have no such issues. Look at why women will take those jobs over any in tech, make adjustments to the job structure that amalgamate the attractive components of jobs that women want into tech, and the result is that women will want to work in tech.
I disagree. If we take James Damore's criticism as fact then it is not the ability of women to be engineers that is the problem, they have the ability but are choosing to do other things. It is the structure of the company and the way that the positions within that company work that discourages women from participating at higher levels and at higher positions.
So artificially boosting women in that workplace seems like the wrong tack as it does not address the reasons that women aren't already flocking to work in tech. A possibly more successful method, and one supported by James' conjectures, would be to modify the company (or at least part of it) into one that women want to work at. Taking into consideration those traits that draw women to other professions allows you to incorporate those into a job description that would not only interest more women to work at your company, but that would also attract men with similar characteristics as well. The result would be more happy employees and a more diverse amalgamation of people lending their viewpoints to the culture.
Unfortunately, what Google has said is they are devoted to doing business exactly how they have been doing it, which if you look closely is really nothing new in the areas of diversity. They are still taking the same tired old androcentric approach to how they structure their positions, expectations, and advancement within the corporation. Instead of taking the recommendations of Mr. Damore and instituting some gynocentric ideas to make the corporation more attractive, more natural for women, they are using market forces like incentivization to drive people to take jobs they might otherwise not want.
A car analogy would be instead of making a car that women want to drive you just make it so cheap that some of them who previously turned their noses up at your piece of shit now can't afford not to buy it. Yeah, you get to count them as a sale, but it would be a damnable lie to say that they sought out your brand because of how it spoke to them. All you did was throw money at people. You did nothing to consider them as individuals with needs, desires, and concerns, and develop a way to meet those.
That is an imperative statement, a command to others. It has no such bound on the one making the statement. I prefer to look at it as "Don't be evil...we got that shit on lockdown, bitches!! Haha!! Wubba lubba dub dub!!"
Even worse, if it is an imperative statement that implies they are the ones that are the arbiters of what is good and evil, it brings to mind the C.S. Lewis quote:
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
Ask this guy they fired if he feels like they did him "no evil." And in their eyes they didn't. And will continue not doing evil to people as hard as they want. Sheesh!
I thought the same thought. I can't tell if his rampant overuse of qualifiers to any dogmatic statement of fact make him look meek, like he is obsequiously pandering to a bunch of people who could fire him for the slightest misstep, or if they are there to make sure he covered all of his bases in some hypothetical future politicized court battle, and therefore snarkily intelligent and slyly arrogant.
I will say this: when people are expressing subtle facts from a position of great intellectual heights there are generally many qualifiers, both to the material(factual and nuanced) and also for the reader (you must know X to understand Y, thus the numerous references to vast swaths of peer reviewed papers.) He reads like someone who wants to make a difference, who is concerned for everyone, and who is tenderly stepping into the spotlight to take a stand for the lives of the people he works with.
Now this could all be artifice; a con job of huge proportions perpetrated on Google, the public, the media, and ultimately the court system, requiring a keen grasp of interpersonal dynamics, an encyclopedic knowledge of sociological and psychological phenomena, employment law, as well as the ability to plan out how a future court case will go.
Here's where I will stereotype. I think expecting a coder to understand that much about people is asking a bit much from the plot. It falls apart upon close inspection.
How would Uber be a better fit? He states that Google doesn't go far enough in remedying discrimination and that their efforts to remedy it are making it worse for everyone. Specifically, that they are not getting granular enough by segregating just by sex. A spectrum of behaviors with some core tendencies loosely identifiable by "possibly more likely in males" and "possibly more likely in females" doesn't merit an approach based on "show me your genitals so I can work out how we will support you in your employment with us."
A spectrum of behavior means that for every man that has characteristic X, there are women who will have both more and less. And for every woman that has characteristic Y, there are men that will have both more and less of it. This means that if you offer stress reduction programs for only women you are creating a hostile work environment for men. Doubly so in that the program is available, but because they have a penis and testicles they cannot participate.
It also means that if you are only offering high salaries to those that speak up about promotions, negotiate aggressively, take on huge stress, and are willing to work the longest hours you may be losing some of your best talent to other occupations in the form of people who will be able to better achieve what they want in a profession without so many drawbacks. And, because the ancillary behaviors and tendencies that are not "coding skill" determine so much about how you react to your work environment, Google very well may be missing out on developing their very best coding talent by requiring so many other ancillary behaviors match up with their requirements for high pay. None of that figures into their current paradigm of "do you have a penis?" and is much more progressive than that 1950's way of looking at people in the workplace.
So yeah, I don't think Uber has a base from which to work to implement the work ideas that follow his conclusions.
Again, talking about, talking about it. Actually now you are: talking about, talking about, talking about it. You have entered that recursive loop that we see in the media where they interview person 1 about what person 0 said, and then interview person 2 about what person 1 said, never mentioning exactly what person 0 said.
It is well sourced. The guy did the work. In fact some of the sourced scientists have given rebuttals. Again with the fingers in the ears and screaming "LALALALALA." Again, if you are looking to convince yourself you are doing a good job. What is obvious to everyone else is that you are scared to even converse about the merits, wait scratch that, the basic contents of the document. You will cast aspersions, you will speak about speaking about them, you will create false impressions about them, but to actually look at the peer reviewed science behind what he said? No. You just say the science is wrong.
Here is a link to 4 of the scientists that he linked to in his paper. They break down what he said. They are in full defense mode for their careers here. You should at least take a look at this, even if you haven't read what he originally wrote.
Google has spent so many dollars lobbying the federal government I think they are testing how far their influence goes with this one. They do have unlimited funds. It will be interesting if he files suit.
What I saw was much more simple. The ability to do the job was never in question. There are ancillary traits that men and women possess which could conflict with the structures around those jobs. The structures we create around these jobs are flexible, the job material is not. Fortunately doing the job (possessing logic, math skills, using reason) are not the problem.
The problem is how we design the stuff around the job, whether that be the education system leading up to it, or the methods for advancement within the job, or even the schedules, stress levels, and types of collaboration that are within the job structure.
I also got that he viewed men and women on a spectrum, rather than one or the other. Here is a great way for you to see the spectrum on an individual basis (if you are male): Consider that for every trait you have that you consider a "male" trait, there are some women who have more of this trait than you. And for every trait that you have that you consider a "female" trait, there are some women that have less of this than you. And vice versa, for both traits and for genders.
With that spectrum in mind you may begin to see why he feels that offering stress management programs to only women becomes an unfair practice. There are men that would need this support just as much, and in some cases more than, even much more than, some women.
Again, I don't know how people got anything about "doing the work" out of his writing. I saw that the work was not the issue. It was all of the other shit that is placed around, unconsciously required, and ultimately tied to the job of programming that was the problem.
Who cares! The whole issue is this: Should we silence and fire people for wanting to expand the current perception of misandry and misogyny in the work place to include logic that doesn't make people morally wrong for dispassionately discussing what science says about differences in gender and the artificial construct we call "the workplace"?
The facts subsequent to this question are immaterial right now. Some guy just lost his job for citing peer reviewed science and asking to have a discussion of the merits of these scientific results. His stated goal was to create a more egalitarian viewpoint concerning sexes in the work place leading to a better work environment for everyone.
Compare if someone had said "The Earth is warming. Here are some papers that show this. I think we should do this to help reduce our company's contribution to AGW. What do you think? How can I help?" Followed immediately by a public shaming and being fired from his job.
"Biological difference" has zero to do with programming ability. Any discussion of this guy's post has to have that as a fundamental understood fact before going further. If you don't accept that part of the underpinnings and landscape of this discussion you need to go back and read what this guy wrote. Keep reading it until all of the stupid regurgitated shit in your head is gone and replaced by what the issue is.
You put your thumb on the issue at hand, just as the guy at Google did. The social constructs that society and corporations create around nursing and programming are an unnatural barrier to people of both genders participating in these careers. The spectrum of ancillary traits that go along with "maleness" and "femaleness" will, on average, fare poorly in reaction to these artificial social constructs that corporations and society allow in tech and nursing, as well as many other careers.
Discussing the conflict between these social constructs and the spectrum of ancillary (to the professional exercise of programming or nursing) traits that leads to an apparent lack of sex parity in these careers is in no way a diminution or accusation of unfitness.
Meta meta meta. You keep talking about talking about the paper.
Quote it, reference the reference material that underlies the quoted section, provide your own interpretation of what the actual facts are, and then provide a peer reviewed paper that substantiates your point.
It really is that easy. Unless you don't have anything to say other than your own baseless conclusions to go on. Saying you won't refute the claims because they are baseless is just the/. version of putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "LALALALALALALAL!!"
His arguments created this discussion. It really is not on him to make any other argument than the one that created this discussion. I am willing to listen to a counter argument, but you haven't made one. If you are trying to convince yourself of the merits of what he wrote, you seem to have succeeded. If you are speaking to the masses of people who haven't read the paper and want to disagree for baseless reasons, you have given them some. If you are trying to convince people who are up for rational discussion based on the facts you are failing miserably.
I am all for a rational discussion of this topic. However, what I have not seen, even once, is what I just pointed to. Break it down, show where it is wrong. If you can't do that then what you have to say is completely irrelevant to the conversation.
What he is referring to is the third wave of employment at a successful corporation. Generally it works like this:
1st wave: Some guy has an idea. He works hard, develops the idea, puts it together into a start up and gets the ball rolling.
2nd wave: Talented guys join the first guy. The best and up and coming brightest that want to be a part of someone's giant vision for the future vote themselves on to the island and start making hay. The company becomes immensely successful due to the efforts of (by and large) some guys that have worked their asses off, endured hardships, sacrificed their lives in order to get it off the ground.
3rd wave: Now that there is a giant snowball effect, the company is making waves, and is very well known in the world due to the massive success and money it has generated, people will start picking it apart. "Well there's not enough women, you need more women. There's not enough {insert race group} at this company. You haven't hired enough left handed redheads with club feet." You get the picture. No one complains or notes that none of these groups participated in making the company. There weren't a bunch of women starting the company, otherwise they would be immune from these assertions. But now that the company is successful people who had no part in creating the company feel they are owed a spot at the table.
That is the third wave of employment at a company. People who had nothing to do with creating the company demanding a seat, representation, and a share of the dollars the company owns for their "group."
This is where Malcolm X and I agree. Are you a member of a group of people who you consider downtrodden, or held back by society? Well then, don't go asking the ones oppressing you for something. Build your own. So, for instance, if you are a woman who feels that there is entrenched patriarchy and institutional sexism in every tech corporation in America, then you need to get your ass out there and make your own company. Show the patriarchy there is a better way. You know you are better and that patriarchy and entrenched sexism are the problem with everything. Show everyone how your way is better. Go all FUBU and turn sexism into success.
You just equated "conservatives" and "elected republicans" as if they are the same thing.
They aren't even close, and you know it. Woah! Wait a minute! I just had a thought...
Maybe you really do think that elected republicans and conservatives are the same thing. That is a really deep thought. I don't know how in the world anyone could ever think that, due to every single data point I have ever recorded or seen concerning the classes "elected republicans" and "conservatives." However, I now have to conclude that there are people, namely you but also probably many many others, who don't see any of the differences between those two things that are so incredibly obvious to me.
It's a hard pill to swallow. The differences are glaring. But based on what you said I can only conclude that you are completely blind to the massive differences between the actions and thoughts of elected republicans and average every day conservative people.
That is amazing. It really explains a lot though. If you look at a conservative person you don't even see them. You see a rich, entitled, white guy with a silver spoon collection telling people how to live their lives. You can't be open to who people really are when you have already equated them to a bunch of sniveling shitbags, aka any elected official in the US. I must admit, it is a very difficult viewpoint for me to keep in my head for considerable length of time. There are so many glaring contradictions to that mode of existence that break the suspension of disbelief it is hard to maintain. However, seeing through that lens for a few moments has made me realize how you, and people who share your conviction that conservatives are just like elected republicans, see the world.
Because it's not told to you. It's told to everyone around you. And the way it's told...
"He's not just a pedo, he's been a pedo since birth. Every moment of his life has been steeped in and permeated by pedophilia. He can't do anything about it, can't escape it, it's just part of who he is. Sometimes its like he doesn't even know it himself. Sure he covers it up well, that's just what pedos like him do. It's part of what makes them so dangerous. They don't know they are pedos until it's too late and they kidnap, rape, and kill a kid. They are the worst of all humans, and they instinctively know how to hide how despicable they are behind a pretty face. That's how you know he's definitely a pedo. He hides it so well. And, you know what? They're everywhere, those pedos just like him. You can see evidence of it in so many places. He doesn't have kids, but I saw him hanging around the park the other day. You know he was fantasizing about taking one of those kids..."
So, it's not a bad thing if someone comes to you and tells you something about you that is not true. You can refute it right there on the spot and possibly get to the bottom of it. It's something quite different if you have a group of people making up damaging lies about you, pretending as if they are true, and actively trying to get other people to believe untrue things about you that will hurt you.
That you can't see the difference is indicative of someone who is completely clueless about humans, or of someone who is being intentionally obtuse in order to avoid discussing a tactic they employ against others. I wonder which one you are?
Damn right. PCB's are STILL an absolute freaking nightmare anywhere they are found. On the merits of that situation alone Monsanto has proven they are forever unworthy of the merest smidgen of trust.
And why the hell am I always agreeing with you now drinkypoo? Whats up with that?
Slashdot Mirror
You haven't heard his interview? You haven't read any of the articles dealing with this subject in a straightforward way?
Google had a standing requested ideas from him, and others. This was not just some random thing he thought up.
Here is an interview with him, another worker at Google, and Jordan B. Peterson.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU
Check it out if you are actually concerned with facts.
He wasn't trying to open a dialogue. He was replying to a dialogue actively initiated by Google. Everything else applies. They solicited him for ideas concerning this topic. He responded.
He read the memo. He is intentionally lying about the contents. He can't attack the memo on the facts so he lies, diverts, creates other issues, and floods misinformation and dissent.
This is the same thing that got the poor kid fired. People that lie. People who won't discuss facts in the realm of reason. People who have some skin in the game and don't want to lose what undeserved advantage they already have. They aren't concerned for women, or minorities, just themselves and what they can get for themselves. They are pushing for more, and to get what they want they need to have everyone either believe the lie or knuckle under to fear. It is by their tactics that you can know completely that they are terribly misguided and broken people.
It is obvious that you are not arguing against biological essentialism. The proof of which is that Damore does not appeal to biological essentialism nor does he espouse it. This is abundantly clear in his writing that he does not feel that biology is the sum of what a person is. Biology is merely a component that should be considered, especially when there are solid scientific studies that point toward a biological origin for abundance or prevalence of traits in a certain group.
This should be obvious when he states that males and females of this particular species have behaviors and traits that exist on a spectrum. This means very specifically that for every male with a high level of attribute X, there will be women both with higher and lower levels of attribute X, though there may be more that are higher or lower. So, as a result of this spectrum it is expected that you will end up with males like myself that like singing show tunes, dressing in drag, and gardening who are married to a woman that enjoys martial arts, rough hand to hand combat, shooting her gun, climbing and cutting down trees, using a chainsaw and various other power tools, and working on cars. The idea of a spectrum guarantees that people like us will exist, and wouldn't you know, we do! That being said, we are both outliers, and it remains up for debate how much of those characteristics are biological and how much are social and how much are self determined. Even with the outlier status that we both express, if you completely deny and biological underpinnings to any of this you are just putting you head in the sand.
By mislabeling what he says it becomes obvious that you are not concerned with fighting biological essentialism, but more concerned with any use of biology at all. Your communication seems to say that any reference to the biology of a group of people is wrong, cannot be used legitimately, is not a factor, and is without merit. No, I am not putting words in your mouth. I am interpreting your reaction to what is certainly not biological essentialism as biological essentialism. By lumping what is certainly not that into that category you "show your hand."
So, if your assertions about biology and you reactions to discussions containing the biology of humans and how their behaviors might be related in part to their biology are required for participation in these ideologies,then all of these ideologies are based explicitly on a denial of the facts, and a strict rejection of specific science, and ultimately of what it is to be human.
I had no idea that every one of these movements was predicated on ignoring reality at such a deep level that they have to reject science and common sense for their underpinnings to be valid to the people that supported them. I always supported them because we are all the same. Under all of the stuff that is not us, like our skin, our brains, our blood, our experiences, our conditioning, our imprinting, our memories, or misunderstandings about out world and our selves, we are exactly the same. Put me in your body at birth and I will be you. Now you're telling me that if I take into consideration the biological story of what took place in your life that I am somehow slighting you? That if I somehow make concessions, or design in accommodations because of differences in our biology that this is wrong? Even acknowledging that there could be differences in biology that lead to predictable outcomes seems to be off limits as well by how you have pigeonholed this guys missive. I have to be misunderstanding you, your words, or your reaction to this essay completely here.
I would have paid good money to see those six and seven figure employees all sitting silently like a bunch of scared schoolchildren. Staring straight ahead, focused on not offending anyone, not standing out, not being seen at all for fear of getting axed. Terror and disdain barely concealed on their faces, the sham of participating without really interacting weighing on their conscience.
God how glorious it would be. Sigh...
Sadly some guy at Google realized they had already sent a message to their employees to "shut the fuck up when we ask you questions." Is this really the best leadership you can get in a company with the near immeasurable resources of Google?
Bingo Bongo!
The memo in question states, in a quietly understated way, that women are not the problem. Androcentric job structures are the issue, at least in tech. Teaching and nursing have no such issues. Look at why women will take those jobs over any in tech, make adjustments to the job structure that amalgamate the attractive components of jobs that women want into tech, and the result is that women will want to work in tech.
I disagree. If we take James Damore's criticism as fact then it is not the ability of women to be engineers that is the problem, they have the ability but are choosing to do other things. It is the structure of the company and the way that the positions within that company work that discourages women from participating at higher levels and at higher positions.
So artificially boosting women in that workplace seems like the wrong tack as it does not address the reasons that women aren't already flocking to work in tech. A possibly more successful method, and one supported by James' conjectures, would be to modify the company (or at least part of it) into one that women want to work at. Taking into consideration those traits that draw women to other professions allows you to incorporate those into a job description that would not only interest more women to work at your company, but that would also attract men with similar characteristics as well. The result would be more happy employees and a more diverse amalgamation of people lending their viewpoints to the culture.
Unfortunately, what Google has said is they are devoted to doing business exactly how they have been doing it, which if you look closely is really nothing new in the areas of diversity. They are still taking the same tired old androcentric approach to how they structure their positions, expectations, and advancement within the corporation. Instead of taking the recommendations of Mr. Damore and instituting some gynocentric ideas to make the corporation more attractive, more natural for women, they are using market forces like incentivization to drive people to take jobs they might otherwise not want.
A car analogy would be instead of making a car that women want to drive you just make it so cheap that some of them who previously turned their noses up at your piece of shit now can't afford not to buy it. Yeah, you get to count them as a sale, but it would be a damnable lie to say that they sought out your brand because of how it spoke to them. All you did was throw money at people. You did nothing to consider them as individuals with needs, desires, and concerns, and develop a way to meet those.
Facts are conservative.
Reality has a liberal bias, in that human viewpoint is inherently flawed.
"Don't be evil"
That is an imperative statement, a command to others. It has no such bound on the one making the statement. I prefer to look at it as "Don't be evil...we got that shit on lockdown, bitches!! Haha!! Wubba lubba dub dub!!"
Even worse, if it is an imperative statement that implies they are the ones that are the arbiters of what is good and evil, it brings to mind the C.S. Lewis quote:
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
Ask this guy they fired if he feels like they did him "no evil." And in their eyes they didn't. And will continue not doing evil to people as hard as they want. Sheesh!
I thought the same thought. I can't tell if his rampant overuse of qualifiers to any dogmatic statement of fact make him look meek, like he is obsequiously pandering to a bunch of people who could fire him for the slightest misstep, or if they are there to make sure he covered all of his bases in some hypothetical future politicized court battle, and therefore snarkily intelligent and slyly arrogant.
I will say this: when people are expressing subtle facts from a position of great intellectual heights there are generally many qualifiers, both to the material(factual and nuanced) and also for the reader (you must know X to understand Y, thus the numerous references to vast swaths of peer reviewed papers.) He reads like someone who wants to make a difference, who is concerned for everyone, and who is tenderly stepping into the spotlight to take a stand for the lives of the people he works with.
Now this could all be artifice; a con job of huge proportions perpetrated on Google, the public, the media, and ultimately the court system, requiring a keen grasp of interpersonal dynamics, an encyclopedic knowledge of sociological and psychological phenomena, employment law, as well as the ability to plan out how a future court case will go.
Here's where I will stereotype. I think expecting a coder to understand that much about people is asking a bit much from the plot. It falls apart upon close inspection.
Mod this up. Someone PLEASE!
How would Uber be a better fit? He states that Google doesn't go far enough in remedying discrimination and that their efforts to remedy it are making it worse for everyone. Specifically, that they are not getting granular enough by segregating just by sex. A spectrum of behaviors with some core tendencies loosely identifiable by "possibly more likely in males" and "possibly more likely in females" doesn't merit an approach based on "show me your genitals so I can work out how we will support you in your employment with us."
A spectrum of behavior means that for every man that has characteristic X, there are women who will have both more and less. And for every woman that has characteristic Y, there are men that will have both more and less of it. This means that if you offer stress reduction programs for only women you are creating a hostile work environment for men. Doubly so in that the program is available, but because they have a penis and testicles they cannot participate.
It also means that if you are only offering high salaries to those that speak up about promotions, negotiate aggressively, take on huge stress, and are willing to work the longest hours you may be losing some of your best talent to other occupations in the form of people who will be able to better achieve what they want in a profession without so many drawbacks. And, because the ancillary behaviors and tendencies that are not "coding skill" determine so much about how you react to your work environment, Google very well may be missing out on developing their very best coding talent by requiring so many other ancillary behaviors match up with their requirements for high pay. None of that figures into their current paradigm of "do you have a penis?" and is much more progressive than that 1950's way of looking at people in the workplace.
So yeah, I don't think Uber has a base from which to work to implement the work ideas that follow his conclusions.
Again, talking about, talking about it. Actually now you are: talking about, talking about, talking about it. You have entered that recursive loop that we see in the media where they interview person 1 about what person 0 said, and then interview person 2 about what person 1 said, never mentioning exactly what person 0 said.
It is well sourced. The guy did the work. In fact some of the sourced scientists have given rebuttals. Again with the fingers in the ears and screaming "LALALALALA." Again, if you are looking to convince yourself you are doing a good job. What is obvious to everyone else is that you are scared to even converse about the merits, wait scratch that, the basic contents of the document. You will cast aspersions, you will speak about speaking about them, you will create false impressions about them, but to actually look at the peer reviewed science behind what he said? No. You just say the science is wrong.
Here is a link to 4 of the scientists that he linked to in his paper. They break down what he said. They are in full defense mode for their careers here. You should at least take a look at this, even if you haven't read what he originally wrote.
http://quillette.com/2017/08/0...
Google has spent so many dollars lobbying the federal government I think they are testing how far their influence goes with this one. They do have unlimited funds. It will be interesting if he files suit.
Here are 4 of the scientists he quoted talking about what he wrote. Good reading if you aren't an ignorant bigot.
http://quillette.com/2017/08/0...
What I saw was much more simple. The ability to do the job was never in question. There are ancillary traits that men and women possess which could conflict with the structures around those jobs. The structures we create around these jobs are flexible, the job material is not. Fortunately doing the job (possessing logic, math skills, using reason) are not the problem.
The problem is how we design the stuff around the job, whether that be the education system leading up to it, or the methods for advancement within the job, or even the schedules, stress levels, and types of collaboration that are within the job structure.
I also got that he viewed men and women on a spectrum, rather than one or the other. Here is a great way for you to see the spectrum on an individual basis (if you are male): Consider that for every trait you have that you consider a "male" trait, there are some women who have more of this trait than you. And for every trait that you have that you consider a "female" trait, there are some women that have less of this than you. And vice versa, for both traits and for genders.
With that spectrum in mind you may begin to see why he feels that offering stress management programs to only women becomes an unfair practice. There are men that would need this support just as much, and in some cases more than, even much more than, some women.
Again, I don't know how people got anything about "doing the work" out of his writing. I saw that the work was not the issue. It was all of the other shit that is placed around, unconsciously required, and ultimately tied to the job of programming that was the problem.
Who cares! The whole issue is this: Should we silence and fire people for wanting to expand the current perception of misandry and misogyny in the work place to include logic that doesn't make people morally wrong for dispassionately discussing what science says about differences in gender and the artificial construct we call "the workplace"?
The facts subsequent to this question are immaterial right now. Some guy just lost his job for citing peer reviewed science and asking to have a discussion of the merits of these scientific results. His stated goal was to create a more egalitarian viewpoint concerning sexes in the work place leading to a better work environment for everyone.
Compare if someone had said "The Earth is warming. Here are some papers that show this. I think we should do this to help reduce our company's contribution to AGW. What do you think? How can I help?" Followed immediately by a public shaming and being fired from his job.
It is, unfortunately, the same thing.
And apparently if we stop all industrial activity immediately the Earth will get even hotter than it is now.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/l...
Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
Check this out and, if you would, please provide some comment.
http://thedaily.case.edu/rotat...
It seems to put a new spin (haha!) on the relationship between normal matter and dark matter and the rate of spin in galaxies.
"Biological difference" has zero to do with programming ability. Any discussion of this guy's post has to have that as a fundamental understood fact before going further. If you don't accept that part of the underpinnings and landscape of this discussion you need to go back and read what this guy wrote. Keep reading it until all of the stupid regurgitated shit in your head is gone and replaced by what the issue is.
You put your thumb on the issue at hand, just as the guy at Google did. The social constructs that society and corporations create around nursing and programming are an unnatural barrier to people of both genders participating in these careers. The spectrum of ancillary traits that go along with "maleness" and "femaleness" will, on average, fare poorly in reaction to these artificial social constructs that corporations and society allow in tech and nursing, as well as many other careers.
Discussing the conflict between these social constructs and the spectrum of ancillary (to the professional exercise of programming or nursing) traits that leads to an apparent lack of sex parity in these careers is in no way a diminution or accusation of unfitness.
Meta meta meta. You keep talking about talking about the paper.
Quote it, reference the reference material that underlies the quoted section, provide your own interpretation of what the actual facts are, and then provide a peer reviewed paper that substantiates your point.
It really is that easy. Unless you don't have anything to say other than your own baseless conclusions to go on. Saying you won't refute the claims because they are baseless is just the /. version of putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "LALALALALALALAL!!"
His arguments created this discussion. It really is not on him to make any other argument than the one that created this discussion. I am willing to listen to a counter argument, but you haven't made one. If you are trying to convince yourself of the merits of what he wrote, you seem to have succeeded. If you are speaking to the masses of people who haven't read the paper and want to disagree for baseless reasons, you have given them some. If you are trying to convince people who are up for rational discussion based on the facts you are failing miserably.
I am all for a rational discussion of this topic. However, what I have not seen, even once, is what I just pointed to. Break it down, show where it is wrong. If you can't do that then what you have to say is completely irrelevant to the conversation.
In other words, put up or shut up. Thanks!
What he is referring to is the third wave of employment at a successful corporation. Generally it works like this:
1st wave: Some guy has an idea. He works hard, develops the idea, puts it together into a start up and gets the ball rolling.
2nd wave: Talented guys join the first guy. The best and up and coming brightest that want to be a part of someone's giant vision for the future vote themselves on to the island and start making hay. The company becomes immensely successful due to the efforts of (by and large) some guys that have worked their asses off, endured hardships, sacrificed their lives in order to get it off the ground.
3rd wave: Now that there is a giant snowball effect, the company is making waves, and is very well known in the world due to the massive success and money it has generated, people will start picking it apart. "Well there's not enough women, you need more women. There's not enough {insert race group} at this company. You haven't hired enough left handed redheads with club feet." You get the picture. No one complains or notes that none of these groups participated in making the company. There weren't a bunch of women starting the company, otherwise they would be immune from these assertions. But now that the company is successful people who had no part in creating the company feel they are owed a spot at the table.
That is the third wave of employment at a company. People who had nothing to do with creating the company demanding a seat, representation, and a share of the dollars the company owns for their "group."
This is where Malcolm X and I agree. Are you a member of a group of people who you consider downtrodden, or held back by society? Well then, don't go asking the ones oppressing you for something. Build your own. So, for instance, if you are a woman who feels that there is entrenched patriarchy and institutional sexism in every tech corporation in America, then you need to get your ass out there and make your own company. Show the patriarchy there is a better way. You know you are better and that patriarchy and entrenched sexism are the problem with everything. Show everyone how your way is better. Go all FUBU and turn sexism into success.
You just equated "conservatives" and "elected republicans" as if they are the same thing.
They aren't even close, and you know it. Woah! Wait a minute! I just had a thought...
Maybe you really do think that elected republicans and conservatives are the same thing. That is a really deep thought. I don't know how in the world anyone could ever think that, due to every single data point I have ever recorded or seen concerning the classes "elected republicans" and "conservatives." However, I now have to conclude that there are people, namely you but also probably many many others, who don't see any of the differences between those two things that are so incredibly obvious to me.
It's a hard pill to swallow. The differences are glaring. But based on what you said I can only conclude that you are completely blind to the massive differences between the actions and thoughts of elected republicans and average every day conservative people.
That is amazing. It really explains a lot though. If you look at a conservative person you don't even see them. You see a rich, entitled, white guy with a silver spoon collection telling people how to live their lives. You can't be open to who people really are when you have already equated them to a bunch of sniveling shitbags, aka any elected official in the US. I must admit, it is a very difficult viewpoint for me to keep in my head for considerable length of time. There are so many glaring contradictions to that mode of existence that break the suspension of disbelief it is hard to maintain. However, seeing through that lens for a few moments has made me realize how you, and people who share your conviction that conservatives are just like elected republicans, see the world.
Because it's not told to you. It's told to everyone around you. And the way it's told...
"He's not just a pedo, he's been a pedo since birth. Every moment of his life has been steeped in and permeated by pedophilia. He can't do anything about it, can't escape it, it's just part of who he is. Sometimes its like he doesn't even know it himself. Sure he covers it up well, that's just what pedos like him do. It's part of what makes them so dangerous. They don't know they are pedos until it's too late and they kidnap, rape, and kill a kid. They are the worst of all humans, and they instinctively know how to hide how despicable they are behind a pretty face. That's how you know he's definitely a pedo. He hides it so well. And, you know what? They're everywhere, those pedos just like him. You can see evidence of it in so many places. He doesn't have kids, but I saw him hanging around the park the other day. You know he was fantasizing about taking one of those kids..."
So, it's not a bad thing if someone comes to you and tells you something about you that is not true. You can refute it right there on the spot and possibly get to the bottom of it. It's something quite different if you have a group of people making up damaging lies about you, pretending as if they are true, and actively trying to get other people to believe untrue things about you that will hurt you.
That you can't see the difference is indicative of someone who is completely clueless about humans, or of someone who is being intentionally obtuse in order to avoid discussing a tactic they employ against others. I wonder which one you are?
Damn right. PCB's are STILL an absolute freaking nightmare anywhere they are found. On the merits of that situation alone Monsanto has proven they are forever unworthy of the merest smidgen of trust.
And why the hell am I always agreeing with you now drinkypoo? Whats up with that?