Well, for one it's not talking about race but sex. Two, he admits that bias is likely partly to blame for the gender gap in CS, but says there's reason to believe it doesn't account for *all* of the gap. If we know that two groups have, on average, slightly different interests, we wouldn't expect equality of outcomes even if there was no bias. He's not saying there's no bias, just that it's not the full story.
1) It's not unsupported; there's plenty of high-quality work showing personality differences between men and women (on average!) that are consistent across many diverse cultures, and the scientific evidence for this is much stronger than that for unconscious bias tests, 2) programming was a completely different job at that point, and 3) saying that men and women may be attracted to different things, and that this partially explains the gender gap in CS does not preclude bias as a contributor.
So you agree with the author of the memo then. He said to treat people as individuals, as there is a lot of overlap between men and women in traits with sex differences. However, just because there's a difference in outcomes - like % of women getting CS degrees - that doesn't mean the only explanation is bias. We should consider the group averages when talking about the field in general, but not when evaluating individuals.
Your criticisms of Quillette are mostly unfounded; Quillette tends to be well-sourced, and most evaluations place it center-right, not alt-right. Moreover, saying one out of the four people is known for going against prevailing ideas in academia doesn't mean the other three are also wrong. In neuroscience, for instance, you'd be a fool to say that men's brains and women's brains are exactly the same.
America is majority white also. In order to check for potential bias, you'd have to look at how well company demographics match America's demographics, as well as how well they match the pool of people they want to hire from.
Or biology makes genders more attracted to different roles. Women can be excellent car mechanics, but there aren't nearly as many women who choose to be as there are men. This could be evidence of bias, but isn't necessarily. In all likelihood, there are some biological explanations for differences in interests that are reinforced by bias; it doesn't have to be an either/or situation.
Scientific racism is wrong, sure. But that's irrelevant to this discussion, since it wasn't part of the memo. He said we should treat people as individuals, but be aware that differences in group averages may lead to different outcomes regardless of bias. That is, different outcomes are not in and of themselves evidence of bias, but bias is certainly a possible explanation.
He said, quite specifically, that we should judge people as individuals and not based on group averages. However, when differences in group averages exist and there is supporting evidence for them (which is the case here), we should at least be aware of them if we want to actually increase diversity in an effective way.
I'm curious: what, specifically, did I say in this thread that makes you think you know me so well? Saying that not all ancient Egyptians were black - and citing actual evidence - certainly isn't racist. It would be racist if I then implied or said that this means black people are worse than other races, but of course I didn't - and wouldn't say that.
What race(s) ancient Egyptians were has no impact on how we should treat people today. It's interesting historical information, certainly, but anyone trying to use it as evidence for racial superiority or inferiority is just dumb.
I'm part of an "out-group". Swing and a miss there, bud. I'd also argue that you, the person making a lot of wrong assumptions about me in order to attack me and call me names, is the pathetic one. How bad does your life have to be that you go on the internet and pretend someone is racist and far-right in order to have a target?
Untrue, and a non-sequitur. GMOs come in different varieties for different plants, and the diversity will only grow as more and more variants for different conditions (heat, high salt, low water, etc.) are developed. More to the point, this is an issue with large-scale farming in general, not GMOs. Hell, GMOs allow us to more easily get around mono-crop issues.
GMO is bad because resistance to herbicides induces over-use of them.
This is mixed. Sometimes resistance allows farmers to use fewer herbicides, or smaller amounts, of more specific or less harmful ones. Sometimes they do over-use them. That's a potential knock against particular applications of GMOs, though, not GMOs as a whole.
GMO is bad because GMO has been used to have plants make toxins. So GMO food can contain poison. And there are no regulations about this or any other use of GMO.
Plants naturally make toxins to protect against things that want to eat them, so non-GMO food can contain poison. Guess that's bad too. Also, here is a short explanation of the regulations on GMO crops in the US.
GMO is bad because it has been used to make kill-genes, even if only in the lab, and between that and mono-crop the results of a wide-spread release could cause massive destruction.
So you're saying an entire technology is bad because if something that has never been sold commercially or even produced on a commercial scale had a wide-spread release, there would be consequences (what are those?). I guess we should stop all virology research, since that was created in a lab and could be harmful if it ever got out.
GMO is bad because Monsanto claims it's harmless, and when Monsanto says something, the opposite is more likely true.
Ridiculously unscientific, and ignores the non-Monsanto GMO research and options out there.
But the pro-GMO crowd doesn't talk about the reasonable objections. Instead, it's all about the strawman.
Ah yes, strawmanning your opponents while accusing them of strawmanning you. Well done.
I just love that two comments up you complain about strawmen, and then you go and post this:
So, because done right, it has benefits, that means that done wrong should be tolerated or encouraged? Since labor builds value, slavery should be legal.
It starts seeming pretty close when you dress all in black, wear masks, and start beating people up because you think they kind of look like bigots though, doesn't it? Especially when you're the ones deciding who is a bigot and who isn't.
I think the main problem with how the EU is set up is that its central authority isn't the right strength - at the moment, it's somewhat skin to the US under the Articles of Confederation. It needs to either be stronger - to make a more effective union and reduce some of the variance in fiscal policies that's screwing over countries like Greece - or weaker, and retreat to being more of a simple trade/freedom of movement block. Right now it's in an awkward situation and something will likely need to change fairly drastically in the next 5-10 years.
It never should have interfered in such a strict way in controlling immigration from countries outside the EU, and it should have some kind of directly elected representatives by the people.
It's also curious that you say part of the reason the EU was formed was to prevent more cataclysmic wars, but the EU was founded nearly 50 years after the end of WWII, and after the collapse of the USSR. At that point, the US was the only superpower left, and had a clear interest in preventing more European wars. Don't get me wrong - economic integration is probably the best, most effective way to prevent wars - but I don't think the EU was necessary for that in this case.
Ooh, now we're getting into accusations of being a class traitor. Always fun to insist that people have to think exactly like you or they're traitors/not real people.
And then there's this gem:
even if your grandfather is a made-up person
I also love how in most of your comments here, you seem to think that because people don't support some current unions, they think unions should be banned. Newsflash: saying a specific union (like the UAW) has done some bad things, or that you don't want to join it, doesn't mean you want all unions everywhere to be illegal.
Just like the Republicans freed the slaves. We all know organizations never change, and if an organization did some good things in the past we're automatically obligated to keep supporting them now!
Slashdot Mirror
Well, for one it's not talking about race but sex. Two, he admits that bias is likely partly to blame for the gender gap in CS, but says there's reason to believe it doesn't account for *all* of the gap. If we know that two groups have, on average, slightly different interests, we wouldn't expect equality of outcomes even if there was no bias. He's not saying there's no bias, just that it's not the full story.
1) It's not unsupported; there's plenty of high-quality work showing personality differences between men and women (on average!) that are consistent across many diverse cultures, and the scientific evidence for this is much stronger than that for unconscious bias tests, 2) programming was a completely different job at that point, and 3) saying that men and women may be attracted to different things, and that this partially explains the gender gap in CS does not preclude bias as a contributor.
Please read the goddamn thing before talking about it more. Point where he said that women are inferior engineers, and dismissed the issues they face.
So you agree with the author of the memo then. He said to treat people as individuals, as there is a lot of overlap between men and women in traits with sex differences. However, just because there's a difference in outcomes - like % of women getting CS degrees - that doesn't mean the only explanation is bias. We should consider the group averages when talking about the field in general, but not when evaluating individuals.
Your criticisms of Quillette are mostly unfounded; Quillette tends to be well-sourced, and most evaluations place it center-right, not alt-right. Moreover, saying one out of the four people is known for going against prevailing ideas in academia doesn't mean the other three are also wrong. In neuroscience, for instance, you'd be a fool to say that men's brains and women's brains are exactly the same.
America is majority white also. In order to check for potential bias, you'd have to look at how well company demographics match America's demographics, as well as how well they match the pool of people they want to hire from.
I'm not sure about "droves", but these experts seem to mostly agree with him.
Or biology makes genders more attracted to different roles. Women can be excellent car mechanics, but there aren't nearly as many women who choose to be as there are men. This could be evidence of bias, but isn't necessarily. In all likelihood, there are some biological explanations for differences in interests that are reinforced by bias; it doesn't have to be an either/or situation.
Scientific racism is wrong, sure. But that's irrelevant to this discussion, since it wasn't part of the memo. He said we should treat people as individuals, but be aware that differences in group averages may lead to different outcomes regardless of bias. That is, different outcomes are not in and of themselves evidence of bias, but bias is certainly a possible explanation.
These people would disagree.
This is a good place to check out.
He said, quite specifically, that we should judge people as individuals and not based on group averages. However, when differences in group averages exist and there is supporting evidence for them (which is the case here), we should at least be aware of them if we want to actually increase diversity in an effective way.
The great empires, including Rameses, were all Nubian (black)
It's a much better look to admit that you mis-typed in the first place than to keep lying about what you said, when anyone can clearly see it.
I'm curious: what, specifically, did I say in this thread that makes you think you know me so well? Saying that not all ancient Egyptians were black - and citing actual evidence - certainly isn't racist. It would be racist if I then implied or said that this means black people are worse than other races, but of course I didn't - and wouldn't say that.
What race(s) ancient Egyptians were has no impact on how we should treat people today. It's interesting historical information, certainly, but anyone trying to use it as evidence for racial superiority or inferiority is just dumb.
I'm part of an "out-group". Swing and a miss there, bud. I'd also argue that you, the person making a lot of wrong assumptions about me in order to attack me and call me names, is the pathetic one. How bad does your life have to be that you go on the internet and pretend someone is racist and far-right in order to have a target?
1) I'm not on the right, and 2) you said the great empires, not just the 18th Dynasty. Way to move the goalposts.
What, using many of the same pesticides (but from organic sources instead) and more land is better for the environment? Okay buddy.
GMO is bad because of mono crop issues.
Untrue, and a non-sequitur. GMOs come in different varieties for different plants, and the diversity will only grow as more and more variants for different conditions (heat, high salt, low water, etc.) are developed. More to the point, this is an issue with large-scale farming in general, not GMOs. Hell, GMOs allow us to more easily get around mono-crop issues.
GMO is bad because resistance to herbicides induces over-use of them.
This is mixed. Sometimes resistance allows farmers to use fewer herbicides, or smaller amounts, of more specific or less harmful ones. Sometimes they do over-use them. That's a potential knock against particular applications of GMOs, though, not GMOs as a whole.
GMO is bad because GMO has been used to have plants make toxins. So GMO food can contain poison. And there are no regulations about this or any other use of GMO.
Plants naturally make toxins to protect against things that want to eat them, so non-GMO food can contain poison. Guess that's bad too. Also, here is a short explanation of the regulations on GMO crops in the US.
GMO is bad because it has been used to make kill-genes, even if only in the lab, and between that and mono-crop the results of a wide-spread release could cause massive destruction.
So you're saying an entire technology is bad because if something that has never been sold commercially or even produced on a commercial scale had a wide-spread release, there would be consequences (what are those?). I guess we should stop all virology research, since that was created in a lab and could be harmful if it ever got out.
GMO is bad because Monsanto claims it's harmless, and when Monsanto says something, the opposite is more likely true.
Ridiculously unscientific, and ignores the non-Monsanto GMO research and options out there.
But the pro-GMO crowd doesn't talk about the reasonable objections. Instead, it's all about the strawman.
Ah yes, strawmanning your opponents while accusing them of strawmanning you. Well done.
So, because done right, it has benefits, that means that done wrong should be tolerated or encouraged? Since labor builds value, slavery should be legal.
It starts seeming pretty close when you dress all in black, wear masks, and start beating people up because you think they kind of look like bigots though, doesn't it? Especially when you're the ones deciding who is a bigot and who isn't.
Guess again.
I think the main problem with how the EU is set up is that its central authority isn't the right strength - at the moment, it's somewhat skin to the US under the Articles of Confederation. It needs to either be stronger - to make a more effective union and reduce some of the variance in fiscal policies that's screwing over countries like Greece - or weaker, and retreat to being more of a simple trade/freedom of movement block. Right now it's in an awkward situation and something will likely need to change fairly drastically in the next 5-10 years.
It never should have interfered in such a strict way in controlling immigration from countries outside the EU, and it should have some kind of directly elected representatives by the people.
It's also curious that you say part of the reason the EU was formed was to prevent more cataclysmic wars, but the EU was founded nearly 50 years after the end of WWII, and after the collapse of the USSR. At that point, the US was the only superpower left, and had a clear interest in preventing more European wars. Don't get me wrong - economic integration is probably the best, most effective way to prevent wars - but I don't think the EU was necessary for that in this case.
Pretty different, but they at least speak the same language.
I dunno. If the previous discounts were set to expire, I don't see what the big deal is.
And then there's this gem:
even if your grandfather is a made-up person
I also love how in most of your comments here, you seem to think that because people don't support some current unions, they think unions should be banned. Newsflash: saying a specific union (like the UAW) has done some bad things, or that you don't want to join it, doesn't mean you want all unions everywhere to be illegal.
Just like the Republicans freed the slaves. We all know organizations never change, and if an organization did some good things in the past we're automatically obligated to keep supporting them now!