Quoting AmiMojo is probably not the right way to go since he was completely wrong. This is from the post just below, which also explains why you are completely wrong. It's also pretty disheartening to see how far you go to stay in your anti-intellectual bubble.
From AmiMojo
So well researched and reasoned that the authors of the two papers he relies on the most have publicly stated that he didn't understand them, and that his conclusions are wrong.
From ilguido
Really? As far as I know they distanced themselves from Damore (nobody likes to be lynched in a witch hunt) and not from what he wrote. The article "The Google Memo: Four Scientists Respond" [quillette.com] features the comments of four scientists (including scientists cited by Damore) about the Google Memo. Here are some excerpts:
"The author of the Google essay on issues related to diversity gets nearly all of the science and its implications exactly right. " L. Jussim
"A Google employee recently shared a memo that referenced some of my scholarly research on psychological sex differences[...]. Alongside other evidence, the employee argued, in part, that this research indicates affirmative action policies based on biological sex are misguided. Maybe, maybe not. " D. Schmitt
"[...]this memo unleashed a firestorm of negative commentary, most of which ignored the memo’s evidence-based arguments. Among commentators who claim the memo’s empirical facts are wrong, I haven’t read a single one who understand sexual selection theory, animal behavior, and sex differences research." G. Milller
"As a woman who’s worked in academia and within STEM, I didn’t find the memo offensive or sexist in the least. I found it to be a well thought out document, asking for greater tolerance for differences in opinion, and treating people as individuals instead of based on group membership." D. Soh
It is interesting to note that while Schmitt (who is extensively cited in Damore's memo) seems a bit critical of Damore, he basically confirms what Damore says: he keeps saying that treating sexes as dichotomous is wrong, which is exactly what Damore said. In fact Schmitt writes: "treating people as dichotomous sexes is exactly what many affirmative action policies do" (that is what Damore was rebutting).
Many tried to misrepresent the Google Memo, including Wired [wired.com], where you can read things like:
“It is unclear to me that this sex difference would play a role in success within the Google workplace (in particular, not being able to handle stresses of leadership in the workplace. That’s a huge stretch to me),” writes Schmitt. So, yes, that’s the researcher Damore cites disagreeing with Damore.
That seems a rebuttal of Damore's claim, by the same author he cited. Except for the fact that Damore never said something like: "women can't handle the stresses of leadership in the workplace". Nor he implied that. When you resort to straw man arguments, you probably lack a strong point.
Altheide posted several articles and comments to internal discussion groups that promoted diversity in the workplace and was chastised for doing so, he wrote.
Given that was exactly the same as what Damore did, I don't see how it's a counterpoint. Or is it that Gizmodo only approves of Altheide's diversity and Damore's diversity is "wrong"?
Fortunately, there's a lawsuit by Damore and Gudeman against Google happening, so it's quite likely the matter will be explored fully and we can all enjoy finding out what's been going on.
That's wonderful news. I wonder how long it will be until Cisco caves to NSA pressure and starts looking for other "mal"traffic as well. And then how long until Russia learns how to do it as well.
Climate changes have never been even remotely as quick (i.e. destructive) as they are now. For evolutionary adaptation, multiple generations are needed, and the current changes are just too damn fast to adapt to. For a timeline reference, please see https://xkcd.com/1732/
Google, Facebook and Twitter are curating the world's communications to fit their own political agendas. Each has been found manipulating information, despite denying it. Each of them has video evidence of their employees boasting about it.
What exactly is the political agenda here? That gorillas and black software developers are not in the same category? I think that science is settled. How exactly are they manipulating information? They have a program that labels photos by image identification. It's not perfect. But unless the program is capable of altering reality, there is no manipulation of information going on, just an algorithmic nut they haven't been able to solve yet.
And yet people are blindly allowing, even encouraging these tax-dodging global monopolies in their own sphere's to push a single way of thinking, even if that contradicts reality.
What exactly is it that contradicts reality here? Please elaborate.
The PC world may indeed have a problem with some things, but this is not it.
More than two years later, one of those fixes is erasing gorillas, and some other primates, from the service's lexicon. The awkward workaround illustrates the difficulties Google and other tech companies face in advancing image-recognition technology, which the companies hope to use in self-driving cars, personal assistants, and other products.
So what do their cars do now when they spot a gorilla crossing the road?
If you write 'No Record' on someone's transcript when students that completed the course get a 'Pass', it most certainly counts as a grade. As long as you do not pass all students that take a course, you are grading them according to some schema, whether you call it Pass and No Record or 0,1,2,3,4,5.
If the 'majority' of the Dems acted like this, you wouldn't be seeing burnt businesses, you'd be seeing civil war. Just like the 'majority' of republicans aren't violent and confrontative. You really need to understand that it's only a minute fringe element that acts this way, regardless of political affiliation, and those acts are absolutely not anything you can smear a large proportion of the entire population with.
About damn time. Let's see if the courts are as willing as social media platforms to allow racism and discrimination as long as it's against the "right" people.
No, the wives of the top 10% of men in these societies really *wouldn't* be in the top 10% of their society, what with the forced marriage and marital rape and beatings and brideprice etc etc. This is stupid rhetoric you've used to make a 'ooh look how clever I am' argument.
A family with an income in the top 10% is counted as part of the top 10%. This should be pretty obvious. Jumping through 15 mental hoops to pretend otherwise is sad, and just goes to show how far people will go to never question their own perspective of the world. And no, it wasn't an "ooh look how clever I am" argument at all, it was just a funny observation on covariates, just like how alcohol drinking correlates with lung cancer yet alcohol doesn't actually increase the risk of lung cancer. If you hadn't been pre-occupied looking for something to get offended by, you probably would have picked that up.
If I were an epidemiologist, I would indeed be laughing really hard if someone presented me with an argument like that. I'd then ask: - Why exactly did you think this argument was relevant to my field of study? Your argument has nothing to do with epidemiology. It does shed some fascinating insights into the mindset of the broflake, but it's not an epidemiological argument - Did you want me to spell out just how shitty your argument is? I'm asking because as a broflake, it might hurt your feelings
I think it safe to say now that you would never ever be an epidemiologist, you are far too occupied with your feelings. You'd do great in the social sciences though. Also, epidemiologists are required to laugh, or at least smile once a year, and I think that would be a challenge for you. That also answers the first question you stated - epidemiologists sometimes want to laugh, and believe it or not, there are more fun things to do than getting offended.
The second question is just strange. You reinforce your emotional approach by calling my argument shitty, as if that would somehow make it incorrect. Then you call me a 'broflake', yet from your response you are clearly the one lacking emotional control. It makes no sense.
As it states in the summary, if the top 10% of men acquire 4 wives each, the bottom 30% of men will go wife-less. The wives of the top 10% would be included in the top layer of society thus leading to there being increasingly more women in the top layer as money accrues there, which would correlate to the main story of the article, that the bottom layer of men get increasingly violent and careless as their chances of reproducing dwindle. Thus, more women in top society -> more civil war and conflict.
If you were an epidemiologist you'd be laughing really hard.
Slashdot Mirror
Quoting AmiMojo is probably not the right way to go since he was completely wrong. This is from the post just below, which also explains why you are completely wrong. It's also pretty disheartening to see how far you go to stay in your anti-intellectual bubble.
From AmiMojo
So well researched and reasoned that the authors of the two papers he relies on the most have publicly stated that he didn't understand them, and that his conclusions are wrong.
From ilguido
Really? As far as I know they distanced themselves from Damore (nobody likes to be lynched in a witch hunt) and not from what he wrote. The article "The Google Memo: Four Scientists Respond" [quillette.com] features the comments of four scientists (including scientists cited by Damore) about the Google Memo. Here are some excerpts:
"The author of the Google essay on issues related to diversity gets nearly all of the science and its implications exactly right. "
L. Jussim
"A Google employee recently shared a memo that referenced some of my scholarly research on psychological sex differences[...]. Alongside other evidence, the employee argued, in part, that this research indicates affirmative action policies based on biological sex are misguided. Maybe, maybe not. "
D. Schmitt
"[...]this memo unleashed a firestorm of negative commentary, most of which ignored the memo’s evidence-based arguments. Among commentators who claim the memo’s empirical facts are wrong, I haven’t read a single one who understand sexual selection theory, animal behavior, and sex differences research."
G. Milller
"As a woman who’s worked in academia and within STEM, I didn’t find the memo offensive or sexist in the least. I found it to be a well thought out document, asking for greater tolerance for differences in opinion, and treating people as individuals instead of based on group membership."
D. Soh
It is interesting to note that while Schmitt (who is extensively cited in Damore's memo) seems a bit critical of Damore, he basically confirms what Damore says: he keeps saying that treating sexes as dichotomous is wrong, which is exactly what Damore said. In fact Schmitt writes: "treating people as dichotomous sexes is exactly what many affirmative action policies do" (that is what Damore was rebutting).
Many tried to misrepresent the Google Memo, including Wired [wired.com], where you can read things like:
“It is unclear to me that this sex difference would play a role in success within the Google workplace (in particular, not being able to handle stresses of leadership in the workplace. That’s a huge stretch to me),” writes Schmitt. So, yes, that’s the researcher Damore cites disagreeing with Damore.
That seems a rebuttal of Damore's claim, by the same author he cited. Except for the fact that Damore never said something like: "women can't handle the stresses of leadership in the workplace". Nor he implied that. When you resort to straw man arguments, you probably lack a strong point.
That's nothing, Ford made a self-exploding car that dynamically removed the steering wheel and pedals already in 1971.
Altheide posted several articles and comments to internal discussion groups that promoted diversity in the workplace and was chastised for doing so, he wrote.
Given that was exactly the same as what Damore did, I don't see how it's a counterpoint. Or is it that Gizmodo only approves of Altheide's diversity and Damore's diversity is "wrong"?
Fortunately, there's a lawsuit by Damore and Gudeman against Google happening, so it's quite likely the matter will be explored fully and we can all enjoy finding out what's been going on.
Why certainly. My newsletter is here http://viz.co.uk/2015/04/11/se...
I'm still working on my manifesto, there are a lot of pictures to colorize.
That's wonderful news. I wonder how long it will be until Cisco caves to NSA pressure and starts looking for other "mal"traffic as well. And then how long until Russia learns how to do it as well.
Climate changes have never been even remotely as quick (i.e. destructive) as they are now. For evolutionary adaptation, multiple generations are needed, and the current changes are just too damn fast to adapt to. For a timeline reference, please see https://xkcd.com/1732/
It's all just a social construct anyway.
Perhaps they've been watching too much Ellen?
With a 99% female population, I fear the remaining males will die from nagging.
Hmm, maybe there's an Occupy Wall street joke in there somewhere,
Google, Facebook and Twitter are curating the world's communications to fit their own political agendas. Each has been found manipulating information, despite denying it. Each of them has video evidence of their employees boasting about it.
What exactly is the political agenda here? That gorillas and black software developers are not in the same category? I think that science is settled. How exactly are they manipulating information? They have a program that labels photos by image identification. It's not perfect. But unless the program is capable of altering reality, there is no manipulation of information going on, just an algorithmic nut they haven't been able to solve yet.
And yet people are blindly allowing, even encouraging these tax-dodging global monopolies in their own sphere's to push a single way of thinking, even if that contradicts reality.
What exactly is it that contradicts reality here? Please elaborate.
The PC world may indeed have a problem with some things, but this is not it.
Pretty sure that 400lbs of angry gorilla will wreck your car no matter what you do, so you might as well go for broke.
More than two years later, one of those fixes is erasing gorillas, and some other primates, from the service's lexicon. The awkward workaround illustrates the difficulties Google and other tech companies face in advancing image-recognition technology, which the companies hope to use in self-driving cars, personal assistants, and other products.
So what do their cars do now when they spot a gorilla crossing the road?
If you write 'No Record' on someone's transcript when students that completed the course get a 'Pass', it most certainly counts as a grade.
As long as you do not pass all students that take a course, you are grading them according to some schema, whether you call it Pass and No Record or 0,1,2,3,4,5.
To me, 'Pass' or 'No Record' count as grading.
Perhaps the next step should be skipping grades? They might indicate that we aren't all equally precious otherwise.
Come back when they're calling them "scoundrels" and "nerf herders".
I'd consider that a small step up.
You do realize what 'mean' represents, right?
99 guys making $1 per hour + 1 guy making $1,000,000 per hour gives a mean of $10,000.99.
The mean says nothing about the "death spiral".
If it's the first time you pick it up, I'd pick up safety glasses first, lest you want to call yourself a one-eyed carpenter.
If the 'majority' of the Dems acted like this, you wouldn't be seeing burnt businesses, you'd be seeing civil war. Just like the 'majority' of republicans aren't violent and confrontative.
You really need to understand that it's only a minute fringe element that acts this way, regardless of political affiliation, and those acts are absolutely not anything you can smear a large proportion of the entire population with.
I never said they weren't allowed to. I said they were happy to as long as it matched their ideological dogma.
I hope you misread my post rather than wanting to strawman my position so you could go for the old "it's legal therefor it's fine" Hail Mary.
First off, I never said anything about protected class.
Second, yes it is. https://www.employmentattorney...
About damn time. Let's see if the courts are as willing as social media platforms to allow racism and discrimination as long as it's against the "right" people.
No, the wives of the top 10% of men in these societies really *wouldn't* be in the top 10% of their society, what with the forced marriage and marital rape and beatings and brideprice etc etc. This is stupid rhetoric you've used to make a 'ooh look how clever I am' argument.
A family with an income in the top 10% is counted as part of the top 10%. This should be pretty obvious. Jumping through 15 mental hoops to pretend otherwise is sad, and just goes to show how far people will go to never question their own perspective of the world. And no, it wasn't an "ooh look how clever I am" argument at all, it was just a funny observation on covariates, just like how alcohol drinking correlates with lung cancer yet alcohol doesn't actually increase the risk of lung cancer. If you hadn't been pre-occupied looking for something to get offended by, you probably would have picked that up.
If I were an epidemiologist, I would indeed be laughing really hard if someone presented me with an argument like that. I'd then ask:
- Why exactly did you think this argument was relevant to my field of study? Your argument has nothing to do with epidemiology. It does shed some fascinating insights into the mindset of the broflake, but it's not an epidemiological argument
- Did you want me to spell out just how shitty your argument is? I'm asking because as a broflake, it might hurt your feelings
I think it safe to say now that you would never ever be an epidemiologist, you are far too occupied with your feelings. You'd do great in the social sciences though.
Also, epidemiologists are required to laugh, or at least smile once a year, and I think that would be a challenge for you. That also answers the first question you stated - epidemiologists sometimes want to laugh, and believe it or not, there are more fun things to do than getting offended.
The second question is just strange. You reinforce your emotional approach by calling my argument shitty, as if that would somehow make it incorrect. Then you call me a 'broflake', yet from your response you are clearly the one lacking emotional control. It makes no sense.
As it states in the summary, if the top 10% of men acquire 4 wives each, the bottom 30% of men will go wife-less. The wives of the top 10% would be included in the top layer of society thus leading to there being increasingly more women in the top layer as money accrues there, which would correlate to the main story of the article, that the bottom layer of men get increasingly violent and careless as their chances of reproducing dwindle. Thus, more women in top society -> more civil war and conflict.
If you were an epidemiologist you'd be laughing really hard.
So the more women in the top 10% of society, the more conflict and civil war?