Also keep in mind it was written as an internal reply in response to a specific request by google for controversial thoughts on improving workplace diversity practices.
"Women as a group score higher on neuroticism in Schmitt's meta-analysis, sure, but he doesn't buy that you can predict the population-level effects of that difference. "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."
I think this again is misunderstanding Damore.......it's not a question of whether they can succeed, it's a question of whether they even want to try in the first place.
Of course women can succeed quite well in leadership. One of the best CEOs I personally know is a woman. She's very good at sales and very good at motivating the company.
I want to encourage people who are doing things with their life, becoming more than just media consumption zombies, but it's really tough on this one. Learning nmap and ping would be better.
Anyway, doing something is better than not doing something, so eh, good job competitors!
The obvious answer is that women aren't enrolling in computer science in college. It doesn't matter how good your hiring procedures are if women don't choose programming as a career.
Harvey Mudd (university) did some good work on the question. They increased women in their CS program from 10% to nearly 50%. The made several changes, but the main thing they did was change introductory CS classes from being "filter" classes (trying to get rid of all the people who can't do it), into helping classes that help people get over that first bar.
Let's be honest, the first leap into programming can be tough, and this is true for men as well as women. Having the first class be a "filter" class was a bad idea from the beginning.
The only real question (from a scientific perspective, not from a political perspective) is whether there will be enough other things in the economy to offset the negative effects.
Take your advice, for example. You told the OP that he (or she) is not empowered to do anything about racism.
No, you are totally wrong. I said we can't stop people from having free speech. I would go farther and say we shouldn't stop their free speech. The proper way to answer speech is with better speech, not with violence.
The other thing you can do about racist speech is to not let it hurt you. That is your choice. It is your last freedom.
The earlier poster had been a victim of racist insults. That is unfortunate. I was giving him advice on how to deal with it like an adult. Possibly it helped him.
I think the structure of your comment is "main point / supporting points," with the main point being your first sentence. I'm not entirely sure how the other paragraphs in your comment relate to that, though. Could you clarify please?
BLM has a clearly defined goal: to draw attention to black deaths by policemen being higher than white deaths. You may say that there are reasons for this, and you did say that it's a "black power" movement, but look at the results:
As a result of BLM protests, municipalities across the country have gotten police cams, which have served to reduce police violence. Secondly, a lot of municipalities have gotten de-escalation training, with good results. These things are good for everyone, not just black people.
So you could say that as a result of BLM, Americans of all races have benefited.
That's a false equivalency. BLM may have some incidental violence (like many protest groups), but the goal of the movement is to reduce violence.
To make it an accurate equivalency, you'd have to find someone who was anti-white, tried to kill a bunch of white people, and then GoFundMe decided to allow a defense fund.
On the one hand, you get free publicity, and most people give you credit for being moral.
On the other hand, you might alienate the few remaining Americans who support racist violence.
In terms of raw numbers, the choice is easy. On the other hand, you'd like these funding things to be apolitical, not appointing themselves judges. It would be kind of interesting to see how many people actually would be willing to donate to his defense fund. Does that fool actually have any chance at all in court?
But then at some point they will start trying to figure out how their own thought patterns work.
This is the Doug Hofstetter strange loop idea, and maybe it's right. However, AlphaGo will never do this, because it has no loopback: there is no recursion, and it is literally impossible for it to see its own thoughts.
I think a more promising approach is to answer the question, "How does memory work? How are things stored and retrieved in our brain?" Answering that in a way that can be modeled in code will be a huge breakthrough.
It's never rational to hate, and rarely a good idea, either.
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." --Martin Luther King
Martin Luther King as much as anyone had reason to hate the KKK. And if we're going to talk about Nazis and concentration camps, We can look at what Elie Wiesel said:
"Someone who hates one group will end up hating everyone - and, ultimately, hating himself or herself." Elie Wiesel
It's Uber's way to try to overcome all the criticism they've been getting lately. Kalanick was the scapegoat. The fact that he did some things poorly means he will now get blamed for everything that was done poorly. It's the way of the world.
It is just that [women] are less likely to make that choice [to become programmers].
And that's fine, if that's what they want. We should make sure that there isn't bias against women, and if there is, we should root it out. But on the other hand, we shouldn't force women to become programmers, either.
I don't know if CNN counts as 'neoliberal,' but I just searched for "CNN google memo," and the first link that came up was this one, which says, "his opinion seems to be that women are underrepresented in tech because of psychological differences between women and men, not because of bias."
A search for "msnbc google manifesto" came up with this as the first search,, which says, "[Damore] claims to explain why more women aren't in engineering positions, chalking up the disparity to "biological" differences, including generalizations that women don't tend to handle stress well and are more neurotic."
That's not an exhaustive search, but I think it shows there is at least some nuance in media coverage.
The easiest way to deal with the manifesto is to say, "Women don't always choose to become programmers......but when they do, they're quite good at it."
Slashdot Mirror
Harvey Mudd cracked the code. They figured out ways to get more women interested in computers.
Also keep in mind it was written as an internal reply in response to a specific request by google for controversial thoughts on improving workplace diversity practices.
Was it really? I didn't see that story anywhere.
"Women as a group score higher on neuroticism in Schmitt's meta-analysis, sure, but he doesn't buy that you can predict the population-level effects of that difference. "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."
I think this again is misunderstanding Damore.......it's not a question of whether they can succeed, it's a question of whether they even want to try in the first place.
Of course women can succeed quite well in leadership. One of the best CEOs I personally know is a woman. She's very good at sales and very good at motivating the company.
I want to encourage people who are doing things with their life, becoming more than just media consumption zombies, but it's really tough on this one. Learning nmap and ping would be better.
Anyway, doing something is better than not doing something, so eh, good job competitors!
The obvious answer is that women aren't enrolling in computer science in college. It doesn't matter how good your hiring procedures are if women don't choose programming as a career.
Harvey Mudd (university) did some good work on the question. They increased women in their CS program from 10% to nearly 50%. The made several changes, but the main thing they did was change introductory CS classes from being "filter" classes (trying to get rid of all the people who can't do it), into helping classes that help people get over that first bar.
Let's be honest, the first leap into programming can be tough, and this is true for men as well as women. Having the first class be a "filter" class was a bad idea from the beginning.
It's not controversial among economists. Economists largely oppose it, and agree that it will especially increase unemployment among the youth.
The only real question (from a scientific perspective, not from a political perspective) is whether there will be enough other things in the economy to offset the negative effects.
Take your advice, for example. You told the OP that he (or she) is not empowered to do anything about racism.
No, you are totally wrong. I said we can't stop people from having free speech. I would go farther and say we shouldn't stop their free speech. The proper way to answer speech is with better speech, not with violence.
The other thing you can do about racist speech is to not let it hurt you. That is your choice. It is your last freedom.
The earlier poster had been a victim of racist insults. That is unfortunate. I was giving him advice on how to deal with it like an adult. Possibly it helped him.
Because I don't know where they are to talk to them. Maybe the GGP was one of them.
Sounds like you're full of hate.
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." - Martin Luther King
come back at me the next time you've had someone call you a "chink" and tell you to "go back home" when you already are.
Everyone has been called hurtful things in their life. It's unfortunate, but part of growing up is rising above it.
You and I don't have to listen to hurtful speech, but we can't stop their right to say it to people who want to hear it.
I think the structure of your comment is "main point / supporting points," with the main point being your first sentence. I'm not entirely sure how the other paragraphs in your comment relate to that, though. Could you clarify please?
BLM has a clearly defined goal: to draw attention to black deaths by policemen being higher than white deaths. You may say that there are reasons for this, and you did say that it's a "black power" movement, but look at the results:
As a result of BLM protests, municipalities across the country have gotten police cams, which have served to reduce police violence. Secondly, a lot of municipalities have gotten de-escalation training, with good results. These things are good for everyone, not just black people.
So you could say that as a result of BLM, Americans of all races have benefited.
And on the third hand, you might alienate the few remaining Americans who believe that everyone accused of a crime is entitled to a fair trial.
For some reason this group seems very small recently.
That's a false equivalency. BLM may have some incidental violence (like many protest groups), but the goal of the movement is to reduce violence.
To make it an accurate equivalency, you'd have to find someone who was anti-white, tried to kill a bunch of white people, and then GoFundMe decided to allow a defense fund.
It's an easy call to make for a corporation:
On the one hand, you get free publicity, and most people give you credit for being moral.
On the other hand, you might alienate the few remaining Americans who support racist violence.
In terms of raw numbers, the choice is easy. On the other hand, you'd like these funding things to be apolitical, not appointing themselves judges. It would be kind of interesting to see how many people actually would be willing to donate to his defense fund. Does that fool actually have any chance at all in court?
But then at some point they will start trying to figure out how their own thought patterns work.
This is the Doug Hofstetter strange loop idea, and maybe it's right. However, AlphaGo will never do this, because it has no loopback: there is no recursion, and it is literally impossible for it to see its own thoughts.
I think a more promising approach is to answer the question, "How does memory work? How are things stored and retrieved in our brain?" Answering that in a way that can be modeled in code will be a huge breakthrough.
We've been doing that for at least 20 decades
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Doing what?
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." --Martin Luther King
Martin Luther King as much as anyone had reason to hate the KKK. And if we're going to talk about Nazis and concentration camps, We can look at what Elie Wiesel said:
"Someone who hates one group will end up hating everyone - and, ultimately, hating himself or herself." Elie Wiesel
Don't be a hater.
Weird. I had always thought that quote had actually originated from Voltaire. Oh well, no real reason to not attribute it to him anyway!
It's Uber's way to try to overcome all the criticism they've been getting lately. Kalanick was the scapegoat. The fact that he did some things poorly means he will now get blamed for everything that was done poorly. It's the way of the world.
It is just that [women] are less likely to make that choice [to become programmers].
And that's fine, if that's what they want. We should make sure that there isn't bias against women, and if there is, we should root it out. But on the other hand, we shouldn't force women to become programmers, either.
I don't know if CNN counts as 'neoliberal,' but I just searched for "CNN google memo," and the first link that came up was this one, which says, "his opinion seems to be that women are underrepresented in tech because of psychological differences between women and men, not because of bias."
A search for "msnbc google manifesto" came up with this as the first search,, which says, "[Damore] claims to explain why more women aren't in engineering positions, chalking up the disparity to "biological" differences, including generalizations that women don't tend to handle stress well and are more neurotic."
That's not an exhaustive search, but I think it shows there is at least some nuance in media coverage.
The easiest way to deal with the manifesto is to say, "Women don't always choose to become programmers......but when they do, they're quite good at it."