>Jurors and judges need to know what the probabilities are.
And they need to know what the probabilities are pooled from. One of the early problems with DNA suspect testing was that early DNA databases were collected predominately from FBI agents.
Who happened to be mostly white.
Which means their gene expression probabilities were different than for blacks. Which meant that the probability of a false positive DNA match on black suspect with a DNA sample from another black person was a couple of orders of magnitude higher than if both had been white. Kary B. Mullis (the inventor of PCR) touches upon this in regards to the OJ Simpson case in his book Dancing Naked in the Minefield and how he was almost called to testify as a defense witness.
1. The left always eats it's own, sooner or later.
2. Many folks on the left aren't actually ideological - they enjoy power and the trappings of power and just hitched their sails to where the wind was blowing. They don't actually believe in the social justice B.S. and powerful men without morals will use the women as their personal harems if they can regardless of their ideological bent.
>Considering that many buisness decisions are made over coffee, this will slowly lead the to exclusion of women.
Don't worry, the articles will be coming out shortly about how women are being frozen out of social events and the big boys club. Never mind that people have been fired for inviting women out to happy hours because it was "harassment".
My informal, personal pledge from now on is to never help anyone professionally who even gives a hint of being of the SJW crowd; and I have zero tolerance for real harassment (and, AFAIK, have never been accused of harassment, but from what I've read from men working in HR, as a male in management, you've probably been accused and didn't even know it at least once in your career).
Let's try an experiment: go withdraw $10,000 in $100 notes. Burn them, or shred them in a cross-cut shredder. Ask Uncle Sam to go make them again for you, because you "lost" your $10,000.
Note: I'm a Bitcoin skeptic, but there is no qualitative difference between cash and Bitcoins in your scenario for the average consumer or holder.
>So what you're saying that his only choice is to pick a side in the stupid culture war.
No, he has a litany of choices. The choice he made was to speak the truth as he sees it, making reasonable and fair but debatable points.
An alternative choice would have been to keep silent or do what many early Christians did in the Roman Empire - pay homage to the cult of the Emperor to keep from being thrown to the lions while believing something else.
Another choice would have been to repudiate his own beliefs and bow down to the Google orthodoxy.
Damone didn't choose to pick sides in the culture war - that was done for him when Google fired him for violating dogma. Damone didn't seek out notoriety - he posted his memo internally, and then some SJWs at Google shared it publicly to generate lots of heat in order to get him fired. Which Google subsequently did, essentially proving Damone's underlying thesis that Google had become an echo chamber that stifled any sort of contrary opinions.
It's not that I don't care about Bob from Accounting - most of us are Bob. The problem is, none of the lynchpins of the arguments against current society hinge upon Bob. The poster child for the benefactor of the supposed oppression rooted firmly in our system is the white male, with someone like Donald Trump as the current poster boy for unearned or unfairly earned wealth and power - and by proxy melanin content and genitalia, all white men are guilty, including Bob from accounting. But Bob isn't really holding up the system nor is he tangibly benefitting from the system. He didn't get a secret decoder ring for figuring out how to get backroom deals by the white male patriarchy. He's not getting promoted on the backs of his harder working women and minority peers. In short, he's a convenient witch when people are going on a witch hunt and looking for a witch to burn.
>Ability is generally observed to be normally distributed: most people are average, few are exceptionally good or bad.
Additional note, in population sub groups, the tails also vary considerably. For example, women are more tightly clustered around the mean than men are when it comes to IQ, meaning for a given population size, there will be more men below 2 std devs and above 2 std devs than women, and outliers drive envy. No one cares about perfectly average Bob in accounting who has been promoted twice in 20 years.
>Ability is generally observed to be normally distributed: most people are average, few are exceptionally good or bad.
Ability is generally observed to be normally distributed, but the group median varies depending on the groups and the quality being measured. There is a reason why whites are not competitive at neither Olympic marathons or sprints and why XX women are not competitive with XY men in any sport where strength, speed, or endurance is a primary factor. Presumably you don't think bias is evidence of inequality in opportunity here?
You don't have to be a member of the left to agree with what I wrote, but the difference between the left and say, a moderate, is the left treats it as incontrovertible dogma and the only ones who would dispute that are mysoginists or racists.
As an aside, I'm not sure what you think about my assertion(s) is ridiculous. Care to clarify so I can clarify or back off the ledge if I stepped onto one?
When the left talks about inequality, they specifically talk about inequality in outcomes, not inequality in opportunity. For them, it's axiomatic that an unequal outcome can only be due to an unequal opportunity and/or a discriminatory process.
For example, the EEOC will look at hiring aptitude tests and if the distribution curve for black or female candidates is different than white or male candidates, it's presumed to be discriminatory. Additionally, even though the Affirmative Action law is proscriptive against hiring quotas, the EEOC specifically enforces the law like there is a quota. For example, if you have a large enough employee pool, and have only 6% blacks in technology vs. their 13% representation in the population as a whole, that's often treated as being indicative of a pattern of discrimination regardless of what the pool of candidates looks like (and blacks account for 6% of computer science majors).
>Simply treating everyone equally has been tried, in fact it has been law for decades in many places, but it hasn't addressed the inequalities. That's because the issues are often entrenched in systems and in the starting positions of all the players.
It hasn't addressed the inequalities because people aren't equal. But even if they were, the pools are not equal and so there is not enough women or blacks or whatevers to balance out the liberal progressive equation of proper employment ratios. I swear, people are idiotic on this. They take a flawed assumption (that all people have the same potential and preferences regardless of their genitalia or "race") on inputs, look at the outputs, and see the outputs are different across genders and races, and assume that the only logical explanation is structural and systemic discrimination.
Not even accounting for potential genetic differences or the active impact of men having active testorone levels that are 15-30x higher than women and the impact of testosterone on aggression, risk taking, and criminality (among other things), or the effect of estrogen on mood swings and emotionality, or other ancillary impacts of the Y chromosome vs. an extra X chromosome, there is the simple fact that there are 10 times as many men that major in computer science or computer engineering as women. Even assuming the candidate pools are exactly identical in medians and distributions across gender - there will be more men who are >1 std deviation better than the median than women computer science graduates in total. That means your aspirational goal of having a 50:50 sex ratio of men to women who code is only realistically achievable by one of 2 mechanisms: either you are willing to hire grossly deficient computer programmers to satisfy a gender quota, or you are willing to pay substantially above market rates (for a similarly qualified male) in order to hire women who are scarce and thus will come at a premium (because, presumably, other progressive organizations are trying to do the same thing).
In this context, measuring outcomes and assuming racism or sexism ignores the very reality of the situation which prevents realistic rectifying this at a company or industry level because the target candidates don't exist in the numbers necessary to balance out the equation.
>Tolerance is not absolute. For example, being generally tolerant but intolerant of bigotry is not inconsistent.
Except what constitutes "bigotry" for the left is simply stating the obvious fact that people of different biological genders have different preferences that affect candidate pool quality when hiring for specific genders.
>Even if there was any glimmer of right in the original ham fisted paper, it doesn't matter. At this point, the response is ballistic. It is not going to change course. Anything done to try to defend the original sin is going to be met with more of the same.
That's only true for most situations, not this situation. It's already escalated far past the lay low and let it blow over stage, and turned into part of the culture war. His choices now are bow to the orthodoxy or fight for the truth.
Slashdot Mirror
>Jurors and judges need to know what the probabilities are.
And they need to know what the probabilities are pooled from. One of the early problems with DNA suspect testing was that early DNA databases were collected predominately from FBI agents.
Who happened to be mostly white.
Which means their gene expression probabilities were different than for blacks. Which meant that the probability of a false positive DNA match on black suspect with a DNA sample from another black person was a couple of orders of magnitude higher than if both had been white. Kary B. Mullis (the inventor of PCR) touches upon this in regards to the OJ Simpson case in his book Dancing Naked in the Minefield and how he was almost called to testify as a defense witness.
I bet you are a blast at parties.
Someone doesn't understand sarcasm.
Just look at all those accurate global warming models that correctly predicted I would be 10 feet under ocean water by now.
He's going to drop out any day now. I don't see how he can survive this latest scandal.
1. The left always eats it's own, sooner or later.
2. Many folks on the left aren't actually ideological - they enjoy power and the trappings of power and just hitched their sails to where the wind was blowing. They don't actually believe in the social justice B.S. and powerful men without morals will use the women as their personal harems if they can regardless of their ideological bent.
>Considering that many buisness decisions are made over coffee, this will slowly lead the to exclusion of women.
Don't worry, the articles will be coming out shortly about how women are being frozen out of social events and the big boys club. Never mind that people have been fired for inviting women out to happy hours because it was "harassment".
My informal, personal pledge from now on is to never help anyone professionally who even gives a hint of being of the SJW crowd; and I have zero tolerance for real harassment (and, AFAIK, have never been accused of harassment, but from what I've read from men working in HR, as a male in management, you've probably been accused and didn't even know it at least once in your career).
Let's try an experiment: go withdraw $10,000 in $100 notes. Burn them, or shred them in a cross-cut shredder. Ask Uncle Sam to go make them again for you, because you "lost" your $10,000.
Note: I'm a Bitcoin skeptic, but there is no qualitative difference between cash and Bitcoins in your scenario for the average consumer or holder.
>Marx certainly discussed the issue at length
And that pretty much disqualifies anything else you might have said.
>So what you're saying that his only choice is to pick a side in the stupid culture war.
No, he has a litany of choices. The choice he made was to speak the truth as he sees it, making reasonable and fair but debatable points.
An alternative choice would have been to keep silent or do what many early Christians did in the Roman Empire - pay homage to the cult of the Emperor to keep from being thrown to the lions while believing something else.
Another choice would have been to repudiate his own beliefs and bow down to the Google orthodoxy.
Damone didn't choose to pick sides in the culture war - that was done for him when Google fired him for violating dogma. Damone didn't seek out notoriety - he posted his memo internally, and then some SJWs at Google shared it publicly to generate lots of heat in order to get him fired. Which Google subsequently did, essentially proving Damone's underlying thesis that Google had become an echo chamber that stifled any sort of contrary opinions.
>PS, you should care about Bob from Accounting.
It's not that I don't care about Bob from Accounting - most of us are Bob. The problem is, none of the lynchpins of the arguments against current society hinge upon Bob. The poster child for the benefactor of the supposed oppression rooted firmly in our system is the white male, with someone like Donald Trump as the current poster boy for unearned or unfairly earned wealth and power - and by proxy melanin content and genitalia, all white men are guilty, including Bob from accounting. But Bob isn't really holding up the system nor is he tangibly benefitting from the system. He didn't get a secret decoder ring for figuring out how to get backroom deals by the white male patriarchy. He's not getting promoted on the backs of his harder working women and minority peers. In short, he's a convenient witch when people are going on a witch hunt and looking for a witch to burn.
LOL.
Triggered much?
>Ability is generally observed to be normally distributed: most people are average, few are exceptionally good or bad.
Additional note, in population sub groups, the tails also vary considerably. For example, women are more tightly clustered around the mean than men are when it comes to IQ, meaning for a given population size, there will be more men below 2 std devs and above 2 std devs than women, and outliers drive envy. No one cares about perfectly average Bob in accounting who has been promoted twice in 20 years.
>Ability is generally observed to be normally distributed: most people are average, few are exceptionally good or bad.
Ability is generally observed to be normally distributed, but the group median varies depending on the groups and the quality being measured. There is a reason why whites are not competitive at neither Olympic marathons or sprints and why XX women are not competitive with XY men in any sport where strength, speed, or endurance is a primary factor. Presumably you don't think bias is evidence of inequality in opportunity here?
>You have decided that I am part of "the left"
I never once said "you" in my reply.
You don't have to be a member of the left to agree with what I wrote, but the difference between the left and say, a moderate, is the left treats it as incontrovertible dogma and the only ones who would dispute that are mysoginists or racists.
As an aside, I'm not sure what you think about my assertion(s) is ridiculous. Care to clarify so I can clarify or back off the ledge if I stepped onto one?
When the left talks about inequality, they specifically talk about inequality in outcomes, not inequality in opportunity. For them, it's axiomatic that an unequal outcome can only be due to an unequal opportunity and/or a discriminatory process.
For example, the EEOC will look at hiring aptitude tests and if the distribution curve for black or female candidates is different than white or male candidates, it's presumed to be discriminatory. Additionally, even though the Affirmative Action law is proscriptive against hiring quotas, the EEOC specifically enforces the law like there is a quota. For example, if you have a large enough employee pool, and have only 6% blacks in technology vs. their 13% representation in the population as a whole, that's often treated as being indicative of a pattern of discrimination regardless of what the pool of candidates looks like (and blacks account for 6% of computer science majors).
>Or perhaps, third option, realize that the "orthodoxy" isn't necessarily wrong just because you don't understand it.
What part do you think I don't understand?
>Google used to be such an awesome company before they went evil.
It's not that Google is evil per se, it's that their definition of good and evil is very, very different than yours. Hint: you are evil to them.
>Simply treating everyone equally has been tried, in fact it has been law for decades in many places, but it hasn't addressed the inequalities. That's because the issues are often entrenched in systems and in the starting positions of all the players.
It hasn't addressed the inequalities because people aren't equal. But even if they were, the pools are not equal and so there is not enough women or blacks or whatevers to balance out the liberal progressive equation of proper employment ratios. I swear, people are idiotic on this. They take a flawed assumption (that all people have the same potential and preferences regardless of their genitalia or "race") on inputs, look at the outputs, and see the outputs are different across genders and races, and assume that the only logical explanation is structural and systemic discrimination.
Not even accounting for potential genetic differences or the active impact of men having active testorone levels that are 15-30x higher than women and the impact of testosterone on aggression, risk taking, and criminality (among other things), or the effect of estrogen on mood swings and emotionality, or other ancillary impacts of the Y chromosome vs. an extra X chromosome, there is the simple fact that there are 10 times as many men that major in computer science or computer engineering as women. Even assuming the candidate pools are exactly identical in medians and distributions across gender - there will be more men who are >1 std deviation better than the median than women computer science graduates in total. That means your aspirational goal of having a 50:50 sex ratio of men to women who code is only realistically achievable by one of 2 mechanisms: either you are willing to hire grossly deficient computer programmers to satisfy a gender quota, or you are willing to pay substantially above market rates (for a similarly qualified male) in order to hire women who are scarce and thus will come at a premium (because, presumably, other progressive organizations are trying to do the same thing).
In this context, measuring outcomes and assuming racism or sexism ignores the very reality of the situation which prevents realistic rectifying this at a company or industry level because the target candidates don't exist in the numbers necessary to balance out the equation.
When you go on a witch hunt, sooner or later you find a witch to burn.
That would require too much work for the poster. Better to beat up imaginary straw men.
>Tolerance is not absolute. For example, being generally tolerant but intolerant of bigotry is not inconsistent.
Except what constitutes "bigotry" for the left is simply stating the obvious fact that people of different biological genders have different preferences that affect candidate pool quality when hiring for specific genders.
>Even if there was any glimmer of right in the original ham fisted paper, it doesn't matter. At this point, the response is ballistic. It is not going to change course. Anything done to try to defend the original sin is going to be met with more of the same.
That's only true for most situations, not this situation. It's already escalated far past the lay low and let it blow over stage, and turned into part of the culture war. His choices now are bow to the orthodoxy or fight for the truth.
I mean, yeah, it's a problem for people who can't tolerate reality. But society blaming autism for speaking the truth seems a little odd...