He didn't hint that women are biologically inferior. He did say that women are, on average, interested in different things. Haven't you noticed? Go read the memo.
Damore is arguing against the position that 100% of gender differences are due to discrimination. All that is required is to show some evidence of gender preferences, and you have an alternative explanation that has to be taken seriously. Ironically, the it is you and the gender warriors who look at different outcomes and claim that they are evidence of bias. And that is mistaking correlation for causation. Jim Edwards should apply his own logic to his own position.
He didn't say "women on average are less capable". He did say "women, on average, are interested in different things". Haven't you noticed? No? Then haven't you read the relevant literature on preferences and its correlation to in utero testosterone? Oh, and he said that that may explain part of the gender difference, not the entire thing. Are you saying that gender differences are 100% discrimination? Isn't that a rather outrageous suggestion? Oh never mind.
Mate selection is fundamentally about competition. Yeah, nobody wants to compete. Everyone wants to date that hot guy or girl. But there's a supply/demand problem. See?
One of the aspects of the post that troubled me deeply was the bias inherent in suggesting that most women, or men, feel or act a certain way. That is stereotyping, and it is harmful
Statistical trends between men and women are science. Stick to your search engine snapper-head.
Maybe something else is happening, like gender ideologues trying to fix wages in the workforce. This is actually happening, and these inquisitions *are* expensive *and* stupid. "Legalizing Misandry" (Young and Nathanson) describes some of the history and incentives of this type of thing. It is well worth understanding.
There are quasi-legal bureaucracies and ideological busybodies who will go over the data and say stupid things like: I see you pay your secretaries less than your programmers. Don't you value women's labor? This underhanded bullpucky is well documented. See "Spreading Misandry" by Nathanson and Young for info.
Nuclear isn't necessarily expensive -- a lot of the cost is insurance. The technology needs to be developed, which promises huge cost savings if there's investment. And it is also a known factor for providing baseline power, which we currently only know how to do with carbon energy.
Just put a tax on carbon. No need for global enforcement regimes. Different countries can use diplomatic pressure to bring everyone in line. The only people who will hate it are the oil generating nations: Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, et al., and only in the short-to-mid term. A revenue neutral carbon tax doesn't mean reducing economic output. It does mean that big oil loses, and other sectors win (e.g., energy and construction)
The IPCC reports specify estimated risks for different scenarios. People who say that outcomes are uncertain never bother with risk analysis, and balk at talk of the precautionary principle. So, say there's an estimated 30% change that there will be no severe consequences. OBVIOUSLY that means nothing should be done, since that's what we want to happen.
There's plenty to be done about climate change without taking away pickup trucks and SUVs. Substantive action costs far less than Iraq II, and has the benefit of actually creating jobs in America.
Climate science is "systems science". It is very much a hard science; however, there'll always be uncertainties for political ideologues to talk up. We've got about a 10% of creating a disaster, and no second planet earth yo move to, and that alone means we should be talking about appropriate actions, and not *if* there's a problem. It's very easy for the oil industry to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt over the science, which is just a tried and true political game. The scientists themselves will not (by and large) explain what to do -- that's not their expertise -- but they are convinced that there is a problem, and their reasons are clearly explained. Skepticalscience.com has a summary of "skeptic arguments" and what scientists say. You can always read the peer reviewed literature yourself. But somehow I think you'll just retreat back to your blog and news sites, which give you the information you want to believe.
Price is a factor for how much oil is drilled. And then there's that pesky externality called pollution, and who pays to clean it up. (The oil industry socializes its losses.)
So basically, you don't know what the problem is but you do know it had better not be anything that implies it could be fixed by reducing men's dominance a little.
Oh dear. Let me get this correct. Unless you can/prove/ that men/aren't/ the cause of a problem, then the absence of proof is ipso facto, evidence of guilt.
Meanwhile, in non-science denying parts of academia, we have already firmly established that the genders differ in significant ways, esp. when it comes to preferences. And we don't discount cultural explanations for disparate racial outcomes, simply because we're showing off how virtuously non-racist we are -- while simultaneously judging white people by the color of their skin, and without any trace of irony.
Oh women, they're so sexy. And we all like looking at them, including women. Sexy men, on the other hand, only appeal to 50% of the population plus the gays, minus the lesbians, plus a fraction of everything in between.
Hyperloop sounds like snake-oil to me. It will never work with anything remotely like existing technologies. Think about how much heat expansion you'll get on the tubes. That means you'll have to have lots of joints for expansion. Each of these will have to have perfect seals. It will be under 10 tons of pressure per square metre, and any rupture will cause air to rush into the tube at about the speed of sound. Tons of air. Thunderf00t has a takedown video. It is worth watching, just to consider the points he brings up -- although I find he comes across as a bit of an ass.
Doesn't matter. The chinese economy is a disaster waiting to unwind. Building an underwater military facility is just the type of wasteful boondoogle that communist party loves.
At some point there won't be anything we can do about it, and we'll have to learn to live in the new environment.
That time has already come. We have 100s of years before existing climate forcing reach equilibrium. The real question is how bad it is going to get. With business as usual, our descents will look back us with utter scorn.
If the USA is ever attacked by North Korea, then EXPECT a disproportionate response. The US population will demand it, and the opposition party will ensure that appropriate rage is whipped up. The people of South Korea will face a massive artillery barrage, but North Korea would absolutely be flattened by the USA an its allies.
I always find it interesting when scientists are simultaneously accused of making black and white statements (e.g., the language of consensus), while also using "weasel words". The simple truth is that scientists spend most of their time dealing with error bars, and those "weasel" words have been operationalized to talk about those error bars in precise ways.
Nothing, of course, will make you happy, except scientists unequivocally denying the importance AGW. When you don't like what scientists say, then the argument is simply constructed on the spot to reify your sense of "rightness". The sad truth is that it may be decades (if you live that long) before you ever contemplate any information that threatens your world view.
Slashdot Mirror
He didn't hint that women are biologically inferior. He did say that women are, on average, interested in different things. Haven't you noticed? Go read the memo.
If these women and minorities got the job under lower standards, then he would be correct. That's a simple fact.
Damore is arguing against the position that 100% of gender differences are due to discrimination. All that is required is to show some evidence of gender preferences, and you have an alternative explanation that has to be taken seriously. Ironically, the it is you and the gender warriors who look at different outcomes and claim that they are evidence of bias. And that is mistaking correlation for causation. Jim Edwards should apply his own logic to his own position.
Well, these four scientists think the memo is substantively correct. One even said that it qualifies as "A-" masters level work in the relevant field.
Saying that women are, on average, interested in different things is the simple truth. The truth isn't sexist.
He didn't say "women on average are less capable". He did say "women, on average, are interested in different things". Haven't you noticed? No? Then haven't you read the relevant literature on preferences and its correlation to in utero testosterone? Oh, and he said that that may explain part of the gender difference, not the entire thing. Are you saying that gender differences are 100% discrimination? Isn't that a rather outrageous suggestion? Oh never mind.
Mate selection is fundamentally about competition. Yeah, nobody wants to compete. Everyone wants to date that hot guy or girl. But there's a supply/demand problem. See?
One of the aspects of the post that troubled me deeply was the bias inherent in suggesting that most women, or men, feel or act a certain way. That is stereotyping, and it is harmful
Statistical trends between men and women are science. Stick to your search engine snapper-head.
Maybe something else is happening, like gender ideologues trying to fix wages in the workforce. This is actually happening, and these inquisitions *are* expensive *and* stupid. "Legalizing Misandry" (Young and Nathanson) describes some of the history and incentives of this type of thing. It is well worth understanding.
There are quasi-legal bureaucracies and ideological busybodies who will go over the data and say stupid things like: I see you pay your secretaries less than your programmers. Don't you value women's labor? This underhanded bullpucky is well documented. See "Spreading Misandry" by Nathanson and Young for info.
Nuclear isn't necessarily expensive -- a lot of the cost is insurance. The technology needs to be developed, which promises huge cost savings if there's investment. And it is also a known factor for providing baseline power, which we currently only know how to do with carbon energy.
Just put a tax on carbon. No need for global enforcement regimes. Different countries can use diplomatic pressure to bring everyone in line. The only people who will hate it are the oil generating nations: Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, et al., and only in the short-to-mid term. A revenue neutral carbon tax doesn't mean reducing economic output. It does mean that big oil loses, and other sectors win (e.g., energy and construction)
The IPCC reports specify estimated risks for different scenarios. People who say that outcomes are uncertain never bother with risk analysis, and balk at talk of the precautionary principle. So, say there's an estimated 30% change that there will be no severe consequences. OBVIOUSLY that means nothing should be done, since that's what we want to happen.
Methane only sits in the atmosphere if a few years. CO2 is up there for 100s of years. CO2 is what needs to be reduced.
There's plenty to be done about climate change without taking away pickup trucks and SUVs. Substantive action costs far less than Iraq II, and has the benefit of actually creating jobs in America.
Everywhere from California to Indiana will desertify. California may well lose its agricultural sector over the next 50 years.
Climate science is "systems science". It is very much a hard science; however, there'll always be uncertainties for political ideologues to talk up. We've got about a 10% of creating a disaster, and no second planet earth yo move to, and that alone means we should be talking about appropriate actions, and not *if* there's a problem. It's very easy for the oil industry to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt over the science, which is just a tried and true political game. The scientists themselves will not (by and large) explain what to do -- that's not their expertise -- but they are convinced that there is a problem, and their reasons are clearly explained. Skepticalscience.com has a summary of "skeptic arguments" and what scientists say. You can always read the peer reviewed literature yourself. But somehow I think you'll just retreat back to your blog and news sites, which give you the information you want to believe.
Like the 90% of the world population that lives at sea level, and in tropical zone deserts. This includes most of the Levant.
Price is a factor for how much oil is drilled. And then there's that pesky externality called pollution, and who pays to clean it up. (The oil industry socializes its losses.)
So basically, you don't know what the problem is but you do know it had better not be anything that implies it could be fixed by reducing men's dominance a little.
Oh dear. Let me get this correct. Unless you can /prove/ that men /aren't/ the cause of a problem, then the absence of proof is ipso facto, evidence of guilt.
Meanwhile, in non-science denying parts of academia, we have already firmly established that the genders differ in significant ways, esp. when it comes to preferences. And we don't discount cultural explanations for disparate racial outcomes, simply because we're showing off how virtuously non-racist we are -- while simultaneously judging white people by the color of their skin, and without any trace of irony.
Pathetic.
Oh women, they're so sexy. And we all like looking at them, including women. Sexy men, on the other hand, only appeal to 50% of the population plus the gays, minus the lesbians, plus a fraction of everything in between.
Hyperloop sounds like snake-oil to me. It will never work with anything remotely like existing technologies. Think about how much heat expansion you'll get on the tubes. That means you'll have to have lots of joints for expansion. Each of these will have to have perfect seals. It will be under 10 tons of pressure per square metre, and any rupture will cause air to rush into the tube at about the speed of sound. Tons of air. Thunderf00t has a takedown video. It is worth watching, just to consider the points he brings up -- although I find he comes across as a bit of an ass.
Doesn't matter. The chinese economy is a disaster waiting to unwind. Building an underwater military facility is just the type of wasteful boondoogle that communist party loves.
At some point there won't be anything we can do about it, and we'll have to learn to live in the new environment.
That time has already come. We have 100s of years before existing climate forcing reach equilibrium. The real question is how bad it is going to get. With business as usual, our descents will look back us with utter scorn.
If the USA is ever attacked by North Korea, then EXPECT a disproportionate response. The US population will demand it, and the opposition party will ensure that appropriate rage is whipped up. The people of South Korea will face a massive artillery barrage, but North Korea would absolutely be flattened by the USA an its allies.
IPCC using too many weasel words
I always find it interesting when scientists are simultaneously accused of making black and white statements (e.g., the language of consensus), while also using "weasel words". The simple truth is that scientists spend most of their time dealing with error bars, and those "weasel" words have been operationalized to talk about those error bars in precise ways.
Nothing, of course, will make you happy, except scientists unequivocally denying the importance AGW. When you don't like what scientists say, then the argument is simply constructed on the spot to reify your sense of "rightness". The sad truth is that it may be decades (if you live that long) before you ever contemplate any information that threatens your world view.