Repetition does play a key-role, obviously, in enforcing lies. Just look at the mechanism of "prayer". This has been known for a very long time to work.
It is called "weak AI", which is the AI without intelligence. The term is basically a marketing lie and it would be fundamentally better not to call mindless automation like this "AI" at all.
...I am beginning to ask myself, whether weak AI like this (no actual intelligence or understanding) may not actually be on-par with many humans, which fare not much better at understanding things.
And actually, such a statement would be inconsistent with pretty well established facts. In Mathematics, women make about half the graduates and they do not do any worse than the men. While Mathematics is not a perfect model for CS, it probably is the closest approximation we have that does not have a gender-skew and hence relevant ability seems to pretty evenly distributed.
However, the choices of what to do with that ability are strongly and verifiable skewed along the gender-lines. This means this comes down to individual choices, and then other characteristics than pure ability become a factor. Rather obviously.
What happens is that in Mathematics, after BA level, the women thin out. Many go to become teachers, for example. Now, whoever closely looked at the BA education in Mathematics knows that they weed out those with lack of talent and aptitude right at the beginning. There is every reason to believe about the same number of women could get a MA or a PhD in Mathematics or become professors, as the men. However, they do not and the only identifiable reason is personal choice.
To be fair, pretty much the same is going on with the political right. These people all think they can change reality by claiming it is different. Probably some kind of "God" complex. The problem is not "left" or "right", the problem is people thinking in these categories. The world is not black or white, it is shades of grey. If you do not understand that, then you cannot understand reality because your model is far too limited to accommodate it.
While entirely accurate, this approach can only be used to understand reality and discover the facts. Unfortunately, education has failed most people and they do not understand the difference between a fact and an opinion, except when the fact are so obvious that they will just kill you fast if ignored (e.g. Gravity). As a consequence, many people think they can argue against facts and thereby change reality. While this is not the case and was the very reason for the creation of the Scientific Method, people really are that disconnected from actual reality. There are countless examples for that, some really, really hard (people trying to legislate Pi to be 3, for example, or the Australian moron-in-chief that recently claimed Australian law trumps Mathematics) and softer examples, for example people that still believe Climate Change is not a fact and very soft things, where you can only be sure of a relative high probability of one outcome (but that one is clear), like the Brexit.
What this does mean, unfortunately, is that a majority of the population is not capable to competently participate in a fact-based discussion. What it also means is that whenever fixing of problems is done in line with public opinion, the problems get worse instead. (Not universally so, but in any complex scenario, the strategies that lead to a worse outcome are vastly more numerous than those leading to a better one. Hence non-fact-based strategies almost always fail.)
Unfortunately, this seems to be a make-or-break factor for communities of sentient beings (e.g. Homo Sapiens), and in today's globalized situation where failures of cultures get bigger, it may well be that the relevant skill observable in the average person is not enough to support cultural survival and maybe species survival. Or in other words: As a group, the human race is a failure.
Actually, what is also required on the side of the one these arguments are addressed to is an ability to think in more complex terms than just black and white or yes and no and have some inkling about the difference between a scientific fact and general opinion. These skills and ideas seem to b e sadly missing even at Google.
As a result, most people against this argue against the fact part, when that is actually not open for debate, as the facts are well-established. The memo also has an opinion part, and that is what can be done about this. Most people do not seem to understand that this is the only thing open for debate, because the rest is, you know, facts.
Of course, you can argue against scientific facts. It is done all the time. It just means that the person doing it does not have a strong connection to what is real and what is not and that they cannot competently partake in a rational discussion.
That is the only known-to-work way. It was used, for example, in the GDR. It does equalize the numbers, but as soon as the coercion goes away, the numbers slowly revert to what it was before.
Because while there are some counter-examples, it seems pretty likely that it is not true in general? Otherwise, you know, those companies where it _is_ true would not make the news.
Indeed. That is why "equal opportunity" is the right thing, i.e. all woman that want to go into tech should not face any gender-related hurdles. But if it tuns out, they are fewer than on the male side, than it is their f***ing decision and that needs to be respected. "Equal outcome" as is preached by some, basically means to disrespect individual choices.
The other thing is that smart people have been leaving Google for a while now. They are just a huge, soulless corporation with lost of bureaucracy, cover-your-ass and anti-progress stance. A friend struggled for a year, because they pay really well, but he is much, much happier now.
Actually, if you pick a random female and a random male, this will be true (although in most cases both will be incompetent, so very low trust is advisable in both cases). If you pick a random engineer or scientist, then gender will not matter at all.
Anecdotes are not worthless. They are not useful to establish and verify initial hypotheses, but they do serve as plausibility checks if used right. Well known in the sciences as "anecdotal evidence". This means they do not establish or disprove facts, but they are useful in determining where to focus the actual scientific efforts.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice lie you got there. The science has been settled about a century ago. Unfortunately, the vaccine against stupidity still eludes us.
Repetition does play a key-role, obviously, in enforcing lies. Just look at the mechanism of "prayer". This has been known for a very long time to work.
It is called "weak AI", which is the AI without intelligence. The term is basically a marketing lie and it would be fundamentally better not to call mindless automation like this "AI" at all.
...I am beginning to ask myself, whether weak AI like this (no actual intelligence or understanding) may not actually be on-par with many humans, which fare not much better at understanding things.
And actually, such a statement would be inconsistent with pretty well established facts. In Mathematics, women make about half the graduates and they do not do any worse than the men. While Mathematics is not a perfect model for CS, it probably is the closest approximation we have that does not have a gender-skew and hence relevant ability seems to pretty evenly distributed.
However, the choices of what to do with that ability are strongly and verifiable skewed along the gender-lines. This means this comes down to individual choices, and then other characteristics than pure ability become a factor. Rather obviously.
What happens is that in Mathematics, after BA level, the women thin out. Many go to become teachers, for example. Now, whoever closely looked at the BA education in Mathematics knows that they weed out those with lack of talent and aptitude right at the beginning. There is every reason to believe about the same number of women could get a MA or a PhD in Mathematics or become professors, as the men. However, they do not and the only identifiable reason is personal choice.
To be fair, pretty much the same is going on with the political right. These people all think they can change reality by claiming it is different. Probably some kind of "God" complex. The problem is not "left" or "right", the problem is people thinking in these categories. The world is not black or white, it is shades of grey. If you do not understand that, then you cannot understand reality because your model is far too limited to accommodate it.
Yes. pretty accurate. We can now apparently even legislate to change Mathematics...
While entirely accurate, this approach can only be used to understand reality and discover the facts. Unfortunately, education has failed most people and they do not understand the difference between a fact and an opinion, except when the fact are so obvious that they will just kill you fast if ignored (e.g. Gravity). As a consequence, many people think they can argue against facts and thereby change reality. While this is not the case and was the very reason for the creation of the Scientific Method, people really are that disconnected from actual reality. There are countless examples for that, some really, really hard (people trying to legislate Pi to be 3, for example, or the Australian moron-in-chief that recently claimed Australian law trumps Mathematics) and softer examples, for example people that still believe Climate Change is not a fact and very soft things, where you can only be sure of a relative high probability of one outcome (but that one is clear), like the Brexit.
What this does mean, unfortunately, is that a majority of the population is not capable to competently participate in a fact-based discussion. What it also means is that whenever fixing of problems is done in line with public opinion, the problems get worse instead. (Not universally so, but in any complex scenario, the strategies that lead to a worse outcome are vastly more numerous than those leading to a better one. Hence non-fact-based strategies almost always fail.)
Unfortunately, this seems to be a make-or-break factor for communities of sentient beings (e.g. Homo Sapiens), and in today's globalized situation where failures of cultures get bigger, it may well be that the relevant skill observable in the average person is not enough to support cultural survival and maybe species survival. Or in other words: As a group, the human race is a failure.
Actually, what is also required on the side of the one these arguments are addressed to is an ability to think in more complex terms than just black and white or yes and no and have some inkling about the difference between a scientific fact and general opinion. These skills and ideas seem to b e sadly missing even at Google.
As a result, most people against this argue against the fact part, when that is actually not open for debate, as the facts are well-established. The memo also has an opinion part, and that is what can be done about this. Most people do not seem to understand that this is the only thing open for debate, because the rest is, you know, facts.
Of course, you can argue against scientific facts. It is done all the time. It just means that the person doing it does not have a strong connection to what is real and what is not and that they cannot competently partake in a rational discussion.
That is the only known-to-work way. It was used, for example, in the GDR. It does equalize the numbers, but as soon as the coercion goes away, the numbers slowly revert to what it was before.
They probably have seen too many bad movies....
My guess would be that such an explosion probably will cure fidgeting permanently...
Unfortunately, that seems exactly what is going on here: A game of "we scream louder, so we must be right!"
The differences between the memo and the claims about it is truly staggering.
Than, of course, works in both directions.
A CEO of a large company qualified an anything except backstabbing and climbing the ladder? Unlikely.
And you, what, want to force them in? Because that is what it would take....
Because while there are some counter-examples, it seems pretty likely that it is not true in general? Otherwise, you know, those companies where it _is_ true would not make the news.
Indeed. That is why "equal opportunity" is the right thing, i.e. all woman that want to go into tech should not face any gender-related hurdles. But if it tuns out, they are fewer than on the male side, than it is their f***ing decision and that needs to be respected. "Equal outcome" as is preached by some, basically means to disrespect individual choices.
Maximum non-PC, but you have a point.
The other thing is that smart people have been leaving Google for a while now. They are just a huge, soulless corporation with lost of bureaucracy, cover-your-ass and anti-progress stance. A friend struggled for a year, because they pay really well, but he is much, much happier now.
If that were the situation here, you would be right. It is not the situation here, though.
Actually, if you pick a random female and a random male, this will be true (although in most cases both will be incompetent, so very low trust is advisable in both cases). If you pick a random engineer or scientist, then gender will not matter at all.
Yea, there are quite a few idiots of that type out there, no argument.
Anecdotes are not worthless. They are not useful to establish and verify initial hypotheses, but they do serve as plausibility checks if used right. Well known in the sciences as "anecdotal evidence". This means they do not establish or disprove facts, but they are useful in determining where to focus the actual scientific efforts.
Yep, and that would be an actually serious problem.