|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Canada11278 Posts
@Plansix
Dr Jordan Peterson- one of the two interviews that google search brings up regarding James DaMore (or else linked to by various online news sources). (The other being Molyneux, who is, last I knew, alt-right.) When you said making the rounds and the only two big interviews I had found were those two, I assumed those were the ones you were referring to when making that claim. Perhaps I was wrong (I wasn't trying to be pedantic through obscuration.) But I don't really know where else he has given interviews, unless he gave more since yesterday.
But I don’t live in that world yet.
Perhaps we are not in that world, yet. But we are in a world where we are removing more and more barriers and so we see unnatural gender disparities taken out (out right ban on teaching, 1800's), but we see an increase in gender disparities by occupation in some of the most equal societies (if the Scandinavian studies are to believed.) Take teaching again, for example. Now that teaching is open to all (so far as I can tell), why are the primary grades so heavily weighted towards women? Societal expectation? Stastically, we can see the imbalance. Anecdotally, the women I knew, who became teachers, really, really wanted to teach primary. Of course others wanted high school, but very few men (if any) wanted to teach primary. Societal expectation? I don't really think so. I was pretty open to teaching most anything- I specifically chose a teacher program that gave me experience in primary, later elementary, junior high, and secondary. My dad taught Grade 3. However, I found I just did not enjoy teaching anything below grade 3, however adorable they may be. Thus, I and my friends (and now my sister, who now that she's had children, is going back to school to become a primary teacher) continue to perpetuate the gender stereotypes.
We still exist in a world where large numbers of people don’t understand that cat calling is sexual harassment. I really don't think it's a lack of understanding, and so if that's the standard perhaps we will never see your ideal society to make that determination. I think that sort of thing is running up against the corrupt nature of humans. We are capable of being good, but we are not good. We can be kind and considerate, but we can also be cruel, selfish, and rude. Having knowledge isn't the same thing as changing one's. . . way of being? understanding? . . . for lack of a better word, heart.
|
On August 11 2017 04:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
That's clever, "60+ House members" makes it seem far more insignificant. I thought for a moment we had 60+ senators, then it might matter.
Think it's funny/sad they could only get 64, sounds like escalation is the way we're heading.
|
On August 11 2017 04:11 Plansix wrote:
I love that Intel and other companies already addressed this issue around 2015 and found solutions, including increased transparency of hiring, goals and pay, but we are debating it all over again today like its new. Just because of this guy and his fake PHD.
Are you just talking about just pay equality, or full equality in both pay and representation? Because Intel had like 75% male employees in February 2016.
|
On August 11 2017 04:14 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 04:11 Plansix wrote:
I love that Intel and other companies already addressed this issue around 2015 and found solutions, including increased transparency of hiring, goals and pay, but we are debating it all over again today like its new. Just because of this guy and his fake PHD. I'm not sure how you were presumably appalled at Trump's focus on personal attacks during the campaign but have spent a large part of this discussion repeatedly talking about this guy's "fake PhD" and "rounds on alt-right talk shows." Neither of which have any relevance with the memo or the firing.
using "science" as some kind of elevated vantage point to spread what is essentially a political message is typical of these internet "manosphere" types so the point is warranted. The google guy buried a political polemic against diversity under a thin veneer of science to shield himself from criticism. Same thing with the whole martyrdom of "If I say the truth they will persecute me".
|
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/10/sebastian-gorka-criticize-rex-tillerson-241489?lo=ap_b1
White House aide Sebastian Gorka said Thursday that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was out of line with remarks he made a day earlier assuring Americans that military action against North Korea is not imminent, telling BBC radio that it was “nonsensical” for the nation’s chief diplomat to speak on military issues.
“The idea that Secretary Tillerson is going to discuss military matters is simply nonsensical,” Gorka said in the interview, which was reported by The Washington Post. “It is the job of Secretary Mattis, the secretary of defense, to talk about the military options, and he has done so unequivocally … That is his mandate. Secretary Tillerson is the chief diplomat of the United States, and it is his portfolio to handle those issues.”
Aboard his aircraft Wednesday en route to Guam, the U.S. territory in the Pacific that North Korea threatened this week to destroy with an “enveloping fire,” Tillerson told reporters that “Americans should sleep well at night” and that “I do not believe that there is any imminent threat.” The secretary’s efforts to tamp down rhetoric came after a warning from President Donald Trump, who said North Korea would face “fire and fury like the world has never seen” if it continues to threaten the U.S.
Contrary to what Tillerson said, Gorka seemed to suggest to the BBC that a military conflict with North Korea is a distinct possibility. Asked by an interviewer if North Korea should expect an attack if its actions are understood as threatening, Gorka seemed to imply just that.
also what the heck does this mean
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 11 2017 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 03:30 Plansix wrote:
Silicon Valley likes to believe and market itself as very progressive. Many progressives I know, including myself, disagree with their internal assessment. Yeah, I'm going to have to start calling myself a leftist  In other news Show nested quote +There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device.
In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the initial “hack,” as alleged, that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer.
Forensic investigations of documents made public two weeks prior to the July 5 leak by the person or entity known as Guccifer 2.0 show that they were fraudulent: Before Guccifer posted them they were adulterated by cutting and pasting them into a blank template that had Russian as its default language. Guccifer took responsibility on June 15 for an intrusion the DNC reported on June 14 and professed to be a WikiLeaks source—claims essential to the official narrative implicating Russia in what was soon cast as an extensive hacking operation. To put the point simply, forensic science now devastates this narrative. SourceTo be clear, it's not saying there were no hacks or that Russia didn't interfere, just that the hack claimed on July 5th (announced by Crowdstrike on July 14th) was not a hack, but a leak. My understanding is a bit basic, but the data given seems as solid or more so as what Crowdstrike said.
I don't buy it. Their analysis is a little too conspiratorial and homebrew, and not sufficiently self-critical. They are likely correct that the investigators acted with a mix of incompetence and bad faith reporting, but the same could be said for the OJ Simpson murder trial.
|
Falling:
I have limited time to respond, so I will keep it short. I see where you are coming from and I think that gender disparity in teaching is a good place to start looking at the subject. It is a less charged field in general, due to being public service and education. The tech industry is a different animal because they are some of the most powerful companies in the world right now, in reach and output. They have the most cultural relevance and there does not seem to be any shortage of resistance to the idea that they are not meritocracy they believe they are. And it isn’t limited to gender, race also plays a part in some of these companies. The amount of power, wealth and influence these companies and their leadership has is staggering. And due to that, I believe that it is impossible to assess the factors you are talking about. There is just too much noise and motivation to skew the results to show those in power are there because they naturally have the drive to have that job.
|
On August 11 2017 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 03:30 Plansix wrote:
Silicon Valley likes to believe and market itself as very progressive. Many progressives I know, including myself, disagree with their internal assessment. Yeah, I'm going to have to start calling myself a leftist In other news Show nested quote +There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device.
In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the initial “hack,” as alleged, that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer.
Forensic investigations of documents made public two weeks prior to the July 5 leak by the person or entity known as Guccifer 2.0 show that they were fraudulent: Before Guccifer posted them they were adulterated by cutting and pasting them into a blank template that had Russian as its default language. Guccifer took responsibility on June 15 for an intrusion the DNC reported on June 14 and professed to be a WikiLeaks source—claims essential to the official narrative implicating Russia in what was soon cast as an extensive hacking operation. To put the point simply, forensic science now devastates this narrative. SourceTo be clear, it's not saying there were no hacks or that Russia didn't interfere, just that the hack claimed on July 5th (announced by Crowdstrike on July 14th) was not a hack, but a leak. My understanding is a bit basic, but the data given seems as solid or more so as what Crowdstrike said.
That guy is pretty quick to build a house of cards conspiracy argument after insinuating that the government is doing so. The entire argument seems to rest on Forensicator's claim to have the authentic original docs from the DNC (and thus their metadata), which is unproven at best.
The claim that the NSA can intercept "any transfer of electronic data" is also a bit far fetched and conspiracy mongering.
|
On August 11 2017 04:19 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 04:11 Plansix wrote:
I love that Intel and other companies already addressed this issue around 2015 and found solutions, including increased transparency of hiring, goals and pay, but we are debating it all over again today like its new. Just because of this guy and his fake PHD. Are you just talking about just pay equality, or full equality in both pay and representation? Because Intel had like 75% male employees in February 2016.
They have an active diversity program that was created by the woman who is now working at google. They have goals and publish their progress at a fixed rate, along with how they are trying to meet the goals. They are trying to increase diversity, but also telling their employees exactly how they doing it to avoid the “diversity hire” stigma.
|
On August 11 2017 04:26 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 11 2017 03:30 Plansix wrote:
Silicon Valley likes to believe and market itself as very progressive. Many progressives I know, including myself, disagree with their internal assessment. Yeah, I'm going to have to start calling myself a leftist In other news There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device.
In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the initial “hack,” as alleged, that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer.
Forensic investigations of documents made public two weeks prior to the July 5 leak by the person or entity known as Guccifer 2.0 show that they were fraudulent: Before Guccifer posted them they were adulterated by cutting and pasting them into a blank template that had Russian as its default language. Guccifer took responsibility on June 15 for an intrusion the DNC reported on June 14 and professed to be a WikiLeaks source—claims essential to the official narrative implicating Russia in what was soon cast as an extensive hacking operation. To put the point simply, forensic science now devastates this narrative. SourceTo be clear, it's not saying there were no hacks or that Russia didn't interfere, just that the hack claimed on July 5th (announced by Crowdstrike on July 14th) was not a hack, but a leak. My understanding is a bit basic, but the data given seems as solid or more so as what Crowdstrike said. I don't buy it. Their analysis is a little too conspiratorial and homebrew. They are likely correct that the investigators acted with a mix of incompetence and bad faith reporting, but the same could be said for the OJ Simpson murder trial.
I mean:
In effect, the new forensic evidence considered here lands in a vacuum. We now enter a period when an official reply should be forthcoming. What the forensic people are now producing constitutes evidence, however one may view it, and it is the first scientifically derived evidence we have into any of the events in which Russia has been implicated. The investigators deserve a response, the betrayed professionals who formed VIPS as the WMD scandal unfolded in 2003 deserve it, and so do the rest of us. The cost of duplicity has rarely been so high.
I concluded each of the interviews conducted for this column by asking for a degree of confidence in the new findings. These are careful, exacting people as a matter of professional training and standards, and I got careful, exacting replies.
All those interviewed came in between 90 percent and 100 percent certain that the forensics prove out. I have already quoted Skip Folden’s answer: impossible based on the data. “The laws of physics don’t lie,” Ray McGovern volunteered at one point. “It’s QED, theorem demonstrated,” William Binney said in response to my question. “There’s no evidence out there to get me to change my mind.” When I asked Edward Loomis, a 90 percent man, about the 10 percent he held out, he replied, “I’ve looked at the work and it shows there was no Russian hack. But I didn’t do the work. That’s the 10 percent. I’m a scientist.”
I'm open to someone refuting their forensic analysis though.
On the NSA, that was their intention, whether they are capable is a different matter (PRISM was rather extensive and who knows what we don't know about further black box ops in the arena). But put against the alternative explanation I don't find it any less sound.
|
http://blog.interviewing.io/we-built-voice-modulation-to-mask-gender-in-technical-interviews-heres-what-happened/
interviewing.io is a platform where people can practice technical interviewing anonymously and, in the process, find jobs based on their interview performance rather than their resumes. Since we started, we’ve amassed data from thousands of technical interviews, and in this blog, we routinely share some of the surprising stuff we’ve learned. In this post, I’ll talk about what happened when we built real-time voice masking to investigate the magnitude of bias against women in technical interviews. In short, we made men sound like women and women sound like men and looked at how that affected their interview performance. We also looked at what happened when women did poorly in interviews, how drastically that differed from men’s behavior, and why that difference matters for the thorny issue of the gender gap in tech.
After running the experiment, we ended up with some rather surprising results. Contrary to what we expected (and probably contrary to what you expected as well!), masking gender had no effect on interview performance with respect to any of the scoring criteria (would advance to next round, technical ability, problem solving ability). If anything, we started to notice some trends in the opposite direction of what we expected: for technical ability, it appeared that men who were modulated to sound like women did a bit better than unmodulated men and that women who were modulated to sound like men did a bit worse than unmodulated women. Though these trends weren’t statistically significant, I am mentioning them because they were unexpected and definitely something to watch for as we collect more data.
This is a very small study but interesting anyway for its results.
Its impossible to ignore the political statement behind what the Google dude said, but its also really important to keep an eye on the science, the raw data, and deeper understanding of gender differences (unless you believe that gender is a social construct, in which case the science and data are obviously not relevant to you).
|
On August 11 2017 04:26 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 11 2017 03:30 Plansix wrote:
Silicon Valley likes to believe and market itself as very progressive. Many progressives I know, including myself, disagree with their internal assessment. Yeah, I'm going to have to start calling myself a leftist In other news There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device.
In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the initial “hack,” as alleged, that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer.
Forensic investigations of documents made public two weeks prior to the July 5 leak by the person or entity known as Guccifer 2.0 show that they were fraudulent: Before Guccifer posted them they were adulterated by cutting and pasting them into a blank template that had Russian as its default language. Guccifer took responsibility on June 15 for an intrusion the DNC reported on June 14 and professed to be a WikiLeaks source—claims essential to the official narrative implicating Russia in what was soon cast as an extensive hacking operation. To put the point simply, forensic science now devastates this narrative. SourceTo be clear, it's not saying there were no hacks or that Russia didn't interfere, just that the hack claimed on July 5th (announced by Crowdstrike on July 14th) was not a hack, but a leak. My understanding is a bit basic, but the data given seems as solid or more so as what Crowdstrike said. I don't buy it. Their analysis is a little too conspiratorial and homebrew, and not sufficiently self-critical. They are likely correct that the investigators acted with a mix of incompetence and bad faith reporting, but the same could be said for the OJ Simpson murder trial.
I'd say it's slightly less believable than the conclusion that it absolutely without a shadow of a doubt was the Russians who hacked and gave the data to Wikileaks. None of the information presented for any of the claims that have been given around this gave absolute certainty to the various conclusions that have been drawn. It's just that all the circumstantial stuff makes sense to consider the Russian state as the major player in this - or, as Vlad said, 'Russian nationalists hackers' (yeah, right, lol).
|
Canada11278 Posts
On August 11 2017 04:19 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 04:14 mozoku wrote:On August 11 2017 04:11 Plansix wrote:
I love that Intel and other companies already addressed this issue around 2015 and found solutions, including increased transparency of hiring, goals and pay, but we are debating it all over again today like its new. Just because of this guy and his fake PHD. I'm not sure how you were presumably appalled at Trump's focus on personal attacks during the campaign but have spent a large part of this discussion repeatedly talking about this guy's "fake PhD" and "rounds on alt-right talk shows." Neither of which have any relevance with the memo or the firing. using "science" as some kind of elevated vantage point to spread what is essentially a political message is typical of these internet "manosphere" types so the point is warranted. The google guy buried a political polemic against diversity under a thin veneer of science to shield himself from criticism. Same thing with the whole martyrdom of "If I say the truth they will persecute me".
It wasn't against diversity as such. But it was suggesting that even if Google ties itself up into knots trying to get the 50:50 balance of men and women exactly correct, there might be other factors that might make this goal unrealistic. (And not even that we will find 0 women wanting to work in coding that is patently not true as we can see in any tech company today- it's just that perhaps women might not prefer that job over others enough that we get a nice, neat and tidy 50/50 split.)
That is, certain fields may be more appealing to certain sexes that might account for some of the differences found in society. Outdoor work might appeal more to males, hence the disparity in roofing, painting and maybe there's something to preference when it comes to nurses, pre-school teachers, and counsellors. I don't know. Are we hoping in an ideal society that every single occupation is represented 50% across the board... or I guess 49.7% of each and .3 trans? Or are we simply hoping to remove any sex related barrier and whatever distribution we get in a particular occupation, oh well. People can get what they want based on their merit and if one sex didn't care for a particular job that's just what happens?
@Plansix
That's fair enough. I do like taking a heated conversation into less heated directions because I think it is easier to sort out the noise and figure out exactly what is going on.
|
On August 11 2017 04:37 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 04:19 Nyxisto wrote:On August 11 2017 04:14 mozoku wrote:On August 11 2017 04:11 Plansix wrote:
I love that Intel and other companies already addressed this issue around 2015 and found solutions, including increased transparency of hiring, goals and pay, but we are debating it all over again today like its new. Just because of this guy and his fake PHD. I'm not sure how you were presumably appalled at Trump's focus on personal attacks during the campaign but have spent a large part of this discussion repeatedly talking about this guy's "fake PhD" and "rounds on alt-right talk shows." Neither of which have any relevance with the memo or the firing. using "science" as some kind of elevated vantage point to spread what is essentially a political message is typical of these internet "manosphere" types so the point is warranted. The google guy buried a political polemic against diversity under a thin veneer of science to shield himself from criticism. Same thing with the whole martyrdom of "If I say the truth they will persecute me". It wasn't against diversity as such. But it was suggesting that even if Google ties itself up into knots trying to get the 50:50 balance of men and women exactly correct, there might be other factors that might make this goal unrealistic. That is, certain fields may be more appealing to certain sexes that might account for some of the differences found in society. Outdoor work might appeal more to males, hence the disparity in roofing, painting and maybe there's something to preference when it comes to nurses, pre-school teachers, and counsellors. I don't, are we hoping in an ideal society that every single occupation is represented 50% across the board... or I guess 49.7% of each and .3 trans? Or are we simply hoping to remove any sex related barrier and whatever distribution we get in a particular occupation, oh well. People can get what they want based on their merit and if one sex didn't care for a particular job that's just what happens?
I think the problem with this line of reasoning is it is clearly irrelevant at the moment. We're not anywhere close to a gender balance that can be explained by something biological and that's obvious looking at history, other industries, and other parts of the world.
|
On August 11 2017 03:42 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 01:02 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 00:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Every time someone tries to martyr themselves for a political belief, I have a very easy time tuning them out and not taking their view seriously. This google guy is just another drama queen. He is doing the rounds on alt-right youtube channels right now, talking about how the echo chamber repressed him. I also would remind folks there is a LONG history of men using science to "prove" why women are not suited for a job. Normally done by men who hold that job. Do you consider Peterson to be alt-right? Because that's a rather sweeping assertion you made. James wasn't arguing that women were not suited for the job. He was saying that there are likely reasons reasons that women on average would not necessarily prefer a coding job from the myriad of jobs they choose from. I don't know that it is a given that the genders would prefer every occupation equally. Maybe it's the case, but we don't know for sure and so it's worth considering. For instance, are the sex differences found in Big 5 personality studies, good studies and if not, why not? And if there are differences (granted, overlapping), wouldn't we still see difference in preference as our society becomes more equal as it would maximize the personality differences as structural barriers are removed. Is the gender imbalance in prisons primarily a societal construct or because men tend to be lower in agreeableness on average (and that while the distribution is overlapping, the male distribution tends to be flatter and so the extremes are really really extreme.)
Peterson is the pseudo-intellectual flag a lot of the alt right like to wave.
|
On August 11 2017 04:04 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 03:54 Doodsmack wrote:On August 11 2017 03:50 mozoku wrote:On August 11 2017 02:42 Lmui wrote:On August 11 2017 01:41 LegalLord wrote:On August 11 2017 01:25 ticklishmusic wrote:On August 11 2017 01:20 a_flayer wrote:On August 11 2017 01:15 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 01:05 Danglars wrote:On August 11 2017 00:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Every time someone tries to martyr themselves for a political belief, I have a very easy time tuning them out and not taking their view seriously. This google guy is just another drama queen. He posted it privately to an internal google forum trying to argue Google itself had created a culture harmful to women. My god, he even enters nondiscriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap. Throw out methods that haven't worked to help women in their workforce, acknowledge ones that have (he talks about existing changes to Perf), and be more tolerant of ideas that don't fit a certain ideology. In interviews, he's said the internal response to the confidential memo was positive. Then he shared it with a skeptic group (falsely thinking they encouraged questioning accepted norms), and it soon after leaked. People that think he tried to martyr himself haven't read past the headline, or never looked at the evidence. Period. You don't read a breakdown like that and emerge thinking he was a drama queen. He tried to help the company, but the company wasn't tolerant of it. EDIT: I also should re-link it in case there's still a reader out there that's open to consider opposing arguments and the evidence used to support them before bringing their full biases to bear. So he wrote his ideas down and posted it on a company website, with full knowledge Google is currently facing a lawsuit from the Department of Labor about how google pays women? Sounds like a good way to make yourself a liability. You know how I avoid that? I don’t write things down and then publish them on my firm’s servers. I still don't think it's right for him to be fired over that, though. If he acted in a way that was discriminatory, that'd be grounds for firing him according to my standards (which do not apply). Of course, you seem to enjoy granting corporations as much power as they can attain without disturbing you on a personal level (healthcare), so naturally you'd side with them on the issue. "Oh no, we're facing a lawsuit so we will fire every employee that could implicate us for not doing enough to provide a welcoming environment for women." How dare that man give suggestions, poor Alphabet Inc. AT WILL EMPLOYMENT This is really all that needs to be said in this specific context. Unless he had some reasonable case for a wrongful termination suit in the pipe, but as the reason for the firing is public and acceptable, this is an open-and-shut at-will employment matter. Pretty much this. I have some strong feelings about outsourcing to India for certain IT tasks. I don't go out of my way to let every single person in my company know that I dislike working with the majority of the outsourced workers, and that the quality of their work is subpar. I'm pretty sure that if I voiced my feelings to everyone in the company, probably a fair amount of people would agree, but it'd also foster a toxic work environment, and pretty harshly ruin relations with the workers. This isn't what Damore said though. He never said the women at Google did a worse job than than the men. His point was that it's intellectually dishonest and lazy to assume that the entire gender gap is due to discrimination, and that Google's culture/company policy is preventing a real discussion of the causes of the gender gap from happening. Which is a fair point, and isn't sexist at all. There's an ungodly amount of strawmanning of Damore's statement going on in the last few pages. His point was also that science demonstrates that less women than men are fit psychologically to fill tech and leadership roles. Which is unsupported and sexist. No, it wasn't. Did you read the public copy of the memo, or just the NYT and WaPo article on it? What do you think causes the gender gap in tech? Is it purely sexism? Considering something like 80% of CS grads are men and the gender gap exists at pretty much all tech companies, clearly there's some biological and/or cultural factors that are driving it.
That's a nice reflexive disbelief of the liberal media, but you should read the memo more closely. He argues that psychological/biological differences help explain the gender gap, which is the same as saying that psychological fitness (as a matter of distribution in the human population) helps explain the gender gap. And no I won't just take your word for it that "we see disparities everywhere therefore there are some biological factors".
Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.
I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.
[These personality differences] lead to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading.
Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute...to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.
|
On August 11 2017 04:19 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 04:14 mozoku wrote:On August 11 2017 04:11 Plansix wrote:
I love that Intel and other companies already addressed this issue around 2015 and found solutions, including increased transparency of hiring, goals and pay, but we are debating it all over again today like its new. Just because of this guy and his fake PHD. I'm not sure how you were presumably appalled at Trump's focus on personal attacks during the campaign but have spent a large part of this discussion repeatedly talking about this guy's "fake PhD" and "rounds on alt-right talk shows." Neither of which have any relevance with the memo or the firing. The google guy buried a political polemic against diversity under a thin veneer of science to shield himself from criticism. Same thing with the whole martyrdom of "If I say the truth they will persecute me".
I don't agree with this though. His ideas aren't new, but they certainly aren't an argument against diversity.
The people supporting the firing (most progressives) fail to recognize that disagreeing with current diversity initiatives is not the same as being anti-diversity. Which is why the cause of the backlash. Progressives have been trying to change diversity from a three-stance issue into a two-stance issue. You can agree with current diversity initiatives, disagree with the current initiatives but support diversity in general, and you can be anti-diversity (a bigot). Lots of the third group masquerade as the second, but progressives have responded to that by trying to group everyone who's actually part of the second group as part of the third group. And also refuse to acknowledge that the second group can even exist.
|
Trump declares national emergency on opioid abuse
[...]
"The opioid crisis is an emergency and I'm saying officially right now it is an emergency," Trump told reporters. "We're going to draw it up and we're going to make it a national emergency. It is a serious problem, the likes of which we have never had."
source: www.reuters.com
the guy likes duterte, right?
|
Do you ever wonder what an open defense of Trump on the merits would sound like? Perhaps a real world defense of Trump that doesn't resort to Evangelical Christian tropes like Satan? And even better, the defense isn't just some anti-anti-Trumpism that picks on SJWs at community colleges! Well, maybe this defense does some of that, but most of it is a straight-faced merits argument for Trump as Trump.
The memo that McMaster used as a justification for purging the National Security Council of Cernovich leakers and Flynn acolytes has leaked. And it is magnificent.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/10/heres-the-memo-that-blew-up-the-nsc/
|
Canada11278 Posts
On August 11 2017 04:40 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 03:42 Falling wrote:On August 11 2017 01:02 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 00:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Every time someone tries to martyr themselves for a political belief, I have a very easy time tuning them out and not taking their view seriously. This google guy is just another drama queen. He is doing the rounds on alt-right youtube channels right now, talking about how the echo chamber repressed him. I also would remind folks there is a LONG history of men using science to "prove" why women are not suited for a job. Normally done by men who hold that job. Do you consider Peterson to be alt-right? Because that's a rather sweeping assertion you made. James wasn't arguing that women were not suited for the job. He was saying that there are likely reasons reasons that women on average would not necessarily prefer a coding job from the myriad of jobs they choose from. I don't know that it is a given that the genders would prefer every occupation equally. Maybe it's the case, but we don't know for sure and so it's worth considering. For instance, are the sex differences found in Big 5 personality studies, good studies and if not, why not? And if there are differences (granted, overlapping), wouldn't we still see difference in preference as our society becomes more equal as it would maximize the personality differences as structural barriers are removed. Is the gender imbalance in prisons primarily a societal construct or because men tend to be lower in agreeableness on average (and that while the distribution is overlapping, the male distribution tends to be flatter and so the extremes are really really extreme.) Peterson is the pseudo-intellectual flag a lot of the alt right like to wave.
I actually just wrote to the BusinessInsider on this issue... I doubt they'll read it. There is a fundamental difference between being popular with a certain group and it is not the same thing as belonging to the group. While he didn't shy away from their frog memes, I have yet to see him identify as an alt-righter and in fact, I believe he has expressed some concern over certain elements of the alt-right. (Certainly, he doesn't buy into the identitarian wing of the alt-right... though that might be the whole of it. And he is adamantly against the Jew-hating wing of the alt-right.)
Also, in what sense is he a pseudo-intellectual? In his field of psychology, he is highly cited, which cannot be said for the field as a whole, 80% are not cited at all. (It's one thing to 'publish or perish', it's another thing if people actually read what you published- which is why number of citations has some bearing on his scholarship or lack therof.)
I think the problem with this line of reasoning is it is clearly irrelevant at the moment. We're not anywhere close to a gender balance that can be explained by something biological and that's obvious looking at history, other industries, and other parts of the world.
Well, it's not argued that it is entirely biological, but that biology plays some part. But what sort of gender balance would be explained (in either direction)? There clearly are some very significant gender imbalances, even in the most progressive societies (Scandinavia). The question is, if we remove the structural barriers, do we get a 50/50 split? Or at least, at least is the trend, remove the barriers and we tend towards 50/50, if imperfectly. Or instead as we remove structural barriers, do people freely choose, but it ends up being 50/50 in some fields, 60/40 elsewhere, 20/80 somewhere else and even 90/10 in some fields (because, perhaps a job that involves a lot of heavy lifting is not very appealing except to a small fraction of women, but for those that do prefer and can, good on them).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
