|
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. |
United States41984 Posts
In fairness one of Mao's most remarkable successes was ending the opiate epidemic in China.
|
On August 11 2017 04:40 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 04:37 Falling wrote: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.
As far as Damore is concerned though, Google only has control only what it does internally. If women are less interested in being software engineers for purely cultural reasons and consequently 80% of applicants are men, then you would expect 80% of Google's software engineers to be men (assuming identical distributions of skill between gender for applicants). Even without discrimination.
If that's the case, then programs like diversity hiring queues are harmful for Google and useless for society. And promoting a culture of shaming and open discussion oppression is bad in nearly any context.
|
On August 11 2017 05:00 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 04:40 Logo wrote:On August 11 2017 04:37 Falling wrote: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. As far as Damore is concerned though, Google only has control only what it does internally. If women are less interested in being software engineers for purely cultural reasons and consequently 80% of applicants are men, then you would expect 80% of Google's software engineers to be men (assuming identical distributions of skill between gender for applicants). Even without discrimination. If that's the case, then programs like diversity hiring queues are harmful for Google and useless for society. And promoting a culture of shaming and open discussion oppression is bad in nearly any context.
But then you run into the problem that Google is a powerful company that wields incredible influence in the world. 80% of the employees could be deeply invested in making sure they don’t’ have to compete with anything more than 20% of women for these high paying jobs. And you wont’ know unless you have a diversity effort to try an increase those numbers in a transparent fashion. If only 20% of women want the job, then it will be hard to raise that number.
|
On August 11 2017 05:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 05:00 mozoku wrote:On August 11 2017 04:40 Logo wrote:On August 11 2017 04:37 Falling wrote: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. As far as Damore is concerned though, Google only has control only what it does internally. If women are less interested in being software engineers for purely cultural reasons and consequently 80% of applicants are men, then you would expect 80% of Google's software engineers to be men (assuming identical distributions of skill between gender for applicants). Even without discrimination. If that's the case, then programs like diversity hiring queues are harmful for Google and useless for society. And promoting a culture of shaming and open discussion oppression is bad in nearly any context. But then you run into the problem that Google is a powerful company that wields incredible influence in the world. 80% of the employees could be deeply invested in making sure they don’t’ have to compete with anything more than 20% of women for these high paying jobs. And you wont’ know unless you have a diversity effort to try an increase those numbers in a transparent fashion. If only 20% of women want the job, then it will be hard to raise that number.
If Google wants to conduct a more scientific investigation than a diversity push they certainly have the funds. If there is no difference in motivation or talent in this field between the genders then Google is missing out on a huge number of potentially excellent employees. It is in their interest to study gender difference and get to the bottom of it, and just trying to make the numbers up is clearly not the best way to do it.
|
In brief footage played during Shepard Smith Reporting, an unidentified spokesman blasted the U.S. President as “senile” on North Korean state media.
“We cannot have a sound dialogue with a senile man who can’t think rationally,” the spokesman said. “And only absolute force can work on him. This is the judgment made by our soldiers of the strategic force.”
www.mediaite.com
|
On August 11 2017 05:11 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 05:03 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 05:00 mozoku wrote:On August 11 2017 04:40 Logo wrote:On August 11 2017 04:37 Falling wrote: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. As far as Damore is concerned though, Google only has control only what it does internally. If women are less interested in being software engineers for purely cultural reasons and consequently 80% of applicants are men, then you would expect 80% of Google's software engineers to be men (assuming identical distributions of skill between gender for applicants). Even without discrimination. If that's the case, then programs like diversity hiring queues are harmful for Google and useless for society. And promoting a culture of shaming and open discussion oppression is bad in nearly any context. But then you run into the problem that Google is a powerful company that wields incredible influence in the world. 80% of the employees could be deeply invested in making sure they don’t’ have to compete with anything more than 20% of women for these high paying jobs. And you wont’ know unless you have a diversity effort to try an increase those numbers in a transparent fashion. If only 20% of women want the job, then it will be hard to raise that number. If Google wants to conduct a more scientific investigation than a diversity push they certainly have the funds. If there is no difference in motivation or talent in this field between the genders then Google is missing out on a huge number of potentially excellent employees. It is in their interest to study gender difference and get to the bottom of it, and just trying to make the numbers up is clearly not the best way to do it.
They literally hired someone to do it and they are viewing the process. She is the person who worked for Intel and they set up the exact thing I just talked about. This is the program this guy was objecting to, the one that Intel is using.
|
On August 11 2017 05:14 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +In brief footage played during Shepard Smith Reporting, an unidentified spokesman blasted the U.S. President as “senile” on North Korean state media.
“We cannot have a sound dialogue with a senile man who can’t think rationally,” the spokesman said. “And only absolute force can work on him. This is the judgment made by our soldiers of the strategic force.”
www.mediaite.com
But hasn't North Korea heard about how it is wrong to try and diagnose Presidents and Presidential candidates with mental health problems? Apparently they didn't get the memo that saying DJT has straight dementia and can't concentrate enough to read a whole piece of paper is politically incorrect.
|
On August 11 2017 05:16 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 05:11 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 11 2017 05:03 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 05:00 mozoku wrote:On August 11 2017 04:40 Logo wrote:On August 11 2017 04:37 Falling wrote: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. As far as Damore is concerned though, Google only has control only what it does internally. If women are less interested in being software engineers for purely cultural reasons and consequently 80% of applicants are men, then you would expect 80% of Google's software engineers to be men (assuming identical distributions of skill between gender for applicants). Even without discrimination. If that's the case, then programs like diversity hiring queues are harmful for Google and useless for society. And promoting a culture of shaming and open discussion oppression is bad in nearly any context. But then you run into the problem that Google is a powerful company that wields incredible influence in the world. 80% of the employees could be deeply invested in making sure they don’t’ have to compete with anything more than 20% of women for these high paying jobs. And you wont’ know unless you have a diversity effort to try an increase those numbers in a transparent fashion. If only 20% of women want the job, then it will be hard to raise that number. If Google wants to conduct a more scientific investigation than a diversity push they certainly have the funds. If there is no difference in motivation or talent in this field between the genders then Google is missing out on a huge number of potentially excellent employees. It is in their interest to study gender difference and get to the bottom of it, and just trying to make the numbers up is clearly not the best way to do it. They literally hired someone to do it and they are viewing the process. She is the person who worked for Intel and they set up the exact thing I just talked about. This is the program this guy was objecting to, the one that Intel is using.
They went from 23.5% women in 2014, to 25.8% women in 2016. I'd object to that too in terms of effectiveness, lol.
|
On August 11 2017 05:20 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 05:16 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 05:11 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 11 2017 05:03 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 05:00 mozoku wrote:On August 11 2017 04:40 Logo wrote:On August 11 2017 04:37 Falling wrote: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. As far as Damore is concerned though, Google only has control only what it does internally. If women are less interested in being software engineers for purely cultural reasons and consequently 80% of applicants are men, then you would expect 80% of Google's software engineers to be men (assuming identical distributions of skill between gender for applicants). Even without discrimination. If that's the case, then programs like diversity hiring queues are harmful for Google and useless for society. And promoting a culture of shaming and open discussion oppression is bad in nearly any context. But then you run into the problem that Google is a powerful company that wields incredible influence in the world. 80% of the employees could be deeply invested in making sure they don’t’ have to compete with anything more than 20% of women for these high paying jobs. And you wont’ know unless you have a diversity effort to try an increase those numbers in a transparent fashion. If only 20% of women want the job, then it will be hard to raise that number. If Google wants to conduct a more scientific investigation than a diversity push they certainly have the funds. If there is no difference in motivation or talent in this field between the genders then Google is missing out on a huge number of potentially excellent employees. It is in their interest to study gender difference and get to the bottom of it, and just trying to make the numbers up is clearly not the best way to do it. They literally hired someone to do it and they are viewing the process. She is the person who worked for Intel and they set up the exact thing I just talked about. This is the program this guy was objecting to, the one that Intel is using. They went from 23.5% women in 2014, to 25.8% women in 2016. I'd object to that too in terms of effectiveness, lol.
Should they purge their current staff and hire women to replace them? How effective did you expect it to be? Do you want quotas just to make the numbers bigger? The numbers are public, which is not true for Google. In fact, Google is refusing to produce what they pay employees to the Labor department.
|
I don't know. What kind of percentages would a company of that size usually replace over a 3 year period? My numbers are probably off, but based on the 2% increase in female employees, wouldn't they have replaced only 4% of their employees if their new hires are split 50/50 amongst the genders? That seems low to me.
And Alphabet Inc should obvious be more transparent.
|
The thing is, I don't think anyone in these HR-women-stuff positions actually expects women and men will occupy every position 50:50. I think it is important to recognize that 50:50 is not the goal. The goal is to not have 3:1. That is clearly bogus and a result of societal momentum, barbie dolls, blah blah, same shit everyone already knows. It is entirely possible that 40:60 is what "true" equilibrium is, and I don't think that's a bad thing. More men should be nurses, too.
On that topic, I actually would really like to see more effort to normalize men in female dominated positions, such as nursing.
|
On August 11 2017 05:35 Mohdoo wrote:
The thing is, I don't think anyone in these HR-women-stuff positions actually expects women and men will occupy every position 50:50. I think it is important to recognize that 50:50 is not the goal. The goal is to not have 3:1. That is clearly bogus and a result of societal momentum, barbie dolls, blah blah, same shit everyone already knows. It is entirely possible that 40:60 is what "true" equilibrium is, and I don't think that's a bad thing. More men should be nurses, too.
On that topic, I actually would really like to see more effort to normalize men in female dominated positions, such as nursing.
Hospitals are working hard to make nursing less about caring for people and more about numbers, so that change is probably well underway. LOL.
|
In the specific case of Intel, they are shooting for 40% women. The details of their program are public. But at 2% per year, they would be there in less than 10 years.
|
On August 11 2017 05:31 a_flayer wrote:
I don't know. What kind of percentages would a company of that size usually replace over a 3 year period? My numbers are probably off, but based on the 2% increase in female employees, wouldn't they have replaced only 4% of their employees if their new hires are split 50/50 amongst the genders? That seems low to me.
And Alphabet Inc should obvious be more transparent.
In relative terms that's a 10% increase in female hires, which seems pretty significant at a company of that size where 10% isn't going to be 1 or 2 or even 20 people. Was the number supposed to jump to 35-40% in a couple years? Especially in the context of this largely being a societal/cultural problem which will take generations of young women growing up and educating themselves with different aspirations than the ones raising them?
|
On August 11 2017 04:53 Wulfey_LA wrote: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/
What a sad, sad administration. It will be ineffective so long as Trump is at the top. It's pretty clear by now that he can't effectively lead it.
|
Why is it a societal problem now and a sexist problem when we were discussing that guy at Alphabet?
|
US society and culture is still deeply sexist.
|
|
|
What's the definition of sexist nowadays?
|
On August 11 2017 05:31 a_flayer wrote:
I don't know. What kind of percentages would a company of that size usually replace over a 3 year period? My numbers are probably off, but based on the 2% increase in female employees, wouldn't they have replaced only 4% of their employees if their new hires are split 50/50 amongst the genders? That seems low to me.
And Alphabet Inc should obvious be more transparent.
Your numbers are off.
The way it works is the following: They replace x % of their N employees, and lets assume the once that they don't keep are chosen in a gender-neutral way. So If there are at a 23.5% female employees, 23.5% of those fired are female. This group gets replaced by a 50/50 split group of new hires.
Before the swap your have 0.235*N female employees and 0.765N male employee. After the swap, you have
0.235*(N-x*N) females left from before, and add an additional 0.5*x*N females on top. Thus, they now have
=(0.235*(1-x)+0.5*x) N females for a ratio of 0.235+0.265x. Assuming an end result of 0.258, this leads to an x of 8.7%.
The problem with your calculation is that not all of the people who were exchanged are male. If you don't swap all at once, the result becomes even worse, because after each new employee exchanged, the ratio of females is increased, and thus the amount of females fired also increases.
It becomes slightly different to calculate if you assume that the amount of people before and after this period is not the same. New hires are even less effective at increasing the ratio than exchanged people, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
