|
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. |
On August 11 2017 06:20 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 06:12 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 11 2017 06:08 Nyxisto wrote:On August 11 2017 06:02 Jockmcplop wrote:
This is why I said earlier that more effort and money should be put into trying to research the gender differences between men and women, where the average strengths and weaknesses of each lie, and tailoring society to that, rather than to some desire for men and women to be exactly equally proficient at every task regardless of the reality we live in.
You don't use research to reinforce existing barriers, you use it to break them up. It's scientifically true that men have a higher propensity to alcoholism and higher suicide success rates. Clearly we don't draw any normative conclusions from this right? Given that few people I've ever met want to work in Talyoresque monocultures the task of research in this field should be how to use evidence to make industries more diverse in a successful way. Putting peoplle into neat little biological buckets is a 19th century Victorian fantasy. If its scientifically true that men have a higher propensity to alcoholism and higher suicide rates,would it be sexist to spend more money on alcoholism and suicide awareness aimed at men? Nope not at all and I don't think anybody would say that it is. We'd say that men engage in more risky behaviour, that this is evidently bad for their health and that we would try to figure out how to do something against it. Likewise, diversity is about figuring out why different groups (not just women but also ethnicities, members of religions, social classes and so forth) have a hard time participating in successful industries and how we're going to make that better.
I agree for sure. I'm all for figuring out why, I just think people should keep an open mind as to the evidence, because from what I've seen in this thread recently the science becomes pseudoscience if it doesn't agree with a certain predetermined political viewpoint.
I've seen science denigrated twice in the last few pages, with the 'thin veneer of science' comment about the original 'manifesto' (science is just science, there's no thin veneer about it, data is what it is) and the Jordan Peterson pseudoscience comment, a former Harvard professor who taught evolutionary psychology is now a pseudoscientist because he is conservative.
|
Trump is starting to lose me y'all. He started firmly into infuriatingly stupid and now we're starting to slip into comically stupid territory.
|
On August 11 2017 06:25 Nebuchad wrote:
Trump is starting to lose me y'all. He started firmly into infuriatingly stupid and now we're starting to slip into comically stupid territory.
We're past that, currently we're at the dangerously stupid level.
|
On August 11 2017 06:12 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 06:08 Nyxisto wrote:On August 11 2017 06:02 Jockmcplop wrote:
This is why I said earlier that more effort and money should be put into trying to research the gender differences between men and women, where the average strengths and weaknesses of each lie, and tailoring society to that, rather than to some desire for men and women to be exactly equally proficient at every task regardless of the reality we live in.
You don't use research to reinforce existing barriers, you use it to break them up. It's scientifically true that men have a higher propensity to alcoholism and higher suicide success rates. Clearly we don't draw any normative conclusions from this right? Given that few people I've ever met want to work in Talyoresque monocultures the task of research in this field should be how to use evidence to make industries more diverse in a successful way. Putting peoplle into neat little biological buckets is a 19th century Victorian fantasy. If its scientifically true that men have a higher propensity to alcoholism and higher suicide rates,would it be sexist to spend more money on alcoholism and suicide awareness aimed at men?Don't women deserve those resources too? This is exactly what I mean by tailoring society to take account of our strengths and weaknesses. I'm not arguing in favour of barriers, I'm arguing against the unrealistic expectation of homogeneity.
No, but these issues exist for societal-sexist reasons. Men's value as a person is largely dependent on their ability to care for a family, provide, and generally be "successful". A husband losing his job is significantly more likely to result in divorce than the same happening to a wife. There are a million ways that men are expected to be something they plain and simply are not. Men not having the freedom to be nearly as emotionally expressive as women leads to a lot of built up emotional issues. Because society has forced men into a very stressful position in society, they suffer in ways that relate to that.
Similarly, society's typical place for women creates an atmosphere where women do not feel as inclined to pursue STEM.
It is important to keep in mind that not too long ago, we treated blacks as sub-human. Women got the right to vote less than a hundred years ago. Our society is still working out a lot of kinks from how things used to be. Men are over-stressed, emotionally silenced, told they are only as good as their ability to provide and protect. Women are underestimated, gently pushed towards certain careers and are generally less trusted for stressful work than men. These are left over side effects from a different time. It is important that society works to untangle the knots we developed along the way.
|
United States43646 Posts
If you didn't want those diplomats anyway Trump, why'd you have them? Why didn't you dismiss them?
If a bully stole Trump's lunch money he'd insist that he was trying to lose weight.
|
Is it now finally the time that the Republicans remove him for incompetence? How much further does he need to go
It's like he wants to be removed from office to get out of 'that dump' of the white house and return to his old ways with no responsibilities. Nobody can say something like this and be convinced he's is correct. I just can't buy it. It's too far.
|
On August 11 2017 06:24 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 06:20 Nyxisto wrote:On August 11 2017 06:12 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 11 2017 06:08 Nyxisto wrote:On August 11 2017 06:02 Jockmcplop wrote:
This is why I said earlier that more effort and money should be put into trying to research the gender differences between men and women, where the average strengths and weaknesses of each lie, and tailoring society to that, rather than to some desire for men and women to be exactly equally proficient at every task regardless of the reality we live in.
You don't use research to reinforce existing barriers, you use it to break them up. It's scientifically true that men have a higher propensity to alcoholism and higher suicide success rates. Clearly we don't draw any normative conclusions from this right? Given that few people I've ever met want to work in Talyoresque monocultures the task of research in this field should be how to use evidence to make industries more diverse in a successful way. Putting peoplle into neat little biological buckets is a 19th century Victorian fantasy. If its scientifically true that men have a higher propensity to alcoholism and higher suicide rates,would it be sexist to spend more money on alcoholism and suicide awareness aimed at men? Nope not at all and I don't think anybody would say that it is. We'd say that men engage in more risky behaviour, that this is evidently bad for their health and that we would try to figure out how to do something against it. Likewise, diversity is about figuring out why different groups (not just women but also ethnicities, members of religions, social classes and so forth) have a hard time participating in successful industries and how we're going to make that better. I agree for sure. I'm all for figuring out why, I just think people should keep an open mind as to the evidence, because from what I've seen in this thread recently the science becomes pseudoscience if it doesn't agree with a certain predetermined political viewpoint. I've seen science denigrated twice in the last few pages, with the 'thin veneer of science' comment about the original 'manifesto' (science is just science, there's no thin veneer about it, data is what it is) and the Jordan Peterson pseudoscience comment, a former Harvard professor who taught evolutionary psychology is now a pseudoscientist because he is conservative.
But this is how they framed it themselves. The manifesto included rants about Marxists and political correctness, 'ideological diversity', free speech at Google and whatnot. If the guy just wanted to recommend how google can improve its efforts instead of turning it into a political culture war, he could have spared himself a lot of trouble.
Likewise the Peterson guy is clearly using his heated audience to do the same.
|
On August 11 2017 06:24 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 06:20 Nyxisto wrote:On August 11 2017 06:12 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 11 2017 06:08 Nyxisto wrote:On August 11 2017 06:02 Jockmcplop wrote:
This is why I said earlier that more effort and money should be put into trying to research the gender differences between men and women, where the average strengths and weaknesses of each lie, and tailoring society to that, rather than to some desire for men and women to be exactly equally proficient at every task regardless of the reality we live in.
You don't use research to reinforce existing barriers, you use it to break them up. It's scientifically true that men have a higher propensity to alcoholism and higher suicide success rates. Clearly we don't draw any normative conclusions from this right? Given that few people I've ever met want to work in Talyoresque monocultures the task of research in this field should be how to use evidence to make industries more diverse in a successful way. Putting peoplle into neat little biological buckets is a 19th century Victorian fantasy. If its scientifically true that men have a higher propensity to alcoholism and higher suicide rates,would it be sexist to spend more money on alcoholism and suicide awareness aimed at men? Nope not at all and I don't think anybody would say that it is. We'd say that men engage in more risky behaviour, that this is evidently bad for their health and that we would try to figure out how to do something against it. Likewise, diversity is about figuring out why different groups (not just women but also ethnicities, members of religions, social classes and so forth) have a hard time participating in successful industries and how we're going to make that better. I agree for sure. I'm all for figuring out why, I just think people should keep an open mind as to the evidence, because from what I've seen in this thread recently the science becomes pseudoscience if it doesn't agree with a certain predetermined political viewpoint. I've seen science denigrated twice in the last few pages, with the 'thin veneer of science' comment about the original 'manifesto' (science is just science, there's no thin veneer about it, data is what it is) and the Jordan Peterson pseudoscience comment, a former Harvard professor who taught evolutionary psychology is now a pseudoscientist because he is conservative.
Science is a tool and results should not be ignored. But we should be critical of how broadly they are applied. But there is a long history of science being used to justify everything including rape.
http://gizmodo.com/men-have-always-used-science-to-explain-why-theyre-bett-1797608461
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178900000422
https://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2012/06/quick-study-satoshi-kanazawa-intelligence
There are some other, far more amazing theories out there. Gizmodo pulled together a few.
Science should not be used as a talismanic ward against criticism of how scientific findings are applied.
|
On August 11 2017 06:30 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 06:12 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 11 2017 06:08 Nyxisto wrote:On August 11 2017 06:02 Jockmcplop wrote:
This is why I said earlier that more effort and money should be put into trying to research the gender differences between men and women, where the average strengths and weaknesses of each lie, and tailoring society to that, rather than to some desire for men and women to be exactly equally proficient at every task regardless of the reality we live in.
You don't use research to reinforce existing barriers, you use it to break them up. It's scientifically true that men have a higher propensity to alcoholism and higher suicide success rates. Clearly we don't draw any normative conclusions from this right? Given that few people I've ever met want to work in Talyoresque monocultures the task of research in this field should be how to use evidence to make industries more diverse in a successful way. Putting peoplle into neat little biological buckets is a 19th century Victorian fantasy. If its scientifically true that men have a higher propensity to alcoholism and higher suicide rates,would it be sexist to spend more money on alcoholism and suicide awareness aimed at men?Don't women deserve those resources too? This is exactly what I mean by tailoring society to take account of our strengths and weaknesses. I'm not arguing in favour of barriers, I'm arguing against the unrealistic expectation of homogeneity. No, but these issues exist for societal-sexist reasons. Men's value as a person is largely dependent on their ability to care for a family, provide, and generally be "successful". A husband losing his job is significantly more likely to result in divorce than the same happening to a wife. There are a million ways that men are expected to be something they plain and simply are not. Men not having the freedom to be nearly as emotionally expressive as women leads to a lot of built up emotional issues. Because society has forced men into a very stressful position in society, they suffer in ways that relate to that. Similarly, society's typical place for women creates an atmosphere where women do not feel as inclined to pursue STEM.
I think we're mostly agreed here, but its important to ask why when society is deciding how to tweak its system. Why are things like they are and is there a positive we aren't thinking about?
Earlier you were talking about progress as a society. Surely that progress is itself linked to the pressure that is put on men to be something that in many cases they are not.
I think society should have more tolerance and respect for individual differences between people of certain groups, we should encourage men and women to do what they want to do and try to remove barriers. I just don't think we should assume that every issue of inequality is due to barriers and not average innate differences.
To admit,as a society, that women on average have different characteristics to men, and that some of these are biological in nature, is just a case of not closing your eyes to the science. It doesn't mean we have to erect barriers because of this knowledge, far from it, it simply means that when deciding what we are aiming for we can do so in an informed and sensible way.
|
On August 11 2017 06:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 06:24 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 11 2017 06:20 Nyxisto wrote:On August 11 2017 06:12 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 11 2017 06:08 Nyxisto wrote:On August 11 2017 06:02 Jockmcplop wrote:
This is why I said earlier that more effort and money should be put into trying to research the gender differences between men and women, where the average strengths and weaknesses of each lie, and tailoring society to that, rather than to some desire for men and women to be exactly equally proficient at every task regardless of the reality we live in.
You don't use research to reinforce existing barriers, you use it to break them up. It's scientifically true that men have a higher propensity to alcoholism and higher suicide success rates. Clearly we don't draw any normative conclusions from this right? Given that few people I've ever met want to work in Talyoresque monocultures the task of research in this field should be how to use evidence to make industries more diverse in a successful way. Putting peoplle into neat little biological buckets is a 19th century Victorian fantasy. If its scientifically true that men have a higher propensity to alcoholism and higher suicide rates,would it be sexist to spend more money on alcoholism and suicide awareness aimed at men? Nope not at all and I don't think anybody would say that it is. We'd say that men engage in more risky behaviour, that this is evidently bad for their health and that we would try to figure out how to do something against it. Likewise, diversity is about figuring out why different groups (not just women but also ethnicities, members of religions, social classes and so forth) have a hard time participating in successful industries and how we're going to make that better. I agree for sure. I'm all for figuring out why, I just think people should keep an open mind as to the evidence, because from what I've seen in this thread recently the science becomes pseudoscience if it doesn't agree with a certain predetermined political viewpoint. I've seen science denigrated twice in the last few pages, with the 'thin veneer of science' comment about the original 'manifesto' (science is just science, there's no thin veneer about it, data is what it is) and the Jordan Peterson pseudoscience comment, a former Harvard professor who taught evolutionary psychology is now a pseudoscientist because he is conservative. Science is a tool and results should not be ignored. But we should be critical of how broadly they are applied. But there is a long history of science being used to justify everything including rape. http://gizmodo.com/men-have-always-used-science-to-explain-why-theyre-bett-1797608461http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178900000422https://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2012/06/quick-study-satoshi-kanazawa-intelligenceThere are some other, far more amazing theories out there. Gizmodo pulled together a few. Science should not be used as a talismanic ward against criticism of how scientific findings are applied.
Was that memo denying that something should be done? Or did it offer workable suggestions that could facilitate changes for the better? Seems like an appropriate application of the scientific findings that were cited. I wasn't on board 100% with the memo, but to discredit it as thoroughly as you seemingly want to discredit it seems unjust to me.
|
On August 11 2017 06:38 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 06:24 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 11 2017 06:20 Nyxisto wrote:On August 11 2017 06:12 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 11 2017 06:08 Nyxisto wrote:On August 11 2017 06:02 Jockmcplop wrote:
This is why I said earlier that more effort and money should be put into trying to research the gender differences between men and women, where the average strengths and weaknesses of each lie, and tailoring society to that, rather than to some desire for men and women to be exactly equally proficient at every task regardless of the reality we live in.
You don't use research to reinforce existing barriers, you use it to break them up. It's scientifically true that men have a higher propensity to alcoholism and higher suicide success rates. Clearly we don't draw any normative conclusions from this right? Given that few people I've ever met want to work in Talyoresque monocultures the task of research in this field should be how to use evidence to make industries more diverse in a successful way. Putting peoplle into neat little biological buckets is a 19th century Victorian fantasy. If its scientifically true that men have a higher propensity to alcoholism and higher suicide rates,would it be sexist to spend more money on alcoholism and suicide awareness aimed at men? Nope not at all and I don't think anybody would say that it is. We'd say that men engage in more risky behaviour, that this is evidently bad for their health and that we would try to figure out how to do something against it. Likewise, diversity is about figuring out why different groups (not just women but also ethnicities, members of religions, social classes and so forth) have a hard time participating in successful industries and how we're going to make that better. I agree for sure. I'm all for figuring out why, I just think people should keep an open mind as to the evidence, because from what I've seen in this thread recently the science becomes pseudoscience if it doesn't agree with a certain predetermined political viewpoint. I've seen science denigrated twice in the last few pages, with the 'thin veneer of science' comment about the original 'manifesto' (science is just science, there's no thin veneer about it, data is what it is) and the Jordan Peterson pseudoscience comment, a former Harvard professor who taught evolutionary psychology is now a pseudoscientist because he is conservative. But this is how they framed it themselves. The manifesto included rants about Marxists and political correctness, 'ideological diversity', free speech at Google and whatnot. If the guy just wanted to recommend how google can improve its efforts instead of turning it into a political culture war, he could have spared himself a lot of trouble. Likewise the Peterson guy is clearly using his heated audience to do the same.
On August 11 2017 06:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 06:24 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 11 2017 06:20 Nyxisto wrote:On August 11 2017 06:12 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 11 2017 06:08 Nyxisto wrote:On August 11 2017 06:02 Jockmcplop wrote:
This is why I said earlier that more effort and money should be put into trying to research the gender differences between men and women, where the average strengths and weaknesses of each lie, and tailoring society to that, rather than to some desire for men and women to be exactly equally proficient at every task regardless of the reality we live in.
You don't use research to reinforce existing barriers, you use it to break them up. It's scientifically true that men have a higher propensity to alcoholism and higher suicide success rates. Clearly we don't draw any normative conclusions from this right? Given that few people I've ever met want to work in Talyoresque monocultures the task of research in this field should be how to use evidence to make industries more diverse in a successful way. Putting peoplle into neat little biological buckets is a 19th century Victorian fantasy. If its scientifically true that men have a higher propensity to alcoholism and higher suicide rates,would it be sexist to spend more money on alcoholism and suicide awareness aimed at men? Nope not at all and I don't think anybody would say that it is. We'd say that men engage in more risky behaviour, that this is evidently bad for their health and that we would try to figure out how to do something against it. Likewise, diversity is about figuring out why different groups (not just women but also ethnicities, members of religions, social classes and so forth) have a hard time participating in successful industries and how we're going to make that better. I agree for sure. I'm all for figuring out why, I just think people should keep an open mind as to the evidence, because from what I've seen in this thread recently the science becomes pseudoscience if it doesn't agree with a certain predetermined political viewpoint. I've seen science denigrated twice in the last few pages, with the 'thin veneer of science' comment about the original 'manifesto' (science is just science, there's no thin veneer about it, data is what it is) and the Jordan Peterson pseudoscience comment, a former Harvard professor who taught evolutionary psychology is now a pseudoscientist because he is conservative. Science is a tool and results should not be ignored. But we should be critical of how broadly they are applied. But there is a long history of science being used to justify everything including rape. http://gizmodo.com/men-have-always-used-science-to-explain-why-theyre-bett-1797608461http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178900000422https://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2012/06/quick-study-satoshi-kanazawa-intelligenceThere are some other, far more amazing theories out there. Gizmodo pulled together a few. Science should not be used as a talismanic ward against criticism of how scientific findings are applied.
Yep I agree with both, which is why its important to separate the science from the politics as much as possible. The whole political culture war is counter productive because science makes a similar point without the war,and much more effectively.
Although Plansix, that gizmodo article is just stupid. If women want to use science to explain why they're better than men then they should just do that. Its written from that typical 'all men are pigs' point of view that is frankly just a tired, worn out cliche and false to boot.
|
On August 11 2017 06:20 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 06:12 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 11 2017 06:08 Nyxisto wrote:On August 11 2017 06:02 Jockmcplop wrote:
This is why I said earlier that more effort and money should be put into trying to research the gender differences between men and women, where the average strengths and weaknesses of each lie, and tailoring society to that, rather than to some desire for men and women to be exactly equally proficient at every task regardless of the reality we live in.
You don't use research to reinforce existing barriers, you use it to break them up. It's scientifically true that men have a higher propensity to alcoholism and higher suicide success rates. Clearly we don't draw any normative conclusions from this right? Given that few people I've ever met want to work in Talyoresque monocultures the task of research in this field should be how to use evidence to make industries more diverse in a successful way. Putting peoplle into neat little biological buckets is a 19th century Victorian fantasy. If its scientifically true that men have a higher propensity to alcoholism and higher suicide rates,would it be sexist to spend more money on alcoholism and suicide awareness aimed at men? Nope not at all and I don't think anybody would say that it is. We'd say that men engage in more risky behaviour, that this is evidently bad for their health and that we would try to figure out how to do something against it. Likewise, diversity is about figuring out why different groups (not just women but also ethnicities, members of religions, social classes and so forth) have a hard time participating in successful industries and how we're going to make that better.
Or perhaps the men have some agency and believe that taking risks leads to a more enjoyable life, even at the potential cost of bodily harm? Do you now see the issue with starting programs trying to persuade them to take less risks?
Or what if a trait (or combination of traits) like "willingness to take risks" that you acknowledge is different between the sexes also leads to higher performance in software engineering? Wouldn't that lead to the distribution of male software engineering performance being shifted to the right on the number line? And if you have a cutoff on the number line (i.e., roughly an employee screening process) at a, it would show more males past a than females. Note that says nothing about whether a random female greater than a has higher or lower performance than a random male greater than a.
I'm (and Damore, from what I understand) not saying that this is necessarily the case, but it's a legitimate possibility. In reality, the gender gap is probably partly due to discrimination, and partly due to the two factors above. But ignoring the two factors above and blindly asserting that all of the gender gap is due to discrimination is putting ideology over reason, which isn't going to help women or Google in the long run.
My understanding of progressives is that they deny the second factor could be true at all, and that even suggesting the second factor could exist is sexist.
On August 11 2017 06:38 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 06:24 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 11 2017 06:20 Nyxisto wrote:On August 11 2017 06:12 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 11 2017 06:08 Nyxisto wrote:On August 11 2017 06:02 Jockmcplop wrote:
This is why I said earlier that more effort and money should be put into trying to research the gender differences between men and women, where the average strengths and weaknesses of each lie, and tailoring society to that, rather than to some desire for men and women to be exactly equally proficient at every task regardless of the reality we live in.
You don't use research to reinforce existing barriers, you use it to break them up. It's scientifically true that men have a higher propensity to alcoholism and higher suicide success rates. Clearly we don't draw any normative conclusions from this right? Given that few people I've ever met want to work in Talyoresque monocultures the task of research in this field should be how to use evidence to make industries more diverse in a successful way. Putting peoplle into neat little biological buckets is a 19th century Victorian fantasy. If its scientifically true that men have a higher propensity to alcoholism and higher suicide rates,would it be sexist to spend more money on alcoholism and suicide awareness aimed at men? Nope not at all and I don't think anybody would say that it is. We'd say that men engage in more risky behaviour, that this is evidently bad for their health and that we would try to figure out how to do something against it. Likewise, diversity is about figuring out why different groups (not just women but also ethnicities, members of religions, social classes and so forth) have a hard time participating in successful industries and how we're going to make that better. I agree for sure. I'm all for figuring out why, I just think people should keep an open mind as to the evidence, because from what I've seen in this thread recently the science becomes pseudoscience if it doesn't agree with a certain predetermined political viewpoint. I've seen science denigrated twice in the last few pages, with the 'thin veneer of science' comment about the original 'manifesto' (science is just science, there's no thin veneer about it, data is what it is) and the Jordan Peterson pseudoscience comment, a former Harvard professor who taught evolutionary psychology is now a pseudoscientist because he is conservative. But this is how they framed it themselves. The manifesto included rants about Marxists and political correctness, 'ideological diversity', free speech at Google and whatnot. If the guy just wanted to recommend how google can improve its efforts instead of turning it into a political culture war, he could have spared himself a lot of trouble.
The Marxist comment was in a footnote. Criticizing the entire memo over a footnote sounds more to me like looking for problems in the memo because you disagree with its ideology, rather than actually caring about the content. Likewise, the political correctness "rant" was one sentence, and totally tangential to the rest of Damore's points.
|
Canada11439 Posts
On August 11 2017 06:17 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 06:02 a_flayer wrote:
Also, it appears that Google had 31% female employees in 2015. That's more than Intel has even now. This is whole thing of equal gender representation is falling apart really quickly for me.
Wages are another problem, with other root causes, of course. The thing is you keep saying “equal” and 50/50, but I keep pointing out that the goal is more. More women. Not equal women. Just more. More resumes. More interviews. It seems to be a basic misconception with these diversity pushes, that the goal is to have 50/50 men and women. That isn't really the goal.
Isn't it? How will we know when we arrived in a non-sexist society? Some undefinable 'more' than we have now? One one hand it seems a more reasonable expectation: 'we don't want 50/50 necessarily, we just want more.' But that makes both the problem and the solution even more mercurial. If the goal isn't 50/50, how do we even know there is a problem? And in which case, why was Damore so out of line with his thinking?
re: whoever wrote about male nurses.
I mean that's great if men want to become nurses. But when we say 'there should be more male nurses'. And everyone says, "Right. More male nurses, that's the thing." But then the ratio 90/10 doesn't change much, or maybe it changes to 80/20 and then stabilizes as the new norm, would you be okay with that? Because I don't want to be a nurse and I'm not about to switch careers to balance out a gender imbalance ratio. And if you don't want to be a nurse, even with a skewed gender ratio... then what's the problem? We freely chose our occupation and we didn't want to be nurses and women continue to dominate the nursing profession. I think it's great that people want more men to be nurses, but if men themselves aren't wanting to sign up in record numbers, I'm not going to get all twisted up and think there's something wrong with society. They chose what they wanted to choose, as did I.
|
the way i look at it is we are on a big experiment as a society. companies like google and intel are pushing for more women in their workforces, and we aren't really sure what will happen or how the companies will perform as a result but hell it's kinda exciting.
also, reminder that coding was a woman's job once upon a time. but then it got cool.
|
Incidentally, I recall a study from last year that indicated women's code is accepted more than that of men (by a small margin, and only if the women have proven themselves - that last bit being an indication of some level of sexism, I'd say).
|
On August 11 2017 06:33 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Is it now finally the time that the Republicans remove him for incompetence? How much further does he need to go
It's like he wants to be removed from office to get out of 'that dump' of the white house and return to his old ways with no responsibilities. Nobody can say something like this and be convinced he's is correct. I just can't buy it. It's too far.
he needs to go quite aways further last I looked at the numbers. In particular he needs to aggravate his base more, rather than simply aggravating reasonable people.
|
On August 11 2017 06:45 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 06:17 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 06:02 a_flayer wrote:
Also, it appears that Google had 31% female employees in 2015. That's more than Intel has even now. This is whole thing of equal gender representation is falling apart really quickly for me.
Wages are another problem, with other root causes, of course. The thing is you keep saying “equal” and 50/50, but I keep pointing out that the goal is more. More women. Not equal women. Just more. More resumes. More interviews. It seems to be a basic misconception with these diversity pushes, that the goal is to have 50/50 men and women. That isn't really the goal. Isn't it? How will we know when we arrived in a non-sexist society? Some undefinable 'more' than we have now? One one hand it seems a more reasonable expectation: 'we don't want 50/50 necessarily, we just want more.' But that makes both the problem and the solution even more mercurial. If the goal isn't 50/50, how do we even know there is a problem? And in which case, why was Damore so out of line with his thinking?
Are we not bouncing between impossible and not a problem? If the goal is 50/50, it is an unreasonable metric that does not take into account natural biases. If it isn’t 50/50, then the problem might not be a problem and people are naturally gravitating toward their preferred job. Why does the goal need to be that prescriptive? Why can’t it be that the hiring of a company should try to be more reflective of the population exists around it? Just try. Make the effort to do so and try to explore ways that may be limiting women or minorities entering their company. We do not need to prescribe, we can simply aspire toward diversity in work places.
|
On August 11 2017 06:57 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 06:45 Falling wrote:On August 11 2017 06:17 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 06:02 a_flayer wrote:
Also, it appears that Google had 31% female employees in 2015. That's more than Intel has even now. This is whole thing of equal gender representation is falling apart really quickly for me.
Wages are another problem, with other root causes, of course. The thing is you keep saying “equal” and 50/50, but I keep pointing out that the goal is more. More women. Not equal women. Just more. More resumes. More interviews. It seems to be a basic misconception with these diversity pushes, that the goal is to have 50/50 men and women. That isn't really the goal. Isn't it? How will we know when we arrived in a non-sexist society? Some undefinable 'more' than we have now? One one hand it seems a more reasonable expectation: 'we don't want 50/50 necessarily, we just want more.' But that makes both the problem and the solution even more mercurial. If the goal isn't 50/50, how do we even know there is a problem? And in which case, why was Damore so out of line with his thinking? Are we not bouncing between impossible and not a problem? If the goal is 50/50, it is an unreasonable metric that does not take into account natural biases. If it isn’t 50/50, then the problem might not be a problem and people are naturally gravitating toward their preferred job. Why does the goal need to be that prescriptive? Why can’t it be that the hiring of a company should try to be more reflective of the population exists around it? Just try. Make the effort to do so and try to explore ways that may be limiting women or minorities entering their company. We do not need to prescribe, we can simply aspire toward diversity in work places.
Oh, now you want to explore possibilities. Perhaps possibilities like the suggestions in the memo could be part of that exploration? No? Fire him instead, you say? Because of a lawsuit and other certain circumstances? Or why exactly? Because of political circumstances? Exactly like he said?
|
On August 11 2017 07:03 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 06:57 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 06:45 Falling wrote:On August 11 2017 06:17 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 06:02 a_flayer wrote:
Also, it appears that Google had 31% female employees in 2015. That's more than Intel has even now. This is whole thing of equal gender representation is falling apart really quickly for me.
Wages are another problem, with other root causes, of course. The thing is you keep saying “equal” and 50/50, but I keep pointing out that the goal is more. More women. Not equal women. Just more. More resumes. More interviews. It seems to be a basic misconception with these diversity pushes, that the goal is to have 50/50 men and women. That isn't really the goal. Isn't it? How will we know when we arrived in a non-sexist society? Some undefinable 'more' than we have now? One one hand it seems a more reasonable expectation: 'we don't want 50/50 necessarily, we just want more.' But that makes both the problem and the solution even more mercurial. If the goal isn't 50/50, how do we even know there is a problem? And in which case, why was Damore so out of line with his thinking? Are we not bouncing between impossible and not a problem? If the goal is 50/50, it is an unreasonable metric that does not take into account natural biases. If it isn’t 50/50, then the problem might not be a problem and people are naturally gravitating toward their preferred job. Why does the goal need to be that prescriptive? Why can’t it be that the hiring of a company should try to be more reflective of the population exists around it? Just try. Make the effort to do so and try to explore ways that may be limiting women or minorities entering their company. We do not need to prescribe, we can simply aspire toward diversity in work places. Oh, now you want to explore possibilities. Perhaps possibilities like the suggestions in the memo could be part of that exploration? No? Fire him instead, you say? Because of a lawsuit and other certain circumstances? Or why exactly? Because of political circumstances? Exactly like he said?
Sure, if you are comfortable with the idea that companies might decide it is complete horse shit and filled with poorly applied science?
Edit: Do you truly believe the memo was the only reason he was let go? That there were not other internal issues that we are not fully aware of. Every professional in this thread has said they would never have sent that memo. Is it possible that maybe this wasn't his first delve into behavior that was not appropriate for the work place?
|
On August 11 2017 06:20 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 05:54 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
this is a real presidential statement
based Putin saving murica thank you based Putin No puppet btw On video, he's not even sarcastic in the slightest
Any bets for whether Trump downsizing the State Department is a concession to Putin since he couldn't life the sanctions. Trump can never say anything bad about Putin or his actions, under the terms of the pee tape blackmail, so this statement is in keeping with that and affirming his service to Putin in downsizing the State Department.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
