Utopia Talk / Politics / Nim - Google memo

Seb Member	Sun Aug 20 07:18:52 This is a very long piece with a thorough debunking of the whole "scientific" basis of the memo. I can't recall your position on that, but it also applies to your supposed scientific basis for race differences in behaviour. If you are serious about "not wanting" to believe this stuff, but feel compelled to on the basis of the science, this might help you. https://medium.com/@tweetingmouse/the-truth-has-got-its-boots-on-what-the-evidence-says-about-mr-damores-google-memo-bc93c8b2fdb9
jergul large member	Sun Aug 20 11:00:03 http://med...mores-google-memo-bc93c8b2fdb9
pillz Member	Sun Aug 20 11:06:23 https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manifesto-isnt-sexist-or-anti-diversity-its-science/article35903359/ No, the Google manifesto isn’t sexist or anti-diversity. It’s science DEBRA SOH Special to The Globe and Mail Published Tuesday, Aug. 08, 2017 2:42PM EDT Last updated Tuesday, Aug. 08, 2017 5:36PM EDT By now, most of us have heard about Google’s so-called “anti-diversity” manifesto and how James Damore, the engineer who wrote it, has been fired from his job. Titled Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber, Mr. Damore called out the current PC culture, saying the gender gap in Google’s diversity was not due to discrimination, but inherent differences in what men and women find interesting. Danielle Brown, Google’s newly appointed vice-president for diversity, integrity and governance, accused the memo of advancing “incorrect assumptions about gender,” and Mr. Damore confirmed last night he was fired for “perpetuating gender stereotypes.” Despite how it’s been portrayed, the memo was fair and factually accurate. Scientific studies have confirmed sex differences in the brain that lead to differences in our interests and behaviour. As mentioned in the memo, gendered interests are predicted by exposure to prenatal testosterone – higher levels are associated with a preference for mechanically interesting things and occupations in adulthood. Lower levels are associated with a preference for people-oriented activities and occupations. This is why STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields tend to be dominated by men. We see evidence for this in girls with a genetic condition called congenital adrenal hyperplasia, who are exposed to unusually high levels of testosterone in the womb. When they are born, these girls prefer male-typical, wheeled toys, such as trucks, even if their parents offer more positive feedback when they play with female-typical toys, such as dolls. Similarly, men who are interested in female-typical activities were likely exposed to lower levels of testosterone. As well, new research from the field of genetics shows that testosterone alters the programming of neural stem cells, leading to sex differences in the brain even before it’s finished developing in utero. This further suggests that our interests are influenced strongly by biology, as opposed to being learned or socially constructed. Many people, including a former Google employee, have attempted to refute the memo’s points, alleging that they contradict the latest research. I’d love to know what “research done […] for decades” he’s referring to, because thousands of studies would suggest otherwise. A single study, published in 2015, did claim that male and female brains existed along a “mosaic” and that it isn’t possible to differentiate them by sex, but this has been refuted by four – yes, four – academic studies since. This includes a study that analyzed the exact same brain data from the original study and found that the sex of a given brain could be correctly identified with 69-per-cent to 77-per-cent accuracy. Of course, differences exist at the individual level, and this doesn’t mean environment plays no role in shaping us. But to claim that there are no differences between the sexes when looking at group averages, or that culture has greater influence than biology, simply isn’t true. In fact, research has shown that cultures with greater gender equity have larger sex differences when it comes to job preferences, because in these societies, people are free to choose their occupations based on what they enjoy. As the memo suggests, seeking to fulfill a 50-per-cent quota of women in STEM is unrealistic. As gender equity continues to improve in developing societies, we should expect to see this gender gap widen. This trend continues into the area of personality, as well. Contrary to what detractors would have you believe, women are, on average, higher in neuroticism and agreeableness, and lower in stress tolerance. Some intentionally deny the science because they are afraid it will be used to justify keeping women out of STEM. But sexism isn’t the result of knowing facts; it’s the result of what people choose to do with them. This is exactly what the mob of outrage should be mobilizing for, instead of denying biological reality and being content to spend a weekend doxxing a man so that he would lose his job. At this point, as foreshadowed in Mr. Damore’s manifesto, we should be more concerned about viewpoint diversity than diversity revolving around gender. Debra Soh writes about the science of human sexuality and holds a PhD in sexual neuroscience from York University.
pillz Member	Sun Aug 20 11:13:55 https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/08/10/the-google-memo-what-does-the-research-say-about-gender-differences/
jergul large member	Sun Aug 20 11:17:02 http://het...-say-about-gender-differences/
jergul large member	Sun Aug 20 11:17:26 You both suck at links.
Seb Member	Sun Aug 20 11:28:07 Its not science Pillz. Read the article I posted, it does a very good takedown. "Scientific studies have confirmed sex differences in the brain that lead to differences in our interests and behaviour." I'd encourage you to read the article I posted that addresses that. There is a lot to unpack in that glib statement. For example, we know that behaviour changes the brain - so even being able to point to differences in the brain structure between sexes doesn't clearly demonstrate that those are innate. The whole point of brains is they adapt. There is a tendency (particularly amoung computer geeks) to erroneously impose a hardware/software divide on the brain. There's also all the stuff on hormone receptors etc. But I'm not going to re-hash it, it's all well documented. This is what I meant when I told Nim he was engaging in cargo cult science - essentially you are hawking around for supporting references and failing to critically evaluate or even interpret them properly because of the hidden assumptions in your own thinking. I.e. "does a physical difference in the brain necessarily prove an innate differences between sexes". Because you are so keen to "prove" there is an innate differences between sexes, you have failed to interrogate whether a difference in brain structure can prove that or not.
Seb Member	Sun Aug 20 11:30:47 Interesting factoid on brain structures. London Cabbies (taxi drivers) are forced to learn an arduous set of route knowledge - called the knowledge. It takes several years. Brain imaging before ad after shows a dramatic increase in brain matter in areas relating to the brains processing of space and location. And we also know stroke victims brains will re-wire themselves to try and compensate for lost function. And we know persistent stress will cause changes in brain structure and function. etc. etc. So, being able to tell what is different in male and female brain structure due to them being biologically male or female vs their experiences within a society that treats male and female differently is not at all straight forward.
pillz Member	Sun Aug 20 11:30:54 Read the article I posted seb, apparently youre wrong.
Seb Member	Sun Aug 20 11:36:42 Also, being able to differentiate brains as male or female doesn't necessarily tell you much about inclination or ability. Particularly as all the research on ability and inclination (see my link) shows relatively little discriminating power, whereas being able to tell with 77% accuracy whether a brain is male or female is not consistent with those results. Instead it implies the features that do allow you to tell whether a brain comes from a man or a woman doesn't tell you that much about the sex differences of inclinations or abilities. By way of analogy, it is possible to tell the difference between sex through looking at teetth and jaw bones - it would be wrong to conclude from this that the diets of the two must therefore be different. You can't tell male or female just by taking the sample of whatever food stuff they have eaten.
Seb Member	Sun Aug 20 11:37:13 Pillz: No, the author of your article is wrong, and the reasons why have been explained thoroughly.
Seb Member	Sun Aug 20 11:42:18 For example, take your article: "We see evidence for this in girls with a genetic condition called congenital adrenal hyperplasia, who are exposed to unusually high levels of testosterone in the womb. When they are born, these girls prefer male-typical, wheeled toys, such as trucks, even if their parents offer more positive feedback when they play with female-typical toys, such as dolls. Similarly, men who are interested in female-typical activities were likely exposed to lower levels of testosterone. " For their part, babies and children begin learning the moment they enter the world, and they develop preferences based on what they learn very quickly. Indeed, one researcher found that by the age of three or four months, the babies he studied evinced a strong preference for female faces.¹⁸ It would be easy to conclude that this is because babies are biologically adapted to prefer moms, who have historically been the ones most likely to be their primary caretakers (and often, food sources). However, when the same researcher checked to see what faces babies being reared by male primary caretakers preferred, the preference was reversed: these children preferred male faces over female ones.¹⁸ Toddlers can associate toys with gender stereotypes and prefer them by the age of eighteen months,¹⁹ and in fact by eighteen months can also associate metaphorical gendered items such as bears and cats.²⁰ That’s pretty quick learning." "Well, there are two main sources for that information. One is the case of children who are genotypically XX but have something called congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), which means that one or more of the genes that produce enzymes to turn cholesterol into other steroid hormones isn’t functioning. This usually causes unusual surges in sex hormones before birth, and in XX children may result in what’s called “ambiguous genitalia”: that is, genitals that are sort of midway between the configurations we usually think of as ‘male’ or ‘female.’" ... So the idea with studies of XX CAH patients — and I’m saying that because some identify as female and some as male, and there’s a lot of individual variation there — is that they provide a case where you have an effect of a lot of testosterone prenatally (because the body is producing a bunch!) but otherwise the child is being reared as a girl, and what effects does that have on the child’s behavior? And here’s where things get hairy. First off, I’m about to get into a lot of stuff about gender identity, gender development, and the really shitty invasive ways that medical practitioners have historically treated children with these conditions in the next section. For now, note that XX children with CAH diagnosed at birth often experience a childhood involving often-traumatic quarterly or monthly doctors’ visits involving having to display their bodies to strangers and intrusive, gender-stereotyped questioning about their development.³² These studies are often described as if “experimental” and “control” patient groups are identical except for the presence of neonatal testosterone, and that is simply not the case. Even attempts to control for some upbringing effects by using XX children without CAH in the same families as XX children with it as controls³³ cannot control for these without accounting for the lived experience of intersex children, and it should go without saying that inflicting this treatment on non-intersex children would not pass an Institutional Review Board and might well be deemed a form of medicalized sexual abuse. Whether or not it should be inflicted on intersex children is an open question,³⁴ but it is worth noting that historically the opinions of adult intersex people have not been taken into account. Remember all that information about the way that parents and other adults interpret children’s behavior and treat them differently depending on perceived gender I was talking about in the cultural section? As it happens, the label adults ascribe to a child also influences how adults interpret the behavior of young children, and this includes labels like ‘intersex.’ In one study, adults asked to interpret the behavior of a video of the same child scored the child’s behaviors as significantly more masculine when told the child was male, significantly more feminine when told the child was female, and (crucially for the discussion of parental treatment of children with CAH) intermediately when told the child was intersex.³⁵ In addition, extensive literature exists on priming and on the ways in which reminding people of identity labels can change their behavior in accordance with stereotypes associated with that label.³⁶ It is therefore a little problematic to assume that the only experience that distinguishes XX children with CAH from XX children without it is the presence or absence of prenatal testosterone. Okay, so we need sources of people known to have variation in prenatal testosterone who don’t know that they have it until adulthood. Tall order. Well, the other usual source of information about developmental testosterone is people with unusual forefinger to digit ratios.³⁷ On average, the ratio of forefinger to ring finger is smaller in men than in women (although these differences vary substantially by population³⁸) and is very easy and cheap to measure, so the measurement is a popular way to study the effects of prenatal testosterone on the theory that it is a measure of developmental testosterone levels in humans. That being said, reports that digit ratio influences aggression have not been well replicated.³⁹ A 2011 meta-analysis has in fact concluded that significant associations between gendered measures of personality and digit ratio exist only in males on the left hand (!) and even in that case have effect sizes on the order of a Cohen’s d of 0.14 (see section on statistics for more on this in a minute). In addition, studies that rely on self measured digit ratios are prone to the same priming effects and issues with inter-observer reliability mentioned earlier.⁴⁰ Castrated boys raised as girls identify as boys: how did life turn out for David Reimer, anyway? If you aren’t aware, David Reimer is almost certainly the most well-known case study to whom Mr. Damore is referring, although he is not the only one. Nevertheless, David Reimer was in many ways the start of this story, and his story has had an outsized impact on the way we think about and conceptualize gender.⁴¹ David was born Bruce Reimer on August 22, 1965 along with his twin brother Brian. Both twins had some urinary trouble related to not being able to retract their foreskins, and so at seven months both were scheduled for circumcision. The doctor at hand chose to use cauterization to remove the foreskin on Bruce, which went poorly — so poorly it wound up significantly damaging the penis. The doctor elected not to operate on Brian at that point, so the Reimer family was left with two twins: one with badly mutilated genitalia, and one intact.⁴² Dr. John Money, then a very prominent sexuality and gender researcher working out of Johns Hopkins, saw a scientific opportunity in the situation and convinced the parents that Bruce would be much happier if he could be reassigned as female and undergo surgical vaginoplasty. At the time, Money was a strong proponent of the idea that gender identity was entirely caused by parental treatment of children, and he saw the case as a golden opportunity to test this hypothesis. The Reimer family agreed, and the first of the sex reassignment surgeries was performed in January of 1967. One thing that is often not widely understood by people who discuss the impact of hormones by studying cases of intersex children (and in this case, children with injuries that effectively place them in the same category) is that sex reassignment surgery is not a one-and-done procedure. David Reimer, for example, was required to visit Dr. Money for yearly evaluations after the first surgeries. Dr. Money was also apparently very heavy-handed in his attempts to encourage Reimer to develop a female gender identity, requiring Reimer to adhere to an aggressively stereotyped feminine gender socialization regardless of signals from the child himself. David apparently found these visits to Dr. Money’s clinic traumatic for understandable reasons: the evaluations were blunt, invasive both emotionally and sometimes physically, and as he aged included an actual incident in which Dr. Money required him and his twin Brian to simulate penetrative sex with one another.⁴² (It has always reminded me, personally, of the way that straight people of my acquaintance seem to think that coming out is a binary, one-and-done process. It is not. Coming out is a process that must be repeated with varying levels of bluntness depending on how perceptive the people you’re talking to are. It’s just that storytellers like the binary transitions, and so those are what appears in media shorthand.) In the same way, Reimer’s first surgery did not magically gift him with a normally functioning and normally developing set of female genitalia. The surgeons had crafted an artificial vulva for him, but not an artificial vagina, because there simply was not room within the body of a two-year-old child; he was intended to receive a full vagina later at adolescence. By pubescence David had become increasingly aggressive in his outspoken desire to not undergo this surgery, continue the estrogen replacement therapy begun during his adolescence, or indeed ever speak to or see Dr. Money again.⁴² One thing I want to point out here, is that he therefore did not have a particularly standard gender socialization pattern, because his parents were aware of his “natural” gender and were in fact routinely reminded of this fact.⁴³ In fact, let me step aside and quote Dr. Rebecca Jordan-Watson as she provides a possible explanation for Reimer’s strong rejection of this imposed female gender identity⁴⁴: No one actually believed that the child “was” a girl — they believed (or rather, hoped) that he might be made into a girl. In fact, they believed that, as unlikely as it might be, it was his only chance of survival. In Colapinto’s fuller account (2001), it is obvious that parents, the broader family, clinicians, and teachers — among whom the child’s original male sex was an open secret — colluded in the heavy-handed enforcement of femininity. The fact that Money recruited transsexual women to try to convince the child to have vaginal construction may well have underscored for Reimer that what was under way was, in fact, a reconstruction of gender, a replacement rather than “the original.⁴⁵” Briefly: It matters what the developing child thinks their gender is, too, just as much as it matters which traits the child associates from their culture with that gender. And children are very hard to hide things from for long, particularly aspects of their own identity and history. There is one study of gender identity in individuals with XY genotypes who were surgically assigned female in childhood that I am aware of — including 7 children who were not intersex, but lost their penises to circumcision or other accidents. One of these was Reimer. Another was lost to study. Of the five remaining, three matured to identify as boys/men, and only two were reported to be living as women without noted objection. So: 5 in 7 or about 70% of the children who were assigned female after loss of their penises to accident actually grew up to identify as men. Which leaves a good thirty percent who didn’t.⁴⁶ This is not a good track record at all, and hardly supports Damore’s claim about “castrated boys raised as girls growing up to act and identify like men.” Not all of them do! I would say that muddies the water, personally. Wouldn’t you? I don’t mean to say that I necessarily think that gender identity is purely socialization or purely biological; I tend to agree with Dr. Jordan-Young that the formation of gender identity is closer to an interaction or dialogue between cultural socialization and small predispositions on the part of an individual child that eventually forms into a mental theory of how individuals fit into the world. If that isn’t particularly sensible, well, Dr. Jordan-Young says it better than I do, and I have enclosed another block quote from her down here if you would like to hear a more thorough articulation."
Seb Member	Sun Aug 20 11:42:40 Watch pillz now go "too long, didn't read".
werewolf dictator Member	Sun Aug 20 11:46:30 it is seb's dream to socially engineer society filled with queer gender nonconformists
jergul large member	Sun Aug 20 11:56:55 Her statistical analysis was damning. It completely undermined the memo author's argument that diversity recruitment cannot be effective. Seb Funny that we weighted the relative importance of her arguments differently. Pillz Seb's link shows what a quality source looks like.
jergul large member	Sun Aug 20 11:58:11 " I tend to agree with Dr. Jordan-Young that the formation of gender identity is closer to an interaction or dialogue between cultural socialization and small predispositions on the part of an individual child that eventually forms into a mental theory of how individuals fit into the world. " As Simone said in 1949.
Seb Member	Sun Aug 20 14:36:56 jergul: Oh, the statistical evidence is completely damning. But this part directly addressed the crap points that Pillz source was making, and better demonstrated what I mean by "Sciencism" or cargo cult science. "I've found a study" but not really understanding that study in the context of a logical chain of reasoning. Totemism really - the study can demonstrate some fact, but the fact doesn't automatically endorse the conclusion, there must be a logical argument. To leap from the fact (there are differences in women and mens brains) to conclusion (therefore there is an innate difference in men and womens inclinations and capabilities to be a software engineer which explains the difference in the workforce) requires a whole fucking lot of assumptions that also need to be verified and supported. First and foremost - does the fact that there is a difference in brains imply an innate difference, or merely reflect environmental differences?
Seb Member	Sun Aug 20 14:37:52 And yes, it's a very high quality source. The student clearly put a lot of time and effort into it - I'd encourage you to compensate her on the paetron account if you liked it.
Renzo Marquez Member	Sun Aug 20 14:39:28 This is what the author looks like: http://pbs...228037633/R12s1obz_400x400.jpg
jergul large member	Sun Aug 20 15:47:29 Du betalte 3,00 USD til eringiglio@gmail.com Coffee she said :-).
Paramount Member	Sun Aug 20 16:22:02 So one can just create an account at http://www.patreon.com and then do something like writing a poem or singing a tune, and then people will give you moneys?
Renzo Marquez Member	Sun Aug 20 16:23:43 Yes, but all of the best artists are on hatreon.us
chuck Member	Sun Aug 20 16:24:31 Paramouont Member Sun Aug 20 16:22:02 What is capitalism?
Paramount Member	Sun Aug 20 16:26:07 So how much money can one make in a year? Has anyone on patreon become a millionaire?
chuck Member	Sun Aug 20 16:29:11 "How much money can one make in a year?" A pittance. Apparently more than you can make off of Youtube ads, but less than you can make via "influencer endorsements" in-video on Youtube.
chuck Member	Sun Aug 20 16:32:46 An interesting experiment in this: http://www.destroyallsoftware.com/screencasts/catalog
jergul large member	Sun Aug 20 16:34:30 The woman made 32 cups of coffee over 2 days. @3 USD each. It really is just coffee money if we assume she spreads the goodness out over a month or so.
chuck Member	Sun Aug 20 16:34:56 And sample content fromm 2012; http://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat
Paramount Member	Sun Aug 20 16:50:22 Okay that wat (what does wat mean?) video was kinda fun although I didn't understand much of it, but the ending was fun. Watman!
Paramount Member	Sun Aug 20 16:52:36 Coffe money is always nice. I can write a poem once in a month for 32 cups of coffee.
chuck Member	Sun Aug 20 17:00:03 The Wat talk is pretty legendary. If you get the timing just right, I believe the screencasts are livestreamed on twitch for free for a day or two before going behind the pay wall. Only one of the paywalled videos I've seen was "Text Editor From Scratch" when it was a free twitch stream before it went behind the paywall. Was very enlightening. TL;DR: I think the real trick is to get really good at making valuable content for a niche audience and then set up a recurring subscription model that reflects the value of the content you are providing. I think the proposition here is that Gary Bernhardt's talks are much more valuable than a premium porn subscription or YouTube Red and are priced accordingly.
jergul large member	Sun Aug 20 17:03:06 ^Blasphemy
chuck Member	Sun Aug 20 17:06:53 It's a very un-"sharing economy/casual work" proposition to be sure.
jergul large member	Sun Aug 20 17:28:00 "the proposition here is that Gary Bernhardt's talks are much more valuable than a premium porn subscription or YouTube Red and are priced accordingly." ^That blasphemy
chuck Member	Sun Aug 20 17:42:31 Indeed. But on the other hand you could use Gary Bernard's tech talks to learn sweet ninja skills and then create your own premium porn subscription service.
jergul large member	Sun Aug 20 17:44:01 I dunno. I'm not much of an actor.
chuck Member	Sun Aug 20 17:47:24 No acting skills required luckily
Seb Member	Sun Aug 20 18:04:56 Jergul: I'd estimate that's about five to ten hours of work to produce a blog post like that.
TJ Member	Sun Aug 20 19:12:22 Seb->First and foremost - does the fact that there is a difference in brains imply an innate difference, or merely reflect environmental differences? Good to see the question mark. There seems to be a lot of software engineering in the mix. Assumptions are plentiful. Looks like social environment and biology are neither zero sum. http://sta...mens-brains-are-different.html
jergul large member	Mon Aug 21 01:24:40 Seb Sounds about right. Balances with his claim he wrote it on an airflight. Though obviously does not include time spent staring in admiration at memo before spamming it off into the intranet. TJ The woman established that statistically, any biological differences do not explain inbalances in hiring and retention practices. Or in other words - she validated the need for diversity intervention. She destroyed the memo author.
Seb Member	Mon Aug 21 02:36:42 TJ: What Jergul said. The memo is a great example of post hoc reasoning. He objects to the diversity hiring program and attempted to argue that any differences in workforce can be explained by biology, thus making them innate, thus negating it's need. But actually the science does not at all support the idea that biology or innate difference explain the workforce patterns. The biological differences - even when they cannot be shown to be innate or a consequence environment - are sufficiently small that the overwhelming balance of evidence is that workforce patterns are better explained by social factors. This actually means there's a really good reason for business to adopt strong diversity programmes - they will gain access to a larger pool of employees and likely increase quality; contrary to the memo's arguments.
Seb Member	Mon Aug 21 02:41:57 There's a particularly great example in the link I posted on studied in unconscious bias in hiring. People asked to evaluate "Michael" and "Michelle" profiles for police chief. In half the study, Michelle was strong in "feminine" traits, Michael in "male". In the other half they were reversed. The participants consistently adapted their definition of what made a good police chief to fit whatever the man's profile was. And the effect was strongest in those that felt the had no bias. Interestingly that's something that came up in unconscious bias training that I thought a little bit silly - why we have to write job spec, sift criteria and interview questions before sifting. Note I've read the science it makes good sense.
Seb Member	Mon Aug 21 02:44:24 Jergul: Oh I think he may have written his in substantially less. But even if not, remember the PhD student is starting with a significant amount of prior knowledge too, so it's not a fair comparison.
TJ Member	Mon Aug 21 10:34:27 Bias aside, which we all know exists in varying degrees nearly everywhere, if not everywhere. If Damore had ill intent I don't believe he would have suggested an open dialog in company about his invalidated suspicions. He knew he didn't have any solid conclusions. We can also assume a lot of different things and lets get real since the subject is hypersensitive in the current environment. Silicon valley with a nearly one sided ideology/methodology entrenched determines its heavily weighted and bias position. I smell some rats, which is what Google perceives as a subculture they choose to weed from their garden of eden. There is more here than meets the eye. One thing we should recognize easily enough is that being capable doesn't necessarily mean happy/content in any particular position. Do we know what would have actually happened to him if the memo hadn't been leaked into public view? Do you think he leaked the memo himself? Do we actually know what has become sensationalized intent to be original intent? Maybe what happened was part of his diabolical plan, eh? Why wasn't he released within a few hours of being sent out for company observance of his request for an open dialog? Neuroscience has a long way to go to fully answer unresolved and disputed assumptions that happen to be the focus. We as a society shouldn't ignore diversity, but we also shouldn't fabricate it for the sake of itself. Is it not the base of science to question the unknown? Damore has become much wiser from his experience in a dog eat dog existence. I'm fairly certain that if he had known his memo would have cost him his position he would have taken an alternate route or would have he? Personally, I think his firing goes a long way toward understanding the internal workings of Google. It is, whatever it is, according to each individual perception and not science as far as I understand science. I don't view this situation entirely different than the experimental treatment of baby Charlie Gard. A stretch, maybe, but I've always been a little out of the box from mainstream with my reasoning and its served me with decent rewards. Maybe its innate and maybe it is social construction. I'd undermine my own verdict if I didn't believe it to be a combination of both. Anyway, my skin isn't in the game and I most likely won't be around to experience the complete result concerning the decisions being made. I have nothing more to say about diversity other than if you earn it you deserve it to be. I've always moved out of the path of a locomotive or I'd be less fortunate today.
jergul large member	Mon Aug 21 11:39:40 TJ The internal workings of Google are not really terribly important. I would have fired him as mentioned. But I can be an SoB sometimes. More careful wording would have saved him (do not use the term "neurotic" in regards to coworkers in a mass mail over the internet). But his problem was mainly that he wrote about something he did not understand with a language he did not quite master. Diversity is important when it comes to limited resources like well-paying, high status jobs. There needs to be pretty solid reason for limiting access to a particular segment of society.
TJ Member	Mon Aug 21 11:54:45 I'm now watching the eclipse. Nice clarity, but won't be totality. The wife and I sacrificed traveling for my children and older grandchildren. The wife and I are overseeing the youngest so they could enjoy the full experience themselves. My wife wanted so badly to see totality, but willing to sacrifice for our adult children and making sure her youngest grandchildren are fully protected from distraction. Her qualities are exceptional. :-) This thread is on my back burner.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Aug 30 06:50:51 I will see when I can get around to this juicy article that seb has posted. With the bundle of shit and joy on my hands. But having read the preamble where she extensively details her own CV and why she is qualified, among other things being gay and queer, it does not look good. It never does when people are waving credentials in our faces to add weight to their arguments. Something Damore did not do, but this person seems to share this with seb. Along with making the same idiot misreadings as seb. Is this worth my time? To respond to an article posted in August (very new). ^And seb says everyone else is looking for evidence to support their bias :) Ironically if seb was in charge, her 50 page article would never have been written, because Damore should never have written his. So on that level I think the article is perfectly in line with the type of world I want to live in and which the sebs do not. Free speech rules. His article has set in motion criticism, responses and debate. Which was the intention and stated in the opening passage of the memo. Reminds me again of creationist debates. So many times it was explained to them, even if you disprove the theory of evolution, you are not any closer to proving creationism. Even if biology does not explain the differences in outcomes on the population level, you are not any closer to proving that disparities are because of misogyny and discrimination. I will see when I get around to reading this.
jergul large member	Wed Aug 30 07:37:17 Occam's razor. You should consider going back to school. Your interests far outstrip your understanding of what research is.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Aug 30 10:20:08 Yes the null hypothesis is the marxist feminist concept of patriarchy. Plenty of reasonable answers to her question regarding neuroticism and the evolutionary benefits. So I read a little and see that she bringings up "stereotype threat". Two words for you "replication failure". http://rep...-stereotype-threat-literature/ You should consider keeping your mouth shut Jergul, you are as usual out of your depth. 50 pages of this crap. No thanks :)
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Aug 30 14:31:32 "I can't recall your position on that, but it also applies to your supposed scientific basis for race differences in behaviour." I am guessing Islam = race difference in behavior. Makes sense that someone who thinks "white" is in the same category as "Muslim" would say this. "If you are serious about "not wanting" to believe this stuff, but feel compelled to on the basis of the science, this might help you." This is you mixing up one discussion with another, as you do. There is nothing in the current state of evolved sex differences that is unconformable for me. This seems to exclusively be an issue for feminists. It is easy for me because I see nothing inherently better with typical male behavior or traditional male occupations. Another paradox of feminism, to fight for women's right to have men be the benchmark for success. That was mentioned in relation to the discussion on immigration (crime stats) and Islam and in response to your constant accusation of bias. As someone who is an immigrant from an Islamic country, it may be unconformable to admit the things I do about Islam and the problems of Swedish immigration policy. It would have plausibly been the path of least resistance for me to simply agree with you on those topics. According to you I have chosen to ally myself with nazis as some sort of native informant or house nigger in the hopes that I can eat the crumbs that fall of their table. This is just deplorable behavior on your part. To me, the implications of any truth or the consequences of any knowledge can never be a reason for not acquiring it. Your reaction to the google memo was priceless yet boring and predictable, blow by blow. Starting with you reading the gizmodo hitpiece and erroneously claiming it lacked citations, ”was controversial” even trying to inject "intelligence and race" into it just like google employees can be seen doing in internal mail to try to entrap Damore. It was shameful to say the least. This was never about the contents of the memo (sadly the contents never are with you), research that just like any other scientific inquiry can (should) be questioned and be the topic of discussion AND FURTHER INQUIRY. This was the intent and opening message of the memo you supposedly read. This was about your dishonest summary of the contents and the anti-intellectual position you have that some knowledge is forbidden and you should be fired for even bringing it up. The grasping after technicalities in labor laws/practices to make it all ”reasonable”. ^This is cult behavior btw, full fledged with orthodoxies/dogmas and heresy/exile. Don’t throw grenades in the glass fort! We can never discuss anything interesting because sooner rather than later you are discussing things with a figment of your imagination. Some neatly categorized alt-right person. You are not interested in what I have to say, you have shown zero interest in getting your opponents position accurate and seem content with life in your alternate reality. I have even asked you directly several times ”please summarize my position on the subject” in an attempt to try to have you steel man my position instead of straw man. Nothing. And we both know why, because as soon as you do, you have lost whatever point you were trying to make, that I am a biased, alt-right, sexist etc. etc. That is the only point you are consistently arguing. What you do is not curious inquisition, dialogue and some noble pursuit of knowledge, it is dishonest, anti-intellectual and indistinguishable from a comedy. You can not hide behind a publishing record or a PhD for this. I think disagreement is great, it is the only way of learning new POVs and new things about your own POV and grow as a human being. Meaningful disagreement and dialogue hinges upon first understanding what you are disagreeing about. I won’t be making walls of text like this again discussing exhaustingly complicated topics with someone who at every instance, twist and turn will bend over backwards to make the least charitable and dishonest reading so he can keep his black and white understanding of the people he is interacting with.
Seb Member	Wed Aug 30 17:11:01 Nim: The first part on credentials is largely debunking the credentialist approach Damore and his supporters such as yourself routinely take. Can't really complain about it when you've repeatedly gone out of your way to say we should listen to Damore on the strength of his drop out status. She also rightly goes on to say you should ignore all the credentialist stuff and look at the strength of logic and argument. But I'm glad you have decided to stop arguing that Damore should be listed to because he's a biology drop out.
Seb Member	Wed Aug 30 17:19:29 The only take away from your tedious tl;dr of a post there is "Waaaa, I don't like being shown up".
jergul large member	Thu Aug 31 04:49:51 Nimi You have nothing to contribute if unwilling or unable to read the research provided. (btw: the null-hypothesis is: There is significant gender inequality). Really, you need to go back to school if you want your capabilities to even mildly match your interests.
Seb Member	Thu Aug 31 08:44:37 Nim: The memo wasn't an open inquiry about the science of any innate differences between men and women. It had a very clear statement of policy: Google should stop it's diversity hiring programme. The incorrectly asserted "science" was cute as evidence that the diversity programme was dammaging to Google and should therefore cease. Unfortunately for him, it turned out the employee was dammaging to Google and his managers decided his contract should cease instead.
jergul large member	Thu Aug 31 09:12:02 He incorrectly asserted that biological differences explained gender disparity within google and that no amount of diversity programmes could resolve this. The woman we bought coffee for clearly demonstrated that lack of diversity was more likely to be caused by dysfunctional hiring and retainment practices and that deversity programmes could help resolve this. She crushed the poor unemployed sod.
jergul large member	Thu Aug 31 09:12:38 diversity programmes*
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Aug 31 09:25:53 I have stopped reading. When you feel you are done playing noble outraged knight in some forgotten dark void on the Internet, let me know. Make a new thread when you feel you have matured and summarize my position on gender theory. Depending on how well you do I might respond. Sorry it has come to this, but your an absolutely atrocious person to have any meaningful exchange with. At first you sound intelligent, grammatically correct and everything, after the 20th time you ”misunderstood” something it all became clear. You seem too educated to misunderstand so many things explained in rather simple english, that leave us with full of shit or educated idiot. Anyway you know where to find me.
jergul large member	Thu Aug 31 09:35:03 Nimi We know where we should find you (did you not just have a child?), yet we find you here. You do not have an academic position. You have your opinions that most of all mirror your lack of relevant education. Go back to school, bro. You are making a fool of yourself.
TJ Member	Thu Aug 31 11:57:38 Newly born babies sleep a good amount of time. Congratulations Nim. jergul large member Mon Aug 21 11:39:40 TJ The internal workings of Google are not really terribly important. Yes, I can see where you would say that upfront, but to me considering the type of business it's internal workings and external projection are a real concern for others, me included. Secondly, Nim doesn't appear, to me, as making a fool of himself. Minds are diversified and everyone works toward justifying perspectives with bias mixed into their objectives. Google isn't immune. The objective here should be truth seeking and not shamming an opposition. Doing so is misplaced when applied into critical thought and decision. Google has the possession of powerful tools and should be a concern for everyone's vigilance. An educational foundation is only as good as the educators providing and if a persons education needs to denigrate for effectiveness then it is less than stellar. It appears to be one of Nim's points and I agree with him. Obviously, I'm considerably old school, and thankful for being so, but still have the ability for additional education above my foundation. An employer will always have the upper hand and one must tread lightly in understanding that reality. As I said previously, Damaore is now wiser with an important lesson under his belt, but the lesson isn't only for him to learn from the experience. There is more than one way to skin a cat as the old saying goes and that pertains to this thread.
jergul large member	Thu Aug 31 12:36:57 TJ Method is that which separates opinion from research. He needs a lot more education to be able to master an academic (scientific) approach. It may be indifferent to most. As it mostly is indifferent to me (hence jergulmath). But sometimes showing you can understand research is the only way not to seem like a fool.
jergul large member	Thu Aug 31 12:45:17 I have never really understood anti-intellectualism. Everyone knows it takes years to become a good tinker, tailor, mechanic, or fisherman. But assume that a scientific method skillset only developed at Master's degree level or beyond is somehow easily accessable.
TJ Member	Thu Aug 31 13:47:13 What we have is not better than what we can. There are many stages of fools and foolishness. If you've never been a fool you can never be wise. Describe to me where wisdom meets its limit. Lets just say it is a research method. :) I'm not trying to be witty. It is for the purpose of stimulating closed minds since I'm not fond of scorn.
Seb Member	Thu Aug 31 13:49:30 Mimi, given you've never actually stated what you mean by "gender theory is unscientific", other than to say meaningless things like "biology is something your born with" and refuse to elaborate what that actually means. Unless you believe in things like an intangible soul there is nothing about humans that could ever be anything but an emergent property of biology. Even social constructs meaning precisely what sociologists mean by social constructs - have to emerge from biology because there's simply no where else for them to come from. However, I expect you mean biology to be innate, but whenever we try to pin you down on this you scream you are being misrepresented. I don't suppose you've ever stopped to consider that you haven't thought through this deeply enough? I don't think I can possibly sit here and try to figure that out for you. Its more productive to start with some fairly simple closed issues. Namely, there is no convincing evidence that there are innate differences between men and women that explain the bulk of outcomes seen in the workplace. There is plenty of evidence of systemic discrimination however. By the way, this isn't "white knighting" you bilious retard. Everyone has a stake in equality, you have to be ardently opposed to equality not to. And I care very much about protecting the intellectual integrity of science from those that engage in cargo cult scientism such as yourself.
Seb Member	Thu Aug 31 13:55:20 * anyone with principles I should say. You complain you are being unfairly judged. Yet you persist in adopting language and c patterns of thought that only make sense if you have really bad principles. I guess you don't see the dissonance of asking tobe treated by the values you assert you have, while adopting arguments and discourse that only makes sense if you have very different values. The very same ones you feel offended by being judged on. Like I said, I don't think you've thought this through with enough rigour.
Seb Member	Thu Aug 31 15:48:16 If one thinks about it, insofar far as there are elements of brain structure that correlate with sex (n.b. the association of particular structure with a sex is normally very slight) given something like only 8% of people have all those elements aligned with their sex - even if you believe these elements are innate, and that they drive meaningful differences in aptitude and interests, surely that's a scientific basis for gender. It would mean that a human brain would be a spectrum between two extremes.
jergul large member	Thu Aug 31 16:06:45 That would be the statistical analysis were the woman destroyed the memo author.
McKobb Member	Thu Aug 31 16:37:25 Commisar! http://youtu.be/rNHkWrUcLvU
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: