|
Post by Optimus on Aug 8, 2017 16:52:15 GMT -5
I'm pretty satisfied with Google's response and I'm laughing my ass off at the "anti-diversity" snowflakes whining and weeping over this doofus getting booted for being a pompous and sexist pig who thinks he's better than the women and people of color who still work at Google.It'd be enlightening if you could offer even a shred of credible evidence that he thinks this or claimed this in his piece. Otherwise, it's just bullshit and hyperbole. That's a fairly common total mischaracterization that I keep seeing regarding the memo. The far left is frothing at the mouth over this, ready and more than willing to totally misrepresent and lie about the contents of the memo in order to further their narrative, as you have done here. This article in The Atlantic sums it up nicely: That last part sums up pretty much 90% of the articles I've seen about this in the MSM thus far. Gender and diversity is a hot-button topic that needs to be discussed on a rational level. Even if this guy was wrong (and, on several points, he was), he was trying to address the issue on an intellectual level. Unfortunately, most people who saw it are letting their knee-jerk emotional reactions carry them away, effectively shutting down their capacity to engage the topic in an intellectually honest way (well, most who have heard about it, because I doubt most of the people attacking the guy have actually read it and, those who have, likely lack the ability to be objective about it). An incredibly stupid response and one that is typical in these types of debates. The person just summarily dismisses the guy's points as having "no idea what he is talking about" (even though he has a PhD in biology, so he at least has a little bit of a clue about biological sex differences) and claims the guy is wrong without bothering to counter his points with actual evidence. That is the laziest, most intellectually myopic way to argue against the specific points raised in this guy's article. It also appears to be pretty common. "He's not just wrong, he's super duper wrong because I say so! Not only that, but I refuse to offer proof that he is wrong and that I am right! Just accept it because...um...science! (that I can't actually cite). And, you shouldn't even try to read what he said and analyze his argument on its merit, or try to refute it with facts, because to do so is reinforcing white supremacist patriarchy cis-gender misogyny white privilege bullshit ad hominem word salad blah blah blah blah..." People who respond in that type of way in debates like this lack the emotional and intellectual maturity to be in these debates in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Aug 8, 2017 18:54:09 GMT -5
I'm pretty satisfied with Google's response and I'm laughing my ass off at the "anti-diversity" snowflakes whining and weeping over this doofus getting booted for being a pompous and sexist pig who thinks he's better than the women and people of color who still work at Google. You didn't read it, did you? It's pretty clear the "former Google employee" you cited didn't either. S/he just assumed, as you do, that anyone who questions the value or extent of programs ostensibly to increase diversity, or who suggests that biological differences exist, is a misogynistic white supremacist. No need to actually read his words - you can read a few cherry-picked quotes and conclude he hates women and minorities and thinks none of them should work at Google. Which of course is nothing at all like what he actually wrote. But you don't need to know what the people you're calling down hellfire upon have actually said, just what people who you agree with say about what they said. Tell me something, Amadan. Do you get some sort of weird pleasure out of saying stuff you know nothing about? You know it really makes you look as though you don't know what the hell you're talking about, right? A less reactionary and far more circumspect man wouldn't say dumb stuff like, " You didn't read it, did you?" and particularly not after the very first words in my very first post were, " A smartly written memo/manifesto. Unfortunately..." Do you even bother reading before you start ranting, dude? Why does it upset you so if a Black man and a White woman didn't read what you read and reach a similar conclusion? Now I hope you're sitting down because as difficult a concept this may be for you and the now-unemployed Sunny Jim Damore to grasp, it is absolutely so that nobody needs your or his assistance in reading a whiny jerkwad's blubberings against racial and gender diversity. We're good. You, on the other hand seem very much agitated/aggravated by the whole thang. Chill. It's a one-week story. Next week we'll move on to yet another Angry White Man beating his breast because the Coloreds and the Chicks just don't pay him no nevermind. Amadan Rants #225. It's all soooooooo boringly predictable and played out. Then again, this is my fault. I was the one who temporarily took you off of "ignore." A problem easily solved.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Aug 8, 2017 19:24:23 GMT -5
I'm pretty satisfied with Google's response and I'm laughing my ass off at the "anti-diversity" snowflakes whining and weeping over this doofus getting booted for being a pompous and sexist pig who thinks he's better than the women and people of color who still work at Google.It'd be enlightening if you could offer even a shred of credible evidence that he thinks this or claimed this in his piece. Otherwise, it's just bullshit and hyperbole. Perhaps I would-- IF--I wasn't certain there's no point to doing so because: (a) You have proven through word and act you are predisposed not to accept any credible evidence because your mind is already made up and you'd simply shred it. (b) If you didn't see the subtle intellectual racism and the overt sexism in the memo, I can't help you with that. I admit I looked for it and it wasn't terribly hard to find even if was phrased from an elevated vantage point of academic learning. Intellectual bigotry is less obvious, yet no less offensive than a drooling drunk spewing slurs while falling off his bar stool. (c) People who say they will only consider something to be "credible evidence" if they agree it is or "it's just bullshit and hyperbole" aren't really interested in the other side of the argument. They just wanna fight. I have no narrative, Opty and I am neither misrespresenting nor lying about the contents of the memo in order to further one. I simply disagree Mr. Damore had a reason to whine about diversity at all. You calling me a liar is a far cry from "thoughtful political discussion" Attack my argument to your heart's delight, but when you dislike my perspective and attack me personally by calling me a liar, well, how did you put it? That's just bullshit and hyperbole.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Aug 8, 2017 20:23:53 GMT -5
My opinion: it's not about "biological sex differences," and yeah, that raises my hackles. Always has, always will.
This guy was, in part, trying to make an argument that women are different than (and yes, in this instance, inferior to) men in a way that has proven not to be the case in other fields (medical, legal, journalistic, etc.), as Amadan mentioned in those bits he quoted.
Women are more empathetic, as though they could not possibly be empathetic and anything else. Utter nonsense. I'm extremely competitive. So much so that I'm hard pressed to let my own kids win at monopoly. But I am also very empathetic. I cry easily. I cry when other people cry. I cry at sappy movies. And guess what, I get that FROM MY DAD. Who rose to the level of executive VP of new plant operations for Florida Power & Light and built power plants in foreign countries and earned seven figures doing it.
My mom never cries. Ever. FWIW.
This guy writing this "manifesto" or whatever it is... he could have made such better points, but he had to "go there," with the biological shit. For that, fuck him.
Also, all of Opty's links about "toy preference" (in monkeys, btw, who are NOT HUMAN, and obviously socialization is a key factor in humans) and "infant eye gaze" and all of that (imo) bullshit are completely irrelevant.
As humans, our hormones do not dictate our lives. If they did, men would still be clubbing women over the head and dragging them into caves.
Our capacity to think, to create, to achieve, to be "in the game" or to choose to opt out, to ultimately direct our own lives, using information, which we process with OUR BRAINS, as opposed to succumbing to the whims of our own hormonal feelz, are how people, both men and women, make decisions about their careers. We have evolved beyond monkeys. There is NO DIFFERENCE, in this regard, between women and men. Only culture holds people back or pushes them where they don't want to go--the idea of what one "should" do, as a man, or as a woman. Those "shoulds" infiltrate early, take root, become "normal," and make both men and women slaves who think they're free, because their limitations are within the constraints of gender. I hate it so much. It's getting better, but this guy's "manifesto," as stated, is not helping.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 8, 2017 20:29:11 GMT -5
Tell me something, Amadan. Do you get some sort of weird pleasure out of saying stuff you know nothing about? You know it really makes you look as though you don't know what the hell you're talking about, right? Who do you imagine you are convincing here? Is there some invisible audience you think you're playing to? I did. But everything you've posted since has cast extreme doubt on the idea that you actually read and understood it. Your mistake is thinking I'm upset because a couple of individuals who have poor critical reading skills "reached different conclusions." You don't upset me (except inasmuch as you keep baiting and taunting people here on TCG, in an effort to provoke a ban-worthy retort - that game is very obvious and annoying). But the fact that so many other people genuinely and sincerely believe the sorts of things you're saying here - based on the same sort of faulty reason and lack of close (or in most cases, any reading) and has real-world effects on discourse, yes, that upsets me a bit. If you actually read the manifesto, if you actually have the convictions you claim, you'd be able to explain, as you've been asked to, where exactly he displays this attitude you keep describing about "Coloreds and Chicks." Instead your response is, as usual, to duck, weave, evade, and turn it personal. This is not even 101-level trolling - "Hahaha, I put you on ignooooooooooore!!!! Look at me ignooooooooooring you! Hahahaha!" Sure you did.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 8, 2017 20:41:28 GMT -5
My opinion: it's not about "biological sex differences," and yeah, that raises my hackles. Always has, always will. This guy was, in part, trying to make an argument that women are different than (and yes, in this instance, inferior to) men in a way that has proven not to be the case in other fields (medical, legal, journalistic, etc.), as Amadan mentioned in those bits he quoted. Thank you. For actually reading, and responding to, his actual words. You're right. He makes a number of risibile arguments in his manifesto. "Men and women are biologically different" is a fact. "Men and women have biological differences that affect their behavior and attitudes and possibly outcomes" is, perhaps, not a 100% proven fact, but a hypothesis with a strong degree of scientific support behind it. "Men and women differ in these specific ways, and it's biologically determined" is, at best, speculation, and he made some strong claims that are far from established fact. That, among other places (like his harping on "violent leftists") is where he kind of went off the rails. But his fundamental arguments were not particularly outrageous, and while there is certainly a whiff of "Girls are just emotional, them's facts and we have to deal with it!" in his piece, he did go out of his way to avoid asserting that, for example, women can't be good engineers or software developers or Google employees. That said - You do know this is anecdotal evidence, right? I mean, I totally believe you. But even the strongest proponents of biological determinism will not usually claim that " All men have trait X and all women have trait Y." It's usually posited as more like something on a bell curve, with the width, height, and apex of the curve varying according to the trait. That's a rather harsh dismissal. I mean, obviously monkeys are not humans and not all primate behavior can be assumed identical, but people who study this stuff are aware of it. It's not like "Oh, we see apes doing this so obviously it totally applies to people too!" You're kind of writing off an entire field because pop magazine articles are so terrible about describing some of the more sensational implications. I think that's a common and understandable sentiment, but wrong, IMO. We humans really like to think we have absolute free will, and that none of our behavior is dictated by hormones or millions of years of evolution. And what does separate us from animals is that we do have the capacity to act contrary to all those hardwired instincts. But that doesn't mean there isn't hardwiring in there that dictates our behavior more often than we might think, or want to believe.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Aug 8, 2017 21:16:08 GMT -5
My opinion: it's not about "biological sex differences," and yeah, that raises my hackles. Always has, always will. This guy was, in part, trying to make an argument that women are different than (and yes, in this instance, inferior to) men in a way that has proven not to be the case in other fields (medical, legal, journalistic, etc.), as Amadan mentioned in those bits he quoted. Thank you. For actually reading, and responding to, his actual words. You're right. He makes a number of risibile arguments in his manifesto. "Men and women are biologically different" is a fact. "Men and women have biological differences that affect their behavior and attitudes and possibly outcomes" is, perhaps, not a 100% proven fact, but a hypothesis with a strong degree of scientific support behind it. "Men and women differ in these specific ways, and it's biologically determined" is, at best, speculation, and he made some strong claims that are far from established fact. That, among other places (like his harping on "violent leftists") is where he kind of went off the rails. But his fundamental arguments were not particularly outrageous, and while there is certainly a whiff of "Girls are just emotional, them's facts and we have to deal with it!" in his piece, he did go out of his way to avoid asserting that, for example, women can't be good engineers or software developers or Google employees. I would suggest that if one wants to make a valid argument, one should not have a "whiff" (and I think it was more than a whiff) of such things. And his upfront "I'm-totally-not-a-sexist" bit was very meh. Like, everything before the BUT. That said, I can sympathize with being tired of or against pushing extreme initiatives, especially where it doesn't seem to make any sense or be helping or changing anything. I don't think he's a bad person. I read most of his whole manifesto. My question to him would be: how are you being harmed by whatever Google is doing to promote women? The problem, to me, is that whenever you report statistics like this, people tend to apply them and conform to them. Even though, in many cases, it's not because they're true biologically; it's because they're true culturally. So we perpetuate culture. And again, someone who can cry is not someone who is not competitive. Those traits are not exclusive. But somehow we've made them so. Comparing the behavior of a primate to the behavior of human, given evolution and environment, should be taken with a very, very huge handful of salt, imo. I get it, but I think that oftentimes, "hardwired" is synonymous with "easy," and lots and lots of people take the easy way. But this so-called hardwiring is not impervious to evolution or intellect or experience.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Aug 8, 2017 22:29:04 GMT -5
My opinion: it's not about "biological sex differences," and yeah, that raises my hackles. Always has, always will. It's not "totally" about biological sex difference. But the Google guy didn't say that it was. In fact, he gave a pretty thorough and wide-ranging list of possible explanations for differences, ranging from biological, to psychological, to sociocultural factors. I think he got some of it somewhat wrong in a few places, and drew some questionable conclusions in others, but even I can admit that he wasn't presenting the one-sided argument that you seem to be implying that he did. Also, given that there are dozens of clearly demonstrated biological sex differences (in fact, here are nearly 800 pages of research on just the nervous system differences), you should probably get over your negative reactions to someone mentioning them. Getting mad at facts is fruitless. The only thing that should distress you is when people misuse and distort facts to perpetuate a biased agenda and actively discriminate against others. 1) Please cite the portions of his document that you feel state or imply that women are inferior to men. I've read it 3 times now and I can't find anything that comes close to suggesting that. 2) Please cite the portions of his document that you feel state or imply that women are different than men in a way that has proven not to be the case in other fields. 3) Related to your assertion mentioned in #2, do you think that computer engineering is comparable to working in the medicine, law, or journalism? Do they require the same types of cognitive skills? The Google guy's "manifesto" was specifically referencing group tendencies. He wasn't trying to make the case that it applied to all individuals. I agree he could've made his argument using better, more artful language, but saying "fuck him" just because he "had to go there with the biological shit" (whatever the fuck that means) is a pretty closed-minded way to respond, especially given that you haven't offered any kind of a refutation to any of his points. It's much akin to (the myth of) ostriches sticking their heads in the sand. After reading this, I'm nearly 100% confident that you didn't even bother to read anything in the articles I linked to and instead just quickly and half-assed scanned the title of the monkey article without understanding or acknowledging what it was actually about. Differences in toy preference among human babies is a well-established and consistent phenomenon. It is indicative of biological mechanisms that contribute to the significant differences in preferences between males and females in several life areas. This area of study is pretty wide, but well-substantiated. The two studies I cited were just two well-known examples of the types of research that give strong evidence of biologically driven differences in male and female behavior. Girls tend to prefer toys that involve social aspects whereas boys tend to involve things that are more structural and mechanistic (people versus things). Again, I feel I should emphasize that this refers to differences in group means and is not necessarily predictive of behavior at the individual level. A common criticism used to be (and apparently still is for ill-informed gender studies "scholars") that these sex differences found early in life were wholly the result of sociocultural influences. This criticism is factually wrong, so I cited two of the most well-known studies that helped to debunk that myth. One study showed sex differences in eye gaze in neonates (male babies tend to prefer to look at mechanical-type objects; female babies tend to prefer to look at faces and people), thus countering the "culture" claim, given that neonates have no concept of sex or culture. The other study that you seem to not have bothered reading past the title, was demonstrating that sexually dimorphic toy preferences that have been well-documented to exist in human babies are ALSO found in monkeys, giving more evidence contra to the "culture" claim, because monkeys are obviously not significantly influenced by human cultural gender roles. These types of preferences are biological, not sociocultural (they have absolutely nothing to do with "socialization" as you incorrectly tried to claim). That was the entire point of me posting them. I was debunking your false "socialization" argument before you even made it. That's not to say that sociocultural influences don't impact our behavior. It is merely underscoring that much of our behavior is significantly biologically influenced and people who deny that are misinformed/uninformed. Here's another psychologist referencing the exact same studies I brought up (and a meta-analysis). Only difference is that he's a well-known expert in his field and I'm just a schmuck: _______________ It'd be more accurate to say that hormones don't completely control our lives, but they certainly have a very significant impact on nearly all aspects of our behavior and impact nearly everything about our biological development. To deny this is to be scientifically illiterate. As a cognitive psychologist who specializes in judgment and decision-making, I can say with absolute confidence that this is mostly complete horse shit. It's a comforting thought, I suppose, that fits a biased narrative, but it's also bullshit. My father's biologically determined short height and lack of physical coordination is what held him back from ever being in the NBA. Culture had nothing to do with it. Many of our skills and aptitudes (cognitive, emotional, and physical) are biologically constrained and no amount of anti-culture positive thinking and stick-to-it-iveness will ever overcome that. Culture can certainly play a role, but it is actually easier to overcome the influences of culture than it is to overcome the influences of biology and genetics. Yes, in some cases people buy into negative stereotypes that lead to discrimination that negatively impacts people's achievements. And, in some other cases, that doesn't happen and they don't buy into them, therefore avoiding all of those negative outcomes. I don't see anyone denying either of those realities and they'd be dumb if they did. But, to totally deny the role of biology in determining major aspects of our behavior and lives, as you seem to be doing here, is a position that is not rooted in reality.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Aug 8, 2017 22:57:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Don on Aug 9, 2017 9:55:14 GMT -5
So facts should only be reported when they lead to socially beneficial outcomes?
That's quite frankly one of the scariest things I've ever read.
What if Trump's in charge of making that determination?
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Aug 9, 2017 10:22:28 GMT -5
"Since the search giant started sharing diversity data in 2014, the company’s percentage of black employees in technical roles hasn’t improved at all. It was 1 percent in 2014, and it is 1 percent now. The percentage of female technical staff went up from 18 percent in 2015 to 20 percent this year" the obvious question to be asked is, just what the hell did James Damore have to bitch about? Crickets. It's easy to rail against diversity as a bad thing because a White man think its unfair or unnecessary---to him. But even as Damore protests he's not against diversity, his memo has been picked up by and embraced by the anti-diversity crowd. "See! Here's a logical, statistical, fact-based and logical argument against the pernicious practice of enforced gender and racial diversity." Damore clearly didn't vibe with some of his erstwhile co-workers at Google, but he had to take the low road to make his points. However, the only numbers which mean anything at all are the ones I quoted which is the proof the diversity James Damore was so flummoxed about isn't that much diversity at all. Google's diversity efforts have been dismally ineffective and instead of being pilloried by the anti-diversity mob, it's the pro-diversity groups which should be pushing Google to take more proactive and productive steps.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 9, 2017 11:03:02 GMT -5
It's easy to rail against diversity as a bad thing because a White man think its unfair or unnecessary---to him. But even as Damore protests he's not against diversity, his memo has been picked up by and embraced by the anti-diversity crowd. "See! Here's a logical, statistical, fact-based and logical argument against the pernicious practice of enforced gender and racial diversity." Sure, people who actually are against diversity will pick up on any controversy like this. But Damore did not argue against diversity. Most people defending him are not arguing against diversity. Damore himself basically argued that diversity is a net good, but that the way Google is trying to achieve it is ineffective and counter-productive. This got dishonestly condensed (by his detractors and the anti-diversity crowd alike) to "Diversity is ineffective and counter-productive." And so here we are. The Josh Barro article you quoted is reasonable but has some logical fallacies. That was rather Damore's point. Let's say the theoretical "correct" representation of women would be 20%, or 35%, or whatever, allowing for the existence of gender-based disparities. It is clear that Google's policies (and those pushing for more diversity-based policies) will not be satisfied with anything less than 50%, and will not acknowledge that gender-based disparities might exist. So it's not about complaining that 20% is too much, it's about complaining that seeking a probably-unattainable 50% is.... unfair, divisive, and bad for business. Of course if you insist that gender differences are all cultural and that a gender-blind society would produce a 50% female workforce, then this is an unacceptable argument. And so here we are.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Aug 9, 2017 11:42:55 GMT -5
Isn't is also true that more men might simply be attracted to a certain field, while more women to others? There are plenty of male nurses and teachers, but it's still probably more female than male. The important part is that if person A wants a job and their qualified, that they're hired based on merit, not gender, race, religion, etc, etc, so forth and so on.
Also, why is that we see this push for a 50/50 split in coding and such jobs, but not say working in a coal mine?
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Aug 9, 2017 12:01:16 GMT -5
From NT's post above:
When I read Damore's memo, the over-arching point I got out of it is that diversity is a good thing, but Google is going about it wrong and ineffectively (which you pointed out, NT). It isn't an anti-diversity memo - I would actually call it a PRO-diversity memo. So, to me, Damore is doing exactly what you said should be done.
As Damore points out, it's probably better to try to take a different approach which takes into account the strengths of the group in which we want to increase inclusiveness, than to simply push people in to fill a quota. I think Damore is arguing for a more organic approach, and since I am not frightened or put off by gender differences and actually embrace them, I agree. (disclaimer which Damore also repeatedly said - any one individual can break the "mold") When both my experience and science have shown there are characteristics we can assign as more male or more female, why not use that knowledge to decrease the gap?
I get that Damore is fixated on gender. And maybe as a white male, he's not as concerned about race as you are, NT. And maybe, as an engineer, he's socially awkward. (That's my own bias, knowing lots of engineers and having a couple in the family) However, this more strictly biological view of male and female obviously breaks down when talking about race rather than than gender, so he really had to stop this argument at gender, right? Still - if we are prompted to look more deeply into the roots of the problem rather than the effect (which to me is what Damore is saying), we can begin to address it at the roots with other groups who need more inclusiveness, which seems to me, over time (and probably a shorter time) could produce real and lasting change in inclusiveness. This, then, could make quotas irrelevant because plenty of diversity would more naturally flow into these areas. Isn't that the goal?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 9, 2017 14:15:59 GMT -5
Isn't is also true that more men might simply be attracted to a certain field, while more women to others? There are plenty of male nurses and teachers, but it's still probably more female than male. The important part is that if person A wants a job and their qualified, that they're hired based on merit, not gender, race, religion, etc, etc, so forth and so on. Actually, the fact that women are over-represented in those two fields is evidence--imo--for almost the opposite of what you are supposing. There aren't more women in teaching and nursing because of simple choice; there are more women in this fields because of gender-based assumptions about what women can/should do (across time, to be sure). There are more women nurses largely because of the military. There are more women teachers (now*) largely because of the way public education has been set-up, which includes the pay scale (which is, to be far, no longer what it once was). Secretarial work is the same sort of thing. Women are not happier/better at getting coffee, typing, and answering phones, it's just that such work was initially accessible to women who wanted/needed to work, so they filled the void. All that said, I do agree with the idea that men and women are different in ways that can have a general impact on career choices/preferences,** but as Opty says these differences fall apart at a strictly individual level, meaning--imo--that the only legitimate goal of programs seeking diversity would be making sure opportunity is the same for all (i.e. things like sex, gender, race, and so forth shouldn't play any role in the hiring and promoting processes). * Once upon a time, teaching and tutoring at any level was a job for men, alone. ** We had a related conversation here on the thread about chess players.
|
|