You told me, actually specifically regarding psych and neuroscience, that it's all pushing a "leftist" agenda. Given that it's all a big conspiracy to you, I'm not interested in discussing it with you. What's even more bizarre is you now try to rely on psych research.

Google has spent $265 Million in shareholder money to fix their diversity gap. And they couldn't:



https://www.axios.com/googles-divers...470784457.html

"Bottom line: Despite Google and its parent company's public statements in support of diversity in technology and multiple outreach and community programs, it seems to have made little headway since it began publishing its workforce demographic data three years ago. For example, U.S. Latino employees now make up 5% of the overall workforce and professional jobs, up from 3% each in 2013, and women now hold 13% of leadership positions, up from 8%. At the same time, black employees still only make up 2% of all U.S. jobs, 2% of technical ones, and 3% of executive roles."

According to your opinion- which is bad. Obviously clouded by some solid presumptions and out-dated relevance. Have you tried letting it go? Maybe use the social media to carefully investigate movements and think long time about what it means have sincerity and support. Just not that. Nope.

The common view on the left is the women should be represented equally in tech, and that any differences in outcome amount to sexism.

Demore thinks that's only part of the story. Schmidt was more measured, but he largely agreed with Damore on the science, and it's laughable that people are claiming he disagrees. They only think this because they believe Damore argued against diversity or that women are inferior, and a bunch of other thing he did not. Schmidt wanted to distance himself from those misinterpretations, and I doubt Demore would disagree with any of what he said. Schmidt thinks this topic should be discussed scientifically, but he would have also been pilloried at Google for wrongthink.

Are you helping? Or is daily racist trolling is your diversity plan?

I think it can be talked about. But the context was inappropriate. The firing is more a result of the controversy than the thoughts themselves, imo.

There's nothing "social justice movement" about women being insulted because of what this guy wrote. It's perfectly reasonable to be insulted by it.

I'm not really worried about the SJW movement here. There are much more absurd things in that vein (Did you read huehue's link about the YA fiction? That was nutso stuff.)

And I'm more worried about the right. There was a nice network of community organizations called ACORN, but right wing hysteria shut that down. And it wasn't because somebody at ACORN wrote a weird memo. It was an intentional dishonest hit job that killed a $25 million charity.

The reason you're getting that impression is because that's what the hysterical people who have taken over your movement want you to think. Read it yourself: https://diversitymemo.com/. If you come to that same conclusion, please explain why.

A nice, wholesome Community organization that told pimps how to pimp and prostitutes how to prostitute. Toke up my friend, toke up!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_...os_controversy

If you're worried about ACORN then you should also be worried about the current social justice movement. I am probably wrong to think the left is worse than the right, I don't know. Evangelicals do enormous harm to our society fully believing they are doing good. I still cannot fathom that they voted for Trump. My goal here is to get you to recognize the social justice movement, in it's current form, is very much akin to the evangelical Christians.

Evangelicals voted for Trump because Trump is the avatar the primal desires of the society that they want. It's really that simple.

Yes. This is my view. Given that we have no good evidence to suggest that women are better or worse suited than men to work in technology, the null hypothesis should absolutely be that women should be equally represented. I don't know what the actual no-bias distribution should be. I also don't know what the optimal distribution should be in terms of profitability. Neither do you. Neither does anyone.

Does that mean we should start firing men and hiring women until it's 50?50? Of course not. Does it mean being proactive in seeking out women employees and encouraging female interest in tech? I think so.

I don't know how common this view is. But there is still evidence of gender discrimination in the workplace, so it seems probable that at least some of the gap can be explained by sexism. of some kind.

It's not clear from the memo that he believes any discrimination exists. Except against conservatives.

Schmidt agreed on what the science said, but disagreed that it was important at Google:

Imagine someone at Google wrote a memo saying that men commit violent crime four times as often as women, so we should therefore hire fewer men to decrease the risk of workplace violence. There's nothing scientifically wrong with the data, but the conclusion is completely unfounded and downright offensive.

No. He wouldn't have brought it up because it's unclear if it matters.

Perhaps it's because he was the anti-thesis to a society they didn't want.

Sure you are.

So, according to today's Wikipedia editors, those in the Evangelical Christian movement make up 28.9% of USAians. What would you, as the preeminent interwebs expert on Phree Screech Rites on Cumpuss, guestimate as the % of USAians active in this SJWer Movement is ??

Power Hint: Evangelicals are a recognizable set of humans. If you wanna claim there exists such a thing as a SJWer Movement, you are going to have to come up with a recognizable set of humans too.

What we do seem to have good evidence is that tech work is currently better suited to male strengths. You act as if women don't have agency in choosing say Veterinarian school vs. Computer Science. Why don't you think women can think for themselves?

That's what Google seems to think it means.


Google spent $265 Million and still couldn't find gender discrimination.

I doubt the men would be needed a day off to deal with having their feelings hurt. And it could easily be shown how irrelevant such a study is to tech work. Damore was demonstrating how his research WAS relevant to tech work. Your false equivalencies are showing.

Of course, he didn't say Google should hire fewer women. In fact, he laid out several suggestions on how they could make the workplace more attractive to them.

If women graduate with 17% of computer science degrees, and 19% of engineering degrees, and the tech industry (including Google) employs 20% women in tech jobs, why do you think there is discrimination against women in the tech industry?

I'd urge you to read Scott Alexander's blog post, where he addresses every argument you're probably going to make. And regardless of who's right in the end on this, the biggest issue is that we can't even talk about it. That people increasingly have to shut the **** up or worry about offending someone, getting pilloried and **** canned.

They took the day of to express their opinion. Something you all support if its a conservative one and deride if not.

I don't remember seeing Evangelicals burning down Berkley.

500,000 of them organized in Washington DC, 5 million were estimated world-wide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Women%27s_March

You're being disingenuous:

I guess I should point out that Scott Alexander's post excludes the possibility of Damore’s suggestions to improve Google. Damore's suggestions are premised on the idea that the processes of data analytics are more male biased and by correcting them they could be more female friends and by implication be able to hire more females, but Scott Alexander's post suggests that it's because computer science is coded as male at an early age that we don't see more female computer science degrees. In other words, it's male all the way down and changing some processes wouldn't fix the problem.

People are people, which is why some people act like other people and those people act like those people.

Right. You dont like those women expressing their opinion.

As many people have pointed out though, the tech industry isn't just coding, and there is much more than just engineering going on there. And of course, even within those specific areas, there are plenty of women who excel, just fewer on average than men. There are tons of good arguments for having diversity in the workplace, but there are also plenty of good reasons why we don't have complete equality in every field that are not down to plain old sexism. All these things and more would be great for people to discuss calmly and rationally without feeling like violence has been unleashed upon them and they need to burn the witches.

What I find fascinating is that this is only controversial in related to tech.

What if we changed the job to - Lumberjacks, Auto Mechanics, Oil Riggers, Coal Miners (Lithium miners for you environmentalists), etc...would anyone deny there are biological differences in proclivities to those occupations?

Why tech? Just because it's a cushier job behind a desk and that even though both men and women are capable of the role, doesn't mean it doesn't play to one gender's strengths. Or that women simply choose to different career paths - because of their own agency?

Is it ok for women to not like tech or must they be a slave to your patriarchal desires as to what's good for them?

These immature males force an argument by memo then wonder why we never argue all this other stuff that wasn't forced in that particular memo. Like, why aren't lady lumberjacks sciencrificslly represented in this forum? Bolognallological differences?

Bone-headed O'Logical differences nobody talks about!!! Why?