I'm down with that. spank might have a seizure though.

The guy who wrote the Bell Curve, Charles Murray, was on Sam Harris' podcast. He mentioned that his research showed that Asians have the highest IQs on average. The variance in IQ among races was much less than the variance among individuals.

https://www.samharris.org/podcast/it...dden-knowledge

He has a pretty terrible reputation and many have questioned his findings so keep that in mind. I am not saying I agree with him or not but it was a pretty interesting podcast.

It's laughably wrong to just assert that culture plays no role. Kids grow up in world where there are different expectations, representations, and role models for men and women.

Where do you draw the line with that claim, though?

Are tall naturally well muscled people more often athletes because of culture, or because they have a meaningful genetic advantage? No doubt culture plays a part, expectations, but ultimately it's the genetic advantage that makes them better at the thing in question.

I think you'll find that a lot of our norms and people's preferences have developed around our natural traits. Women are nurses and child care workers, because they're simply naturally more nurturing. Men are scientists and strategists more because they're simply naturally more strategic and autist. Culture amplifies these differences, but I think at least half the time, it doesn't create them.

As another examples: Asians in 1980, before computers, score much better than others in spatial analysis. Is it any wonder that 40 years later and on another continent, Asians are over represented in professions that involves the heavy use of the general skill area of spatial analysis and simple-structure-abstraction, such as coding?

This is the assertion that you need to prove. Not sure how you do so.

It's also pretty ad hoc: women are nurses because they biologically like nurturing ****, but somehow aren't stereotypically doctors or farmers or therapists.

Like why are the best sumo wrestlers Japanese and Mongolian and not Chinese or Korean? Must be that they evolved biologically to love sumo, can see any other explanation.

Dishonest, creepy brute says what about spank?

I don't know that it necessarily needs to be proven. He is simply advancing an alternative hypothesis. The only people assuming that their hypothesis is 100% true are the people in the militantly pro-diversity camp. These are the people who are assuming that any variance in outcome by group must necessarily be due to racism and/or sexism, and that the answer to this variance is forced quotas and mandatory sensitivity / unconscious bias training.

This authoritarian closed-mindedness to alternative possibilities (in the face of scientific evidence which supports these alternative possibilities) is in large part the reason for this controversy around the memo.

Sure let's discuss prejudice and discrimination like acrimonious pompous lords of the plantation. Some young science male will be along to inquire how different you know the sexes are.

Well that's the dilemma we're in. Until we map the brain, do all kinds of advanced simulations, we can't say for sure.

What do we do with this lack of certainty? Do we take the common sense route, and what the evidence seems to suggest, that there are large innate biologically based behavior differences, on top of which culture has a large effect also?
Well, providing constant close care for children has to be extremely hardwired into women. I don't see how it couldn't be; the selection pressure is so incredibly strong, it's hard to imagine a stronger one. That's an exact fit for child care professions and something of a fit for nursing.

The male/strategic claim is weaker.

You sure do a lot of picking of fights for someone requesting (and having that request honored) to be left alone.
What precisely do you object to? Again, I'm happy to let people be judged entirely on merit. It's the left that's claiming that it's not possible the world we see is merit based until 50% of coders (but not garbos or coal miners, oddly) are women. If you want to claim that the disparity in numbers is because of sexism, you open up the whole can of worms - what is the truth about why women don't code as much as men? Is it sexism, or choice, or talent? You don't get to want to engineer society away from merit to equality of outcome, and then whine when someone asks you to justify that position, or wants talk about it.

Strawspank was a bad idea to follow up with but what do you object!??' So miserable and stupefying. Creep.

Anyway, this thread could be really interesting if we talked about where the evidence is pointing to an open mind looking at the evidence impartially. I posted an example above of verbal intelligence vs math intelligence by sex, explaining female choice away from math at the high end. There must be some interesting studies out there.

But since he said that there are fewer woman than men at Google partially because men care more about ideas then other people, it puts his detractors in a bad spot when they try to argue against that.

About 50% of medical students are female. And as doctors, they dominate men in the more nurturing specialties, like psychiatry:

http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07...d-differences/

As a rule, but not always , each of us incarnates every 800 years which number has gone down since the so called original 2100 years which is halved for as a rule, but not always, we will incarnate in a male body followed by a female body; therefore halved to 800-1000 years.

Neither the alternation in genders or time spans are fixed as we incarnate as a function of our particular qualities and needs ; both ours and mankind's.

If the female ovum were every to flourish , on its own, it would expand into nothingness for it cannot, alone deal with the earthly.

Likewise if the male sperm were to attempt to flourish, on its own, we would have a crass corruption akin to a garbage debris .

The female gender is indeed somewhat cosmic whereas the male gender is more telluric. this in no way means that one should go about classifying and passing legislation for peoples based upon gender.

The work appears to be the ability to see the individual without classification as to gender, skin, nation, tribe or family affiliation; meeting your neighbors as human beings for all the previous are no more than the cloaks of Men, likened to coming out of the water when wet, the wetness is not the Man.

There's completely obvious stuff, like every listed cornerback in the NFL in the last 10 years (and almost every listed DB and WR1/WR2 period) being black. You could argue that maybe there were a few fringe-y white guys who could have been among the ****tiest backup corners or whatever, but you'd have to be 100 times more ******ed than spank on his current spazzfest to believe that there's this huge pool of white talent, or potential white talent, out there being completely suppressed by racist coaches, job stereotypes, unprivileged upbringings, or whatever other nonsense. The top-end real and potential cornerback talent is just obviously almost 100% black. But you say something else might be a natural 70-30 split or whatever and you're the devil incarnate. It's complete insanity.

Henceforth women shall be referred to as Bitches in this thread. Just to tweak a few noses.

The white guys are busy being quarterbacks.

Either way, it is largely irrelevant. You'd be considered dumb as **** by anyone if you went to the NFL with a selection criteria of skin color.

We aren't there yet as far as evidence that supports any particular conclusion. The closest we have are some studies that show experimentally how you can manipulate a child to perform poorly on tasks such as the marshmallow test (disappointed kids perform horribly), and consistent results re: IQ performance within region hated minorities vs. majority vs. model minorities (example: Koreans in Japan are low IQ, Dutch in South America are low IQ, Bollywood actresses are far too attractive).

I'm more interested in a discussion of whether the google-bro deserved to be fired. I think that google was far too hasty in dismissing him. I suggest that the fair thing to do would be to assume that his ideas about maleness are true and test him for such things as proficiency at hand-to-hand combat, persistence hunting and starting a fire. I mean, if he can't do those simple evolutionarily necessary male tasks, how could he possibly be male enough to code? Even if he fails, firing him is a bit harsh. He should be offered a more suitable roll that has provisions for him getting a nicer haircut, wearing a skirt and not speaking unless directly spoken to.

Meanwhile in the 2 days we have spent arguing which privileged persons get to work at Google versus some other bay area tech company where they would make $25k/year less Mark Zuckerberg and Bezos have made another $1 billion each, the homeless population in America has grown by another 1,000 persons, and the true patriarchy pulling the strings is having a good laugh watching us fighting over the scraps that dribble out of the corners of their collective mouths.

Those are also the least competitive specialities to get residency where the doctors earn the least on average. Just saying.

Any moron can advance alternative hypotheses. Let's see him back it up with anything other than bald assertions.

Common sense suggests that peolle advancing the same tired balderdash about the superiority of white men based on hand-wavy arguments should be taken with a grain of salt.

It's funny, it used to be the common assertion that whote people were biologically superior athletes until Jack Johnson and Jesse Owens came in and wrecked shop.

Wait, what has this got to do with superiority, or white men? White men are only mentioned as a counter of a racist sexist hate speech of the left - as an explanation for why they go after inequality of sex ratios in coding jobs but not coal mining jobs.

And all claims should be taken with a grain of salt. That is my position. It's not the position of the left, who claim with absolute certainty that differences in equality of outcome are due to hidden racism and sexism, and radical forced change is needed to address this. And that anyone who even dares to put forth a hypothesis at odds with that religious belief, however politely and reasonably, should be hounded of their jobs. Who is anti-science? Whose beliefs are akin to religion? Who is totalitarian and anti free speech and the discussion of ideas?