No idea Your dislike of the army says a lot though. I hate killing (probably more than you, I'm a vegetarian for that reason), but the army is the only reason civilization exists. Every man in it is a better person than the people that mock it.

As for men and violence: an interesting data point. Lesbian relationships are the most violent relationships out there. Gay male relationships are the least violent of all relationships.

Lots of confounding variables there, but it lends weight to the theory that lower female violence is partly due to the their lack of physical strength. A bit like the weakling male tends to be nonviolent, as violence is likely to end badly for him when others are better at doing it than he is.

I don't dislike the army. It gives macho-heads and barbarians something to do. Sometimes they even get to feel accomplished. But mostly, they get to be traumatised. Bit like the UFC, except far less entertaining and far more wasteful.

By the way, this is the current state of academia;



"There is no such thing as biological sex. The research shows this"

Note he's not saying that gender is made up. He's saying that biological sex does not exist, and that the research supports this. Meanwhile, the professor who refuses to be forced to use 30+ recently invented made-up gender pronouns, is being censured by his university and dragged before the human rights commission.

This frames the debate. It also puts into context the claims of academics like zoltan. You can't believe a word they say about anything; lies, obfuscation, slandering, and downright objective-reality-denial, and the support of those that do, are the norm in academia these days.

Let's give Asian women their due. They aren't that discriminatory when it comes to being attracted to nerdy men in science fields from what I can see.

This seems like such an obvious, non-controversial point, and yet this thread continues to ramble on.

Well in this specific case the Google Vice President of whatever emphatically stated Davores assertions were incorrect. That is part of the problem. The left is very aggressive on saying things are emphatically wrong where we don't know for sure and current scientific evidence leans towards it actually being correct.

I will say people in this thread are bringing up points I hadn't thought of why cultural factors are more important than I thought. But no one in his thread has said a single thing that disproves anything I remember reading in Davores memo. Seems like for political reasons he is really being treated rather harshly by the press and society at large. I seem to remember his memo spending more time talking about his ideas how to break the barrier for women in tech than he does talking about biological differences. But no one seems to have noticed.

Trolly, an analogy:

Letists: Sports are sexist. Males make the most money and win everything. Women are underrepresented in sports.

Person A: "Sure they're underrepresented and get paid less, but that doesn't mean it's sexist. I contend that men are better in sports because they have naturally bigger muscles from biological sex differences"

Leftists: "That's sexist! Fire him!"

OP: Is this a reasonable view?

Ryan:
Trolly:
I'm confused and bemused why you think the fact the fewer females choose a field, and that we don't know exactly the cause, resolves the issue in question in any way as to the reasons as to why they choose or don't choose a field, or makes it not worth talking about. I think it's an interesting question whether this difference represents:

- Innate ability differences or
- Choice (linked to innate tendencies) or
- Choice (linked to cultural preferences, not innate) or
- Sexism in the workplace and in hiring

If you don't, fine, there are tons of threads that don't interest me and I avoid them. This thread "rambles on" because there's a lot to discuss about the question. If you find it uncomfortable, tell your leftist pals to stop screaming Sexism! Racism! Misogyny! when there isn't equality of outcome somewhere, no one would be talking about it without these leftist bigots making strong claims of sexism unsupported by the evidence.

You left out quite a few other factors.

This is normal, but is precisely why idle speculation most often leads to silliness and why arguing about someone's uneducated opinion is nearly purely a waste of time.

Perhaps we should move on to discuss the finer points of fuel cell technology. I once had an internship where I think we were working on ceramics for fuel cells (that I obviously don't remember anything from), and I believe you mentioned that you both have a degree in engineering and are also a vegetarian. This makes us both sufficient experts on the subject, and will probably lead to the next breakthrough in fuel cells.

After that, we can join up with the egg heads that are still young enough to do proper math and come up with a foolproof method of investing/trading! I mean, how hard can it be? It is just math!

some points relevant to the discussion

you know borat? his brother (IRL) is a scientist. a study he conducted in measuring prenatal testosterone levels showed a very significant difference in behavior and interests. theres also significant and thorough research done on the most egalitarian societies we have, and it clearly demonstrates that as you level the playing field, barriers are removed and differences maximize. interests and occupation differences in gender get bigger, not smaller

harvard (and other schools) racially discriminate exactly as if all the "racist" studies on IQ were true

on sexual selection. we have on average twice as many female ancestors as males. this is because the average female has 1 child. the average male has 2 or 0. women select and their sexual selection pressure has a massive impact on our evolution. chimps on the other hand are sluts. dominant males force beta males out of the way to get preference, but thats not the same thing

I'd love to see this research about egalitarian societies. Please share some of the research articles on this subject. IF you mean societies that equally value the contribution of both sexes (something completely unrelated to our discussion), you are talking about something completely different than a lack of societally expected sex roles (something related to what we are talking about).

Do they? Citation please.

According to your numbers, our population has never grown. Given the cacophony of people I've encountered, I believe this indicates that either the current population of human beings is wrong or your thesis is wrong.

Of course there is no conclusive evidence that proves Damore incorrect. But that's a low bar indeed.

A better question: How much evidence suggests that he is correct?

And the answer is: Some, I guess. Maybe.

There are certainly differences in personality measured in the kind of tests he cites. The differences seem to be fairly consistent across many cultures.

And that's it. There's nothing about how these personality tests apply to the tech industry. People make some plausible guesses, but there's no research testing those guesses or evaluating them objectively.

I don't see why not. The problem is that Damore was drawing conclusions from shaky evidence. And his focus on "Big Five" personality traits leads him to miss a lot of things. For example, honesty:

There's also research that female groups reinforce honesty, while male groups reinforce dishonesty.

Certainly these scientific findings are about as relevant to staffing decisions in a company as the results from Big Five trait tests. Yet he doesn't mention them and seems completely unaware of them. One could probably write a competing memo suggesting that Google hire more women to increase profitability by decreasing dishonesty. That memo would be equally valid scientifically, and equally useless.

Men don't care as much about the moral cost of cheating. Sure. From an evolutionary standpoint couldn't cheating be the moral thing for men to do?

Spread the genes as far and wide as possible? It's why our testicles are the size that they are and why we produce so much sperm so quickly.

Modern day moralists and moralists of all sorts actually think we should suppress such biological urges. Their fervent adherence to moral rules robs them of any sense of freedom. Like a caged beast gnawing at the bars; longing for the wild. Their selflessness demands they inflict endless cruelty onto themselves. This is the origin of bad conscience.

The other studies noted are alright.

To add to above: lying should be avoided. Unless it benefits you in a game like poker. And on average, I believe that women are more honest than men. I've share-housed with both, and lived with about 30 different people over the last 7 years (various share-houses and couch-surfers and people joining/leaving etc.). From general observations, this holds true. Other observations include: women are far more dramatic and far less tolerant; but they're also far more mature and far more understanding. Some of these may seem contradictory but I can assure you they're not.

P.S. If you got desires elsewhere, tell the SO first or open up the relationship. Not as difficult as expected, for most. Communication.

Not if the social cost inhibits the chances of your reproductive success or the reproductive success of your offspring.

I don't know how this relates to the topic of this thread, but I say go for it if that's your thing.

What do you mean by reproductive success?

In large societies, is this an issue? In a tribe, I could understand how word would spread quickly and so on and so forth. But..

Back on thread topic:

CEO's and bosses of medium-large organisations generally don't care too much about the specifics. That's often why they have others on the payroll. A lot of their job is damage minimization and opportunity hunting. If anything seems threatening that's often enough to be dismissed with.

I'd guess cheating in general would help to ensure genes are passed on to future generations, but, yes, in some small societies it could backfire.

You do know that we've only just recently invented airplanes, right?

Relevance?

Until very recently, leaving your immediate neighborhood was a drag. Even in cities, you couldn't escape your reputation.

I don't know what kind of miniature cities you've lived in, but I'm in Melbourne, and even Melbourne pales in comparison to many larger cities in the world. The inner east, south, west and north here all have their own cultures, let alone the outer suburbs. If you live in any of these area you're extremely unlikely to ever bump into a person you know who lives in another area. For example, the last 3 years I've lived in the inner-inner east (5 minutes from city) I've never bumped into anyone I went to high school with in the outer east, or anyone I've lived with or known in the South or North.

If you don't belong to one of those wee little sub-cities, you ain't gonna get the time of day.

If you eat well and exercise 5 days a week you'll get the time of day (at least from women).

Sisyphus got boulders to carry. Picking up boulders and putting them back down again. Until i find some meaning (or don't).

This only exists within wee little tiny corners of cities.

Brian on a mission to make as many false statements as possible in one thread. Meanwhile, VeeDDzz tries to bring evolutionary morality. I'm going to try that out for myself:
Men don't care much about their resources being spent to raise the offspring of others. From an evolutionary standpoint, couldn't killing your stepchildren being the moral thing for men to do?

You sure this is the reason? Can you think of alternative explanations? I can think of a dozen. For example, an equally plausible explanation is that human females are hard to impregnate, and give no signs of being in heat, unlike other animals. They've likely evolved this as a way to retain a man's interest, given the long period of protection needed while their offspring is helpless. Hence a man evolved frequent sperm creation to continually attempt to impregnate the woman.

One of our biological urges is to kill our competitors. Jealousy is the most powerful of emotions. Modern day moralists and moralists of all sorts actually think we should suppress such murderous biological urges. Their fervent adherence to moral rules robs them of any sense of freedom.