Did James Damore say anything scientifically proven factually incorrect?
08-19-2017
, 07:56 AM
Quote:
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?
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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
B
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.
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.
08-19-2017
, 09:42 AM
This is comical. You're sure of something for which there is no compelling evidence, just a hypothesis and a weak correlation.
You believe that cheating is moral from an evolutionary moral standpoint (perhaps not surprisingly, this fits perfectly with your desires), while you balk at identical moral reasoning being used in other scenarios that don't benefit you personally.
This is all very weak on your part.
Well you've likely never been in that situation, living a safe easy life built for you by men better than yourself (including the military, which you mock). The evidence seems to suggest for example that infanticide was the norm before the comforts of civilization.
You believe that cheating is moral from an evolutionary moral standpoint (perhaps not surprisingly, this fits perfectly with your desires), while you balk at identical moral reasoning being used in other scenarios that don't benefit you personally.
This is all very weak on your part.
Well you've likely never been in that situation, living a safe easy life built for you by men better than yourself (including the military, which you mock). The evidence seems to suggest for example that infanticide was the norm before the comforts of civilization.
08-19-2017
, 11:31 AM
I don't believe that lying to those you love most is moral.
The rest...
Reasons.
The rest...
Reasons.
08-19-2017
, 11:38 AM
Quote:
Is there any good study out there about how different races (or whatever groups you want to consider) perform in amplitude tests compared with the standard average of their group when raised by adoption at birth or within first year by other races? (and then of course this compared with how on avg adopted kids under similar conditions among all "races" do)
Quote:
In our original post, we pointed out that adoption from a poor home to a well-off home is associated with a 12- to 18-point gain in IQ.
Quote:
Second, a previous study co-authored by Turkheimer found an adoption effect of only about 4.4 points. However, the magnitude of the increase afforded by adoption depends on the difference between the biological and adoptive homes. This particular adoption study was conducted in Sweden, using children adopted from homes of slightly less than average economic status into homes that were slightly higher than average. Krona for krona, the IQ gains were just about the same. Again, adoption into improved environments, even in a country with a strong social safety net and relatively slight economic differences between the social classes, increases IQ.
08-19-2017
, 11:52 AM
Quote:
In our original post, we pointed out that adoption from a poor home to a well-off home is associated with a 12- to 18-point gain in IQ.
IMO this is the last refuge in the which the cowards can hide. But I think it's pretty weak. IMO the stronger case would be made by claiming multi generational epigenetic effects. They're a reasonable hypothesis and not ruled out completely by the evidence. It's possible, at least. i think if you were to set the line given the totality of the evidence, it would be about 20% this and 80% a meaningful genetic difference.
Last edited by ToothSayer; 08-19-2017 at 12:02 PM.
08-19-2017
, 12:06 PM
And in terms of men and women I'd argue it's at least 95% that men have superior spatial analysis skills, on average and more powerfully at the tails. Which means
- Men will be better at math and some physics
- Men will be better programmers
- Men will be better architects
The last one is interesting - why is architecture a male profession? Why only 18% women? It is not that cognitively demanding, it involves taste and aesthetics and creativity, something women excel at (women are 70% of interior designers). Architecture is like any other professional office job. Yet it also include a large component of spatial analysis skills. Is that the differentiator here, as in coding?
- Men will be better at math and some physics
- Men will be better programmers
- Men will be better architects
The last one is interesting - why is architecture a male profession? Why only 18% women? It is not that cognitively demanding, it involves taste and aesthetics and creativity, something women excel at (women are 70% of interior designers). Architecture is like any other professional office job. Yet it also include a large component of spatial analysis skills. Is that the differentiator here, as in coding?
08-19-2017
, 01:29 PM
Quote:
This is simply a false statement. It is strongly contradicted by the scientific evidence. Solid cherry pick though by a hard left VOX article. They try to appear reasonable in the next passage but the totality of the evidence is damning to the thesis that adoptive socioeconomic status or highly intelligent adoptive parents makes much difference to the child's IQ.
Quote:
or this study showing about a 7 IQ point boost going from low SES to a high SES environment.
Quote:
IMO this is the last refuge in the which the cowards can hide. But I think it's pretty weak. IMO the stronger case would be made by claiming multi generational epigenetic effects. They're a reasonable hypothesis and not ruled out completely by the evidence. It's possible, at least. i think if you were to set the line given the totality of the evidence, it would be about 20% this and 80% a meaningful genetic difference.
08-19-2017
, 01:31 PM
Quote:
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).
https://twitter.com/clairlemon/statu...93873094414336
they do. its illegal so they don't admit it but the evidence is quite clear. i think their excuse is ironically racist in that they find a disproportionate number of asians are plain and indistinguishable outside of their academic achievements. i think if you're interested you can google the princeton study on harvard racial discrimination. i haven't seen anyone dispute the validity of the numbers, its just the legality in question
anyways, back to the dominance hierarchy. if men are trying to climb dominance hierarchies (and failing) and women have less competition (and successfully reproducing) it creates differences. maybe a bell curve looking like this

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25384550
and considering women have a different role than men historically, it would make sense that we have different interests. we even know that hormones affect your personality and that we have different hormone levels. prenatal studies on testosterone show behavior differences. the science is pretty clear on the social construction theories
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
anyways you are unknowingly backing the memos point. if men are more dishonest against women, you don't discriminate against men. you treat them as individuals. you also don't blame the legal system for being sexist if they lock up more men for being dishonest. a key point of the memo was to highlight the importance of treating people as individuals but also acknowledging valid reasons as to why we have disproportionate outcomes
08-19-2017
, 04:01 PM
Quote:
anyways you are unknowingly backing the memos point. if men are more dishonest against women, you don't discriminate against men. you treat them as individuals. you also don't blame the legal system for being sexist if they lock up more men for being dishonest. a key point of the memo was to highlight the importance of treating people as individuals but also acknowledging valid reasons as to why we have disproportionate outcomes
But the memo also purported to be concerned with Google's profitability, which is even further removed from the research cited. Even if personality traits accounted for 100% of the disparity, it doesn't follow that the status quo is the most profitable arrangement.
08-19-2017
, 04:04 PM
13ball,
Do you have a citation for the above? I couldn't see it in the original article, and I am certain it is not true. No reading of evidence that I've ever looked at would even come close to supporting this specific claim.
Quote:
In our original post, we pointed out that adoption from a poor home to a well-off home is associated with a 12- to 18-point gain in IQ.
08-19-2017
, 04:05 PM
How would this explanation be racist?
08-20-2017
, 12:48 PM
08-20-2017
, 01:47 PM
From that paper (I haven't had time to go through it all, and where they even got the number isn't immediately obvious)
"Furthermore, the environmental influences of the adoptive family may fade as the adopted children grow older. In general, genetic and environmental factors may not operate on the same level across the life span. In longitudinal studies, the IQ of adopted children has been found to become more similar to the IQ of their birth parents with increasing age (Fulker, DeFries, & Plomin, 1988; Plomin et al., 1997), and in adulthood the correlation between the IQ of adopted children and that of their adoptive parents appears to be much lower than the correlation with the IQ of the biological parents (McGue, Bouchard, Iacono, & Lykken, 1993; Plomin et al., 1997)."
Also, any adoption study is going to be biased in favor of the adopted because the derpy looking ones obviously aren't getting rehomed as easily.
"Furthermore, the environmental influences of the adoptive family may fade as the adopted children grow older. In general, genetic and environmental factors may not operate on the same level across the life span. In longitudinal studies, the IQ of adopted children has been found to become more similar to the IQ of their birth parents with increasing age (Fulker, DeFries, & Plomin, 1988; Plomin et al., 1997), and in adulthood the correlation between the IQ of adopted children and that of their adoptive parents appears to be much lower than the correlation with the IQ of the biological parents (McGue, Bouchard, Iacono, & Lykken, 1993; Plomin et al., 1997)."
Also, any adoption study is going to be biased in favor of the adopted because the derpy looking ones obviously aren't getting rehomed as easily.
08-21-2017
, 12:43 AM
Quote:
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.
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.
Co-signed.
08-21-2017
, 12:45 AM
Quote:
Yes of course. The left want anything that's predominantly male and white to match population percentages, regardless of talent, choice, merit. It's a pure political game of bringing down the perceived power of white men, who, despite being the most productive and generous and giving and achieving and peace-making and feminist race in history (these are all indisputable), are seen as the devil. So they go after jobs that are privilege giving or money giving, and claim that disparity is due to discrimination, hidden and insidious.
It's cut from the same cloth as the "reactionary rightist" bigotry and violence of the Maoists, when anyone with a business and their entire family became responsible for all social ills and were murdered, imprisoned and 'reeducated" en masse. A bizarre political movement, to say the least, but one that's cropped up often throughout history, to the detriment of all.
It's cut from the same cloth as the "reactionary rightist" bigotry and violence of the Maoists, when anyone with a business and their entire family became responsible for all social ills and were murdered, imprisoned and 'reeducated" en masse. A bizarre political movement, to say the least, but one that's cropped up often throughout history, to the detriment of all.
When you make posts like these, you probably think they make you look like less of a white supremacist, right?
08-21-2017
, 02:14 AM
If you'd said "Jewish verbal intelligence supremacist" or "Asian spatial analysis supremacist" or "female verbal intelligence supremacist" or "male spatial analysis supremacist" you might have a leg to stand on. In this thread I mostly talk about evidence for male and Asian supremacy in spatial analysis, and how it probably relates to coding.
Last edited by Zeno; 08-21-2017 at 02:57 PM.
Reason: Deleted personal attack.
08-21-2017
, 03:44 AM
Non-monogamus relationships benefit everyone. More available women and more men who haven't had their testicles domesticated.
08-21-2017
, 04:26 AM
Also, "testicles domesticated"? WTF? The bedrock of the civilization that was productive and unselfish enough to give you the ability to enjoy hedonist narcissism, is lifetime pair bonding. Parasites requite a robust host.
08-21-2017
, 04:40 AM
My parents would've been a hell of a lot happier had they divorced or been non-monogamus. Very likely I would have as well. Spare me the usual Mother Theresa treatment.
"Unselfish enough to stay together when you shouldn't".
Please.
"Unselfish enough to stay together when you shouldn't".
Please.
08-21-2017
, 05:57 AM
Quote:
The authors give this citation:
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ol_Performance
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ol_Performance
Unfortunately it doesn't support the claim in the article. It looks like they're flat out lying in that Vox article. There might be a single study that shows it (I'd be amazed if there wasn't, individual studies are full of false positives and negatives), but there are also lots of contrary studies. For example,
Quote:
Yes.
The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study involved tracking a couple of hundred black children raised by (privileged, intelligent) white families.
The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study involved tracking a couple of hundred black children raised by (privileged, intelligent) white families.

Last edited by ToothSayer; 08-21-2017 at 06:16 AM.
08-21-2017
, 08:36 AM
Quote:
Thanks a bunch for going to the trouble, I know it's not your claim.
Unfortunately it doesn't support the claim in the article. It looks like they're flat out lying in that Vox article. There might be a single study that shows it (I'd be amazed if there wasn't, individual studies are full of false positives and negatives), but there are also lots of contrary studies. For example,
The claim made in the Vox article is simply false. Adoption into a higher socioeconomic status home does not result in a 12 to 18 point IQ gain. If it did, there would be nothing left to debate. To make such an outrageously false claim disqualifies them from being taken seriously. That cannot be an honest mistake to anyone familiar with the research; it is purely a false claim.
Unfortunately it doesn't support the claim in the article. It looks like they're flat out lying in that Vox article. There might be a single study that shows it (I'd be amazed if there wasn't, individual studies are full of false positives and negatives), but there are also lots of contrary studies. For example,
The claim made in the Vox article is simply false. Adoption into a higher socioeconomic status home does not result in a 12 to 18 point IQ gain. If it did, there would be nothing left to debate. To make such an outrageously false claim disqualifies them from being taken seriously. That cannot be an honest mistake to anyone familiar with the research; it is purely a false claim.
Quote:
Here the authors seem to be citing a meta-study of adopted and non-adopted siblings: in particular referencing the six studies with a total of 253 subjects where such a difference was analyzed. For example, there is one of French half-siblings, one raised in a working class environment and the other in an upper-middle class environment. They have significant limitations, as discussed in James J. Lee’s review of Vox author Richard E. Nisbett’s book on intelligence
And, again, this rebuttal cites research pointing to a 7 point IQ difference based on changing SES.
The facts are this:
Research shows unequivocally that changes in environment cause significant increases in IQ.
While it is clear that intelligence is inheritable, there is ZERO evidence for a genetic effect for IQ differences between different populations.
08-21-2017
, 08:40 AM
Quote:
From that paper (I haven't had time to go through it all, and where they even got the number isn't immediately obvious)
"Furthermore, the environmental influences of the adoptive family may fade as the adopted children grow older. In general, genetic and environmental factors may not operate on the same level across the life span. In longitudinal studies, the IQ of adopted children has been found to become more similar to the IQ of their birth parents with increasing age (Fulker, DeFries, & Plomin, 1988; Plomin et al., 1997), and in adulthood the correlation between the IQ of adopted children and that of their adoptive parents appears to be much lower than the correlation with the IQ of the biological parents (McGue, Bouchard, Iacono, & Lykken, 1993; Plomin et al., 1997)."
"Furthermore, the environmental influences of the adoptive family may fade as the adopted children grow older. In general, genetic and environmental factors may not operate on the same level across the life span. In longitudinal studies, the IQ of adopted children has been found to become more similar to the IQ of their birth parents with increasing age (Fulker, DeFries, & Plomin, 1988; Plomin et al., 1997), and in adulthood the correlation between the IQ of adopted children and that of their adoptive parents appears to be much lower than the correlation with the IQ of the biological parents (McGue, Bouchard, Iacono, & Lykken, 1993; Plomin et al., 1997)."
Quote:
Also, any adoption study is going to be biased in favor of the adopted because the derpy looking ones obviously aren't getting rehomed as easily.
08-21-2017
, 10:50 AM
Quote:
Interesting theory. I guess the first step in testing it would be a rigorous definition of "derpy-looking."
08-23-2017
, 01:10 AM
Long way to go and a short time to get there.
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 19,444
Quote:
What they did find was a very strong negative relationship between percentage of women getting advanced education and the percentage of those getting math education.
You will find that when few people of a population can obtain education, they tend to not major in art history.
Quote:
they do. its illegal so they don't admit it but the evidence is quite clear. i think their excuse is ironically racist in that they find a disproportionate number of asians are plain and indistinguishable outside of their academic achievements. i think if you're interested you can google the princeton study on harvard racial discrimination. i haven't seen anyone dispute the validity of the numbers, its just the legality in question
Quote:
i barfed my thoughts out without proofreading (as i usually do). it was poorly written. those are ratios. obviously if a women has one child on average, the population is doomed. its a ratio. the reason it is important is because its factual evidence about sexual selection and human evolution. women select mates and nearly all women mate (historically). they select men from the top of the dominance hierarchy and about half of the men fail to get selected. this has a massive effect on gender roles and psychology. female psychologists and evolutionary psychologists have come out in defense of the memo. the critics on the other hand, are bloggers, journalists, SJW's, womens studies professors, etc. hmmmm
If an extension of your thesis (to make it relevant to our discussion of coding) is correct, then we'd find that in populations that exhibited greater polygyny would have the largest proportions of "natural" male coders. We'd very much expect that gorillas would have evolved to be much greater coders than we are.
Sorry, but I'm at risk of becoming bored, so I will put off responding to the rest for a later date.
08-23-2017
, 06:10 AM
Quote:
Do you have a though of you own? You're so boring.
If you'd said "Jewish verbal intelligence supremacist" or "Asian spatial analysis supremacist" or "female verbal intelligence supremacist" or "male spatial analysis supremacist" you might have a leg to stand on. In this thread I mostly talk about evidence for male and Asian supremacy in spatial analysis, and how it probably relates to coding.
If you'd said "Jewish verbal intelligence supremacist" or "Asian spatial analysis supremacist" or "female verbal intelligence supremacist" or "male spatial analysis supremacist" you might have a leg to stand on. In this thread I mostly talk about evidence for male and Asian supremacy in spatial analysis, and how it probably relates to coding.
Quote:
...white men, who, despite being the most productive and generous and giving and achieving and peace-making and feminist race in history...
Also, my 'original' thought, again implied, was:
Quote:
...they have this weird quirk where they think if they phrase it politely and don't denigrate the 'lesser' races it will somehow veil the white supremacy, but they're dumb so it comes out as an even more literal white supremacy statement than it would otherwise.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE
Powered by:
Hand2Note
Copyright ©2008-2022, Hand2Note Interactive LTD