Sex Realism?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ElectricFetus, Aug 8, 2017.

  1. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,140
    http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40859004

    Mr Pichai said the text crossed the line due to it "advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace”.

    Entitled Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber, the paper argued that "the abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don't see equal representation of women in tech and leadership”.

    The author wrote: "We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism."

    Google has not confirmed who the employee is, but media reports name him as James Damore.

    "[I was fired for] perpetuating gender stereotypes," he told Reuters.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    12,854
    That report is utter bullshit - I know both men and women that are incredible in IT - simply put, gender has fuck all to do with it.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,605
    It's true, women's fingers are too weak to type code.

    Kidding, that anonymous engineer is full of shit.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,345
    vive la différence

    Anyone who thinks there is no difference is an idiot or an ideologue.
    That being said:
    All is grey area
    for thousands of different levels of various abilities.
    So
    Anyone who thinks that pigeonholing based solely on sex is also an idiot or ideologue.

    ....................
    The ideal of equality of ability is just that, an ideal, with little connection to reality.
    I know of no one, male or female, who is my equal, nor I theirs.
    Intelligent people judge other's abilities by watching them--------

    Usually prejudging an outcome is quite functional, however, when that leads to an absolute belief in prejudice, the outcome is often crippling.
    When someone makes hiring or promotion decisions based solely on sex, or race, or ethnicity, or education level, etc... then that person has a lazy mind and has earned the right to go bankrupt! (the sooner the better)
     
  8. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,140
    Well I have not read the report, but if the guy is saying ON AVERAGE men and women have different interests and a field like programing means fewer women are interested then men, sure that seems reasonable. That does not mean any individual women is not interested or is not a great programer, just on average. I guessing from the article he is saying the reason for this is biological, could be, but I see no reason to rule out sociological.

    Better question: if someone chooses not to be a computer programer, are they doing so of free will? Should we try to make everyone want to be a computer program, will everyone be happy as a computer programer?
     
  9. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,605
    We should encourage diversity in STEM fields because women are underrepresented. If men can be happy doing it, why not women? ...As long as they don't have to deal with biased men at work...
     
  10. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,140
    I'm happy jerking off to cartoon gay furries, why can't everyone else be?

    People have different interests, those interests maybe, sometimes, possibly be dictated by biological causes which may, sometimes, possibly vary statistically by sex.

    Anyways I started reading the report: http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320

    His Primer:

    I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. Despite what the public response seems to have been, I’ve gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change
     
  11. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,140
    Yeah I think we can say this guy got fired for being a conservative as well, not that I think it is ok to fire someone on political opinion, his "Left/Right Biases" sort shows his bias


    Left Biases

    • Compassion for the weak - Yeah because the weak can and historically do revolt, so it is a matter of self preservation to be compassionate.
    • Disparities are due to injustices - Generally, yes, when it comes to food, water, a roof over your head, lacking these things in this day and age is an injustice.
    • Humans are inherently cooperative - Yes
    • Change is good (unstable) - Sometimes
    • Open - open what?
    • Idealist - come on! there are idealist on all sides!
    Right Biases
    • Respect for the strong/authority - aaah generally a bad idea.
    • Disparities are natural and just - Natural: sure. Just: never! Our whole civilization is an abomination against nature, according to nature we should be dead, and the few of us alive should be living short painful lives of barbaric suffering.... so fuck nature!
    • Humans are inherently competitive - Yes, we are both cooperative and competitive, these are not mutually exclusive.
    • Change is dangerous (stable) - Change is inevitable, we must adapt or die, there is no stable steady state, other then extinction or transcendental evolution.
    • Closed - closed what?
    • Pragmatic - ok fuck this guy!
     
  12. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,140
    At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story.
    On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because

    Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.

    Seems reasonable, although we would need specific evidence per what ever difference you are looking at, and even if it is biological we must ask why should we not try to over come that? For example aspergers and autistic don't like social interactions, yet much social interaction therapies are provided for them anyways, so that they can at least function in our society. Computer programing may just be the way of the future, like reading, alot of people don't like to read, some people even have disorders like dyslexia that make it harder for them, yet none the less for their own good they must be made literate.
     
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,859
    When I see the first "sex realist" - or "race realist", etc - who doesn't assume the "reality" involved completely aligns with the social norms and conventional justifications of their immediate society, I'll give their whining more serious attention.

    Meanwhile, here is a statistical quirk, an odd fact of the world, to consider: there is a tennis player, a pro, who has hit their weight in pounds in mph on their game serve - in a match, not practice. It's a woman. There isn't a man who even comes close, afaik.
     
  14. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,605
    I call that disingenuous impartiality.
     
  15. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,140
    yeah.... so?

    Maybe, but that sounds like assuming guilt and worse how do we prove someone is not disingenuous?
     
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,859
    The default assumptions are the issue - what is assumed when evidence is insufficient.
     
  17. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,140
    And the issues are... Here are his list of issues in TL;DR format:
    • Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.
    • This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.
    • The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.
    • Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression
    • Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression
    • Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.
    I think we should go over the issues rather then attack the person that presents them, are these issues worth going over, well I don't work at Google so I have no clue, but I do think goggles conclusion of "no, your fired and anyone else that questions our ideology is fired" sort of proves his point.
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,676
    Some of those are quite reasonable, for example:
    • Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.
    Had he continued in that vein no worries.

    However, they weren't presented that way. The manifesto, for example, claims women have more neuroticism than men. This sort of justification/rationalization tends to lead to abuses, as they have multiple times in the past:

    Irish are drunks
    Italians are mobsters and criminals
    Blacks are low IQ and inherently lazy and amoral
    Mexicans are criminals and racists

    And such prejudices have led to the very problems that Google is trying to prevent.

    Do some diversity programs go overboard? Absolutely. But the underlying goal of diversity programs is to allow everyone, no matter what their race, religion, sex or orientation, the same OPPORTUNITY to succeed and move into roles they want. This guy says such goals are extreme and authoritarian - and that's where the problem lies.
     
  19. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,140
    • Misogyny is unacceptable: Comparing women to a genetic disorder and learning disability is exactly problematic.
    Perhaps ON AVERAGE they do, but that means nothing about any INDIVIDUAL women.

    And people with down-syndrome have lower IQs and learning disabilities... so? If these stereotypes are true, even universally, not just on average, that does not mean we should use it to justify abuses. Even people with down-syndrome deserve equal rights and even special services to help them be functional, productive and happy member of society. Perhaps it is the "tend to lead to abuses" part of the thinking we need to discard of not the possibility these have truth. If say women are more prone to neurotic disorders the conclusion is not "we should not hire them", or worse deny reality, the better conclusion is provide more services for neurosis as we increase the percentage of female staff. If we had universal healthcare perhaps companies would not need to care even.

    So should Google hire people with down syndrome? They should hire anyone who has the most aptitude and skill for the position they can get, but how can that be determined without bias entering?
     
  20. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,291
    You know that's fallacious logic, right?
     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,859
    None of that addresses the central matter of the default assumptions involved. And the apparent obliviousness to those assumptions is an obvious red flag - he's not serious, here.
    I think he and his supporters misrepresenting Google's actions as "no, your fired and anyone else that questions our ideology is fired" supports my dismissal of his brand of complaint as more whinging by sexist male techies.

    When he can present his case as a policy debate that at least recognizes the core issues at hand, we'll take it seriously.
     
  22. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,140
    Ok what is the core issue at hand?
     
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,859
    That's not, actually, reasonable. The two sentences there conflict.
    Discrimination to reach equal representation is not necessarily unfair, or bad for business, or even "divisive" - once the whiners have been dumped. That's only the case if one assumes the "may in part" PC talk in the first sentence was not honest, and in fact the matter had been decided in the affirmative by assumption.
     

Share This Page