If Mort Divine ruled the world

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/us/politics/trump-affirmative-action-universities.html

Interesting that this already been framed as a "omg reverse racism" issue, especially since i haven't seen a word from the administration on the issue;

outsider:

“The civil rights laws were deliberately written to protect everyone from discrimination, and it is frequently the case that not only are whites discriminated against now, but frequently Asian-Americans are as well,” he said.

at least she tells on herself though. poor asians, not enough discrimination

But Kristen Clarke, the president of the liberal Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, criticized the affirmative action project as “misaligned with the division’s longstanding priorities.” She noted that the civil rights division was “created and launched to deal with the unique problem of discrimination faced by our nation’s most oppressed minority groups,”


this coupled with the (black) response to the proposed HBO show Confederate (link) just makes me sad
 
Apparently Google blocked Jordan Peterson from his account for "Violating TOS" before eventually reinstating it after the outcry. Shit's getting out of hand.
 
DE_BUNKED.png
 
Google bro would argue that we ought to consider the possibility that white women and racial minorities simply produce lower-quality work, which is why we struggle to be recognized as competent knowledge producers. It’s time to turn the tables on this debate. Rather than leaning in and trying endlessly to prove our humanity and value, people like him should have to prove that our inferiority is the problem. Eliminate structural biases in education, health care, housing, and salaries that favor white men and see if we fail. Run the experiment. Be a scientist about it.

Seems like a rational proposal.

I'd rephrase it slightly. Regardless of whether the disparities in education, health care, housing, salaries, etc. are structural or simply the result of lower intelligence, let's rectify them for the purposes of science. Run an experiment and see who succeeds and who doesn't.

But that'll never fucking happen.
 
Eliminate structural biases in education, health care, housing, and salaries that favor white men and see if we fail. Run the experiment. Be a scientist about it.

She has to first demonstrate what that actually entails. That's just political buzzword gibberish.

But that'll never fucking happen.

And be honest here, it will never happen because which crowd will protest it? It won't be the evil right-wing capitalists and science-deniers that make sure it doesn't happen.
 
Last edited:
Give a group of one hundred people from common educational backgrounds--fifty men, fifty women--equal salaries and positions, equal access to health care and adequate housing, and allow a board to review their work anonymously so as to avoid bias.

Let the experiment run for at least a year, preferably longer. Then run it again with new people, same conditions. Then run it one more time.
 
"Google bro" never even argued that women produce inferior work though, simply that there's no reason to believe that the ratio of men vs women of a certain standard of work is 1:1. Computer engineering has roughly a 9 to 1 graduate ratio of men to women, why should a computer engineering company strive to have a 1 to 1 ratio? There are far more male engineers than female, therefore there will be far more top-tier male engineers than female and "hiring biases" are absolutely normal if they reflect the available worker pool.

Though fwiw I will admit that evo psych is one of the more bullshit fields of science out there, and often not science at all but rather just series of thought experiments to come to some "logical", presupposed conclusion.
 
"Google bro" never even argued that women produce inferior work though, simply that there's no reason to believe that the ratio of men vs women of a certain standard of work is 1:1. Computer engineering has roughly a 9 to 1 graduate ratio of men to women, why should a computer engineering company strive to have a 1 to 1 ratio? There are far more male engineers than female, therefore there will be far more top-tier male engineers than female and "hiring biases" are absolutely normal if they reflect the available worker pool.

Um, I mean he was arguing that women are genetically less suited for tech jobs than men, and that basically translates into inferior work.

He's suggesting that women's biological differences is the primary reason why there are fewer women in the tech world.
 
I haven't read his manifesto, but it's what all the articles reporting on it are saying. Here's the Business Insider:

Although some differences between men and women have been observed by scientists, they are mostly physical ones. Current research generally does not find evidence that variations in preferences, psychology, or personality stem from genetic or biological factors. Rather, they’re primarily attributed to culture and socialization.

In his manifesto, however, Damore suggested the gender differences he lists do have biological components. One justification he gives for this belief is that the differences he mentions are “what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective” and are “universal across human cultures.”

http://www.businessinsider.com/google-james-damore-fired-tech-gender-gap-science-2017-8

As far as the inference goes, it simply follows from his critique of diversification policies. He's opposed to diversity in the tech world because he believes that the disparity in hiring is a reflection of "natural" qualities. In other words, men are more biologically suited to perform tech work, which I take to mean they produce superior work. So men are increasingly drawn to, and find success in, tech jobs, while women aren't, and don't.
 
Employees across Silicon Valley are deeply divided about Google's move, according to a survey conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday by Blind, an anonymous corporate chat app. When Blind asked its users if they thought Google should have fired Damore, over 4,000 from different companies weighed in.

Perhaps most pertinently, 441 Google employees responded. Of them, more than half – 56% to be precise– said they didn't think it was right for the company to fire Damore.

The former engineer actually had significant support among all the corporations represented in the survey. But it did vary from company to company.

At Uber, 64% of employees who participated in the survey thought Google shouldn't have fired Damore. Employees at Apple and LinkedIn were nearly evenly split in the poll but leaned slightly toward approving Google's decision. Meanwhile, 65% of respondents from Lyft were good with the way it went down.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/many-...amore-should-have-been-fired-2017-8?r=US&IR=T
 
James Damore got fired from Google because the highly educated engineer (who was working toward a PhD in systems biology from Harvard) said biology appears to play some role in the career pursuits of men and women, including at Google.

He has the right enemies, and the right allies.

Human sexuality science writer Debra Soh, who has a PhD in sexual neuroscience from York University, writes in The Globe and Mail that Damore’s internal memo was “fair and factually accurate.”

She points to studies that show higher levels of prenatal testosterone (typical in boys) “are associated with a preference for mechanically interesting things and occupations in adulthood,” including in girls with a certain genetic condition:

When they are born, these girls prefer male-typical, wheeled toys, such as trucks, even if their parents offer more positive feedback when they play with female-typical toys, such as dolls. Similarly, men who are interested in female-typical activities were likely exposed to lower levels of testosterone.

As well, new research from the field of genetics shows that testosterone alters the programming of neural stem cells, leading to sex differences in the brain even before it’s finished developing in utero.

One of the most cited studies that found male and female brains can’t be differentiated by sex “has been refuted by four – yes, fouracademic studies since,” Soh writes.

She echoes Damore’s point that group traits don’t dictate preferences for any given individual, but it’s ignorant to claim group traits simply don’t exist:

In fact, research has shown that cultures with greater gender equity have larger sex differences when it comes to job preferences, because in these societies, people are free to choose their occupations based on what they enjoy. …

Contrary to what detractors would have you believe, women are, on average, higher in neuroticism and agreeableness, and lower in stress tolerance.

She scolds the witch hunt leaders who went after Damore for “denying biological reality and being content to spend a weekend doxxing a man so that he would lose his job.”

http://www.thecollegefix.com/bullet...science-phd-engineer-wrote-google-memo-right/
 
It's true that male and female brains can be differentiated by sex. There are certainly anatomical and physiological differences between the sexes. What Damore misguidedly extrapolates is that these differences result in genetic differences in intelligence. Studies on the differences between male and female brains don't reflect inherently biological differences in intelligence or cognitive aptitude for computer programming.
 
"I haven't read what he said, but this is what he said that was wrong"

kys. He never mentions intelligence at all and says repeatedly that he believes biology is merely one factor among many that influence a person's decisions in life.