If Mort Divine ruled the world

"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.
 
You're right, that's unfair. What's not unfair is that he extrapolates "cognitive aptitude for computer programming" (my phrase) from purportedly biological/genetic traits.

So quit getting your panties in a bunch you little shit.
 
ctrl-F 'cognitive': 0 results
crtl-F 'aptitude': 0 results

Keep trying you virtue signalling pseudo-intellectual hack
 
It's like a firewall flies up at any mention of the concept of inference.

The guy draws on a collection of ambiguous scientific sources (in some cases, entirely uncited) in order to insinuate that women are less suited to tech jobs than men are. The document seems to side with the notion that this suitability reflects generally biological or natural predispositions. Even if there are other factors, the document appears to be an apologetics for an anti-diversity based on the premise that these disparities reflect natural differences. That's an interpretive response to an already fairly transparent document.

I can't help it if you have a problem with me using language that isn't in the actual document. I suppose you also prefer definitions to include the word they're defining.
 
Because our legal doctrine prohibits racial quotas, it is currently impossible to have an honest discussion of these questions. The truth is that, in addition to a holistic review of each applicant that considers race as one factor, colleges undertake some amount of balancing so that they do not end up with a class that is swamped by members of any particular race—or with too many scientists, poets, or dancers, for that matter. But admissions offices cannot admit to efforts at racial balancing or anything that sounds remotely like quotas. Hence, Harvard’s litigation position must attribute the resulting race composition and the percentage of Asians in its class solely to the holistic method, admitting to no racial balancing. This account is plausible if, in fact, despite disproportionately strong academic credentials, Asian applicants are severely less likely than white ones to have the special personal qualities that colleges seek. That is the inevitable implication of Harvard’s position, which would be in line with long-standing perceptions of Asians as indistinguishable from one another. The lawsuit may well entail an inquiry into whether Asian applicants’ non-academic qualifications were disproportionately un-special compared to those of white applicants. (In addition to Harvard submitting comprehensive admissions data for discovery in the case, several competitive high schools with large numbers of Asian students are also being asked to provide information about their students’ applications to Harvard.)

But this lawsuit, and much of the discussion of affirmative action that surrounds it, makes a serious error in assuming that, in order to stop discrimination against Asian applicants, race-conscious affirmative action must end. The argument simply proves too much. Continued use of affirmative action of the kind upheld by the Supreme Court is perfectly compatible with tackling the discrimination at issue. The problem is not race-conscious holistic review; rather, it is the added, sub-rosa deployment of racial balancing in a manner that keeps the number of Asians so artificially low relative to whites who are less strong on academic measures. It is also time to look seriously at the impact on Asians (many of them immigrants or the children of immigrants) of the advantage enjoyed by legacy admissions and wealthy families who are likely to give significant donations. It distorts and confuses the debate to lay the preferential treatment for whites over Asians at the feet of affirmative action—or, on the other side, to deny that Asians are disadvantaged in admissions today.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news...pJobID=1220915872&spReportId=MTIyMDkxNTg3MgS2
 
It's like a firewall flies up at any mention of the concept of inference.

The guy draws on a collection of ambiguous scientific sources (in some cases, entirely uncited) in order to insinuate that women are less suited to tech jobs than men are. The document seems to side with the notion that this suitability reflects generally biological or natural predispositions. Even if there are other factors, the document appears to be an apologetics for an anti-diversity based on the premise that these disparities reflect natural differences. That's an interpretive response to an already fairly transparent document.

I can't help it if you have a problem with me using language that isn't in the actual document. I suppose you also prefer definitions to include the word they're defining.

"Allow me to infer a lot of stuff from an argument I never read"

I repeat, you are a hack. A vapid worthless fuck that masturbates to his own voice and avoids arguments that involve falsifiability whenever possible. Specifically read the memo, and then quote the parts of it that you believe support your reading of it, and then you'll be worth arguing with.
 
Too easy dude. :rolleyes:

Well lordy lord, what a profound and entirely original argument!!!

If that is genuinely all he has to say, then it's not worth reading his pointless memo.

"He said a thing? I didn't realize that was all he said! Glad I didn't read it!"

100% pseud.