Author Topic: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto  (Read 963 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 284
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #35 on: August 21, 2017, 05:20:35 PM »


Ok do I have to argue that women who succeed in the tech field are not a myth or can we just recognize how much of a whiny crybaby this guy is?

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15704
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #36 on: August 21, 2017, 05:25:09 PM »
Sounds pretty ridiculous, Im not sure I get his anology.

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24886
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #37 on: August 21, 2017, 06:25:41 PM »
Yea that is an awful and condescending analogy.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline portnoy311

  • Posts: 758
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #38 on: August 21, 2017, 11:07:34 PM »
Just as I (and millions of others) expected. The guy is making himself into the martyr celebrity du jour. Pass.

Offline antigoon

  • Not Elvis
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 10225
  • Gender: Male
  • This was a triumph.
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #39 on: August 22, 2017, 06:09:55 AM »
When you are a big jerk
and you're sexist at work
that's Damore!

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2276
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #40 on: August 22, 2017, 08:29:49 AM »
Ok do I have to argue that women who succeed in the tech field are not a myth ...?

Wait, THAT is what you took from his analogy?  :lolpalm:
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9140
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #41 on: August 22, 2017, 09:16:30 AM »
Just as I (and millions of others) expected. The guy is making himself into the martyr celebrity du jour. Pass.

Portnoy311 and I will be at the bar, passing, if anyone wants to join us.    "14:57, 14:58, 14.59..."

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9140
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #42 on: August 22, 2017, 09:16:48 AM »
When you are a big jerk
and you're sexist at work
that's Damore!

Haha, well done!

Offline Cable

  • Posts: 1471
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #43 on: August 23, 2017, 07:07:51 PM »
Quote
XeRocks81  & Bosk1 *snip*

Is he wrong?   Assuming you say "yes", how do you know?  On what is he basing that conclusion?   Have you seen the data?  Is the percentage of people watching him broken down according to general demographics or something different?  The population of America is about 49% male, 51% female.  Is that the breakdown of his YouTube channel?  Tumbler?  Pinterest? 

I looked it up, because these questions aren't "givens".   Pinterest:  80% of Pinterest users are female.  http://marketingland.com/report-92-percent-pinterest-pins-made-women-83394  Youtube?  Predominantly male.   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/20/social-media-by-gender-women-pinterest-men-reddit-infographic_n_1613812.html

I can't find Tumblr.  I don't even know what that is, to be honest.   

Is Coors wrong for thinking that men "are higher interest" ("men can has cheeseburger"?) in sports and beer than women?  If they have data that shows that some percentage greater than 50% of their sales is to men, they can plausibly make that decision for their marketing team.



An issue is Damore was also adding the biological component, and that it's fixed and engrained.

I'm totally with you that marketing to stereotyped gender interests is good business, and will continue to be so. The numbers are clear. A lot of people fall into those demographics. So marketing about a new way to give water-child birth during a regular (non SB) Gridiron game is bad business. The problem is when Damore doesn't factor in social scientific (anthropology, sociology, psychology) information, and/or picked flawed information to support his views.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2017, 03:58:01 PM by Cable »
---

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9140
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #44 on: August 24, 2017, 07:40:47 AM »
Okay, fair point, but that just means we have to present the correct information.

The problem as I see it is NOT that Damore used flawed information.  That was a "but..." or an "after thought".  He rankled BECAUSE OF HIS CONCLUSION.   We as humans - or some of us (and I'm not trying to be smugly superior with that) - are just NOT CAPABLE of incorporating certain ideas.   He got an answer that people couldn't viscerally digest. 

Look, the reality is, there are things that I can do with my standard equipment and without doctor intervention that a woman CANNOT do, and vice versa.  It's a fact, and not even a reasonably debatable one.   Whether that includes engineering or not is debatable. Whether that list is one item long or five items, or 50 or 500, is debatable.  I think part of the problem here is that in this age of "no offence", "PC at every cost", we are not capable of assimilating that the list even exists, let alone how long it is. In fact, for some, they have a vested interest in "no list" and it CAN'T exist.

That to me is limiting, intellectually.   

Offline Cable

  • Posts: 1471
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #45 on: August 24, 2017, 04:38:53 PM »
Okay, fair point, but that just means we have to present the correct information.

The problem as I see it is NOT that Damore used flawed information.  That was a "but..." or an "after thought".  He rankled BECAUSE OF HIS CONCLUSION.   We as humans - or some of us (and I'm not trying to be smugly superior with that) - are just NOT CAPABLE of incorporating certain ideas.   He got an answer that people couldn't viscerally digest. 



I mostly agree. I wouldnít say incapable of digesting other ideas, but more so to your point about the age of PC. People are finding it harder to be critical of their entrenched beliefs, and on both sides.


Quote

Look, the reality is, there are things that I can do with my standard equipment and without doctor intervention that a woman CANNOT do, and vice versa.  It's a fact, and not even a reasonably debatable one.   



Doesnít this contradict Stadler your everything is debatable creed?  ;) Iím not saying I disagree presently. Size and muscle mass is easily distinguishable. To say it has always been this way, and not also potentially a product of slow gender role evolution is open for debate.


Quote

Whether that includes engineering or not is debatable. Whether that list is one item long or five items, or 50 or 500, is debatable.  I think part of the problem here is that in this age of "no offence", "PC at every cost", we are not capable of assimilating that the list even exists, let alone how long it is. In fact, for some, they have a vested interest in "no list" and it CAN'T exist.

That to me is limiting, intellectually.   



I agree again about various other components, and variances are ok. And with the heightened age of sensitivity. Regarding this being intellectually limiting, I do not not. For me it will always boil down to research. Researching against consensus accepted points is a waste of time IMO. The start of every research paper Iíve read is a throughout literature review. This displays investigation of the current knowledge base, and therefore creates grounds for expanding upon it, or verifying it. In some cases disprove, but that's not my point. And enough consensus can develop to make disproval basically impossible. My graduate thesis was on father's disciplining practices. A consensus point from the lit was fathers involved with their kids have a positive influence on the kidís well-being. If I didnít do a literature review, or disagreed with this, it would have been a waste a time. I would have glossed over the point, or ignored only to then find out about it and have to redo a lot of my work.

An easier example is the Earth is not flat. To try to produce research that tries to prove that will be discredited, and probably laughed at. Or to go back to a social science distant relative neurology; lobotomy as a useful psychiatric treatment. That has been absolutely discredited. Or trying to prove dinosaurs are only 12,000 years old. But the all points matter mindset would find it valuable to re-evaluate ablating people's brains?

I know you approach most things from a lawyer perspective Stadler. And that makes sense to have contrary points in law, because of how law is executed in the U.S. Iím also not disagreeing that other viewpoints do not have some validity, or that they can cause a thought for a moment to be critical. It makes sense as a general credo in a way. In the case of firmly tested science, itís futile to take a ponderance as a plausible occurrence. And I will not see the ďother side can be true, and I will prove it,Ē ever. I rather build on top of existing 99.9% confident scientific conclusions, or replicate those prior conclusions to further prove possible variables. Because, well, thatís the point of it! I donít find any use to go backwards, and question and then try to prove that the Sun is not real. Time is better spent elsewhere, but this where we probably differ. As with you and Jingle from a different thread, where he was arguing water being wet. I'll accept the water as being wet because it has been shown to be. Questioning that conclusion would be overthinking from my view, and there are other places that thinking is better spent.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2017, 04:51:53 PM by Cable »
---

Offline TheOutlawXanadu

  • The Original Unseasoned Fan
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6201
  • Gender: Male
  • The Original Unseasoned Fan
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #46 on: August 24, 2017, 06:55:47 PM »
but this guy is essentially saying "guys like science but women like makeup"

Well, except that he's NOT saying that.  And the problem with dumbing it down to such an excessive level is:
1.  So grossly oversimplifying his point to absurdity doesn't allow one to actually understand what he actually IS saying, which prevents one from considering whether there might even possibly be some merit to it or at least something worth exploring or challenging one's beliefs on, whether the guy is actually right or wrong.

2.  More importantly, as Stadler said, dumbing it down to such an excessively absurd level is denying a person the right to reason for themselves and draw a conclusion that is contrary.  No matter how "correct" a majority opinion might be, we don't advance as a society when we tell others what they HAVE TO believe.  It just doesn't work that way.

Honestly, I felt as though most of the coverage I read of the memo fell into at least one of these two traps. I was genuinely interested to read a well-researched rebuttal, but those were few and far in-between.
:TOX: <-- My own emoticon!

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9140
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #47 on: August 25, 2017, 09:17:42 AM »
Doesnít this contradict Stadler your everything is debatable creed?  ;) Iím not saying I disagree presently. Size and muscle mass is easily distinguishable. To say it has always been this way, and not also potentially a product of slow gender role evolution is open for debate.

No, not at all.  My "everything is debatable" is misunderstood.  I don't at all think that basic facts need be endlessly debated.  We can agree that 2+2=4, UNLESS your idea is specifically that it equals 5, or some other number.  Where I think I differ from others most often is that I don't assume things are "basic facts" just because I believe them.   Especially here in P/R, what gets presented as a "basic fact" is 99 times out of a 100 no such thing.   

(As for your last sentence, yes it is, but within the bounds of known science or unexplained circumstances.   We KNOW that for many of the cultures and subcultures from the past that we have studied, female skeletons are smaller and (in some cases) more delicate than the male ones, which lends itself to an "always been this way" conclusion).

Quote
I agree again about various other components, and variances are ok. And with the heightened age of sensitivity. Regarding this being intellectually limiting, I do not not. For me it will always boil down to research. Researching against consensus accepted points is a waste of time IMO. The start of every research paper Iíve read is a throughout literature review. This displays investigation of the current knowledge base, and therefore creates grounds for expanding upon it, or verifying it. In some cases disprove, but that's not my point. And enough consensus can develop to make disproval basically impossible. My graduate thesis was on father's disciplining practices. A consensus point from the lit was fathers involved with their kids have a positive influence on the kidís well-being. If I didnít do a literature review, or disagreed with this, it would have been a waste a time. I would have glossed over the point, or ignored only to then find out about it and have to redo a lot of my work.

But why limit it at all?  If that scientist is willing to put in the effort, who are you or I to say no?   I'm not suggesting that we have to redo everything, but if we can - through empirical science or better research or more improved computing skills, whatever - bring something new to the table, why is that bad?  NOTHING has remained static.  There is always something new that has to be explained or incorporated into the existing "lit" as you call it.  I feel like when we assume, we make asses out of ourselves.  To say - without knowing what angle, information or insight someone else can bring - that "disproval is IMPOSSIBLE" (as opposed to "improbable") IS intellectually limiting. You're basically saying that you know everything and that no one else has anything to offer to the subject.  That's not how we progressed from sharp rocks and fire to laser cutters and LED lights.

Quote
An easier example is the Earth is not flat. To try to produce research that tries to prove that will be discredited, and probably laughed at. Or to go back to a social science distant relative neurology; lobotomy as a useful psychiatric treatment. That has been absolutely discredited. Or trying to prove dinosaurs are only 12,000 years old. But the all points matter mindset would find it valuable to re-evaluate ablating people's brains?

Okay, but you're making a quantitative and qualitative assumption there that we all have to agree on first before your statement is correct.  We're not talking about restating basic facts, or at least I'm not.  I AM however, saying that we can and should re-evaluate the information that isn't a basic fact that goes into those conclusions, IF that re-evaluation seeks to bring new information into the mix.   I'm not at all suggesting that we continually re-prove the laws of physics.  We need only start walking to prove the earth is not flat.   That's not the same thing at all as proving that "races are identical" or "Asians are better at math".   Unfortunately, I am not facile enough with your examples to reuse them, but assuming that "old" lobotomies are simply removing, through brute force, an entire segment of the brain through the eyesocket with an ice pick, we have data that shows that doesn't reach the intended outcome.  But we are allowed to revisit any aspect of that. What if, as opposed to an entire segment of the brain, we target very specific areas of the brain?  What if we target specific CELLS of the brain?  What if, as opposed to the "eyesocket", we use a form of arthroscopic surgery?  Or advanced MRI and laser technology to be more precise?   What, as opposed to "ice pick" we use a camera-operated, computer driven probe to enter the cranial case?  What if we use a swallowed, blood-borne capsule to break the blood/brain barrier to effect the work we need done?   Does this change any of the "outcome" answers?

Again, though, I'm not even going to that level.  I'm not suggesting we continually and repeatedly add "2+2" to see if we get "4".  I am saying, though, that "water is wet" or "this is hot" is not akin at all to "2+2=4". 

Quote
I know you approach most things from a lawyer perspective Stadler. And that makes sense to have contrary points in law, because of how law is executed in the U.S. Iím also not disagreeing that other viewpoints do not have some validity, or that they can cause a thought for a moment to be critical. It makes sense as a general credo in a way. In the case of firmly tested science, itís futile to take a ponderance as a plausible occurrence. And I will not see the ďother side can be true, and I will prove it,Ē ever. I rather build on top of existing 99.9% confident scientific conclusions, or replicate those prior conclusions to further prove possible variables. Because, well, thatís the point of it! I donít find any use to go backwards, and question and then try to prove that the Sun is not real. Time is better spent elsewhere, but this where we probably differ. As with you and Jingle from a different thread, where he was arguing water being wet. I'll accept the water as being wet because it has been shown to be. Questioning that conclusion would be overthinking from my view, and there are other places that thinking is better spent.

It's only "from a lawyer perspective" because maybe from that I can more easily remove the emotional aspects of things from the equation. "Emotions" are not facts in and of themselves.   That an answer is "unpalatable" does not, for me, make the answer "right" or "wrong".   It does - and this is where I am most often misunderstood - make it more or less desirable, but "desirable" is not "right" or "wrong" either.  "Racism" or "bigotry" is clearly "undesirable".  That in and of itself doesn't make it "wrong" (though it is often that as well). 
« Last Edit: August 25, 2017, 10:08:05 AM by Stadler »

Offline Cable

  • Posts: 1471
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #48 on: August 25, 2017, 10:09:39 PM »
Stadler, you are picking apart pieces of lobotomy. I am talking about the process of destruction as an overall concept, not secondary concepts or pathways that have been followed from it. Just the *simple* procedure, which still supports my point. I am focusing on the basic facts as you call them. Going forward from that, the medical field is not into going back to ideas that are proven not as effective. For example, going back to how polio was treated before the vaccine. I donít care about the avenues the old treatments have done for modern treatments. You can debate and challenge using a live vs. dead virus or something, but I just applying how it is treated now vs. before the vaccine. 

A paradigm shift in psychiatry (ablation cures disorders and improves cognitive abilities) is unreasonable, yeah. Iím not applying a general refinement of things here, nor debating that is how things work. In a reasonable reality, can psychiatric medication be improved and side effects lessened, or one day cure things? Sure. Does it now? Nope. Same as things which are kind of a no brainer, like biological impact on intelligence in genders. The research is there, itís conclusive enough over the course of time as noted in a link I shared earlier. So I donít concern over it, or think that after the year 2057 itís possible that *maybe* female brains will be biologically inferior in technology. And a meteor can hit the earth too. So I move on, and apply thought to other things.

You are talking to someone who works in behaviors, so yeah I know exactly that emotions are not often factual. To not tie emotions to motivations for various thoughts, and therefore possible behaviors, either way, is a bit detached though. And that is a Cognitive Behavioral concept, which as it stands, it a pretty standard, researched and accepted practice in mental health.

I see no need to continue the back and forth though, it is tiring. Iím not going to debate this further, so have the last word and continue to try to poke holes in it. However, it will not matter to me, because we are at two different angles. Plus this thing has derailed enough.  :)
« Last Edit: August 25, 2017, 10:22:03 PM by Cable »
---

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9140
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #49 on: August 26, 2017, 05:14:12 PM »


I see no need to continue the back and forth though, it is tiring. Iím not going to debate this further, so have the last word and continue to try to poke holes in it. However, it will not matter to me, because we are at two different angles. Plus this thing has derailed enough.  :)

Nice snide remark.  I could care less about the last word.  Think what you want, it was NEVER about telling you you're wrong and getting you to change your mind.  If it doesn't matter to you? Doesn't impact my world one bit, and that's my point:  if YOU don't think it worthy to revisit, don't.  Just don't tell others not to (like Neal deGrasse Tyson did), or ridicule them if they don't follow your lead.  That's all.