5 ms·

The author's claims are not factual. The "biological" bases he asserts as fact are debunked, and not even recently. You say that we should engage with him, but

by rpearl 9y ago

The author's claims are not factual. The "biological" bases he asserts as fact are debunked, and not even recently. You say that we should engage with him, but there's nothing of substance there to engage with. So then, we shouldn't tolerate his breach of the "peace treaty" of tolerance. He stepped over a line, and should be socially stigmatized for it. https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376 https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1...

sebleon 9y ago
Could you provide links to the debunking research? While not required, engaging with the manifesto's author openly might help convince others like him. He is certainly not alone in this mindset, and if it's easy to point out the faults in this line of reasoning, we should be able to correct this once and for all.
- rpearl 9y ago
  1. A claim about universality across human cultures. Demonstrably false: http://s3.amazonaws.com/fieldexperiments-papers2/papers/00049.pdf http://s3.amazonaws.com/fieldexperiments-papers2/papers/0004... 2. A sweeping variety of claims about the personality differences of coworkers at his own company and why these differences make it okay for him to discriminate. Debunked here: https://www.fastcompany.com/40449759/according-to-employee-personality-tests-there-is-no-difference-between-male-and-female-google-employees https://www.fastcompany.com/40449759/according-to-employee-p... 3. A claim that there is "a bar" which is "lowered" for diversity candidates Rather, diverse teams are demonstrably more effective than homogeneous teams: https://hbr.org/2016/11/why-diverse-teams-are-smarter https://hbr.org/2016/11/why-diverse-teams-are-smarter, so even if by the author's chosen metrics "the bar" is "lowered", those are not good metrics. There is no single bar, when developing a cooperative group. 4. Various claims about unconscious biases not being the reason for the gender gap It is demonstrable that competence is evaluated with bias: https://www.theladders.com/p/22203/brunette-blonde-women-leaders https://www.theladders.com/p/22203/brunette-blonde-women-lea... (links to studies) It is demonstrable that social factors hold women back more than men: http://www.aauw.org/research/why-so-few/ http://www.aauw.org/research/why-so-few/ There's lots of other false claims, but I don't really want to do the digging. I've already engaged with this more than I think to be generally productive. And that's kind of the point: from a comfortable position where the author is not affected by the policies he argues, those who are must defend. For the author, it is a hypothetical. For the attacked, it is not. There is a fundamental asymmetry in any discourse here.
  - canoebuilder 9y ago
    If all these things were true, shouldn't they be demonstrably obvious to everybody, such that their brightly shining obviousness would handily over power whatever -phobia or -ism du jour you think you are battling. If they were so obviously true why aren't societies' and biologies' natural optimization mechanisms making them unmistakably and obviously true? If it's really the case that women will do equal work for %X less money than men, why hasn't any organization capitalized on this by hiring only women and drastically reduced their costs? But if word got out on this strategy thanks to you and your comrades tireless efforts then demand for this cheaper labor would go up and thus it's price would rise. hmm... this claim seems counter to what we know about market economics. If it's really the case that "diverse" teams(what's the definition of "diverse"?) are so superior to other configurations, then why aren't the Snaps, Bings, and HTCs of the world making it their number one priority to "diversify" and then demonstrating the shining obviousness of the "diverse" claim by successfully taking on the big bad "undiverse" market leaders. Why do you think it is the purview of SJW brigades to bring these truths on the world when nature otherwise does a pretty good job of revealing her truths. Maybe they aren't true.
    - greenavoid 9y ago
      https://twitter.com/DrNerdLove/status/894199995800449024 https://twitter.com/DrNerdLove/status/894199995800449024 Usage of “SJW” flags you as the personality archetype outlined in that thread.
    - adjkant 9y ago
      Just to summarize your post, you ask why it all isn't obvious yet and cite no evidence. There are plenty of reasons for your questions with answers ranging from historical oppression, lack of early education in STEM for minorities, class differences, and more. Not to mention that not all that is true is obvious. You also seem to be ignoring a lot of people in various communities who are trying to communicate all this, writing them off as having an agenda against yours. "Well maybe its wrong because it's not how the world is currently" is a terrible argument. Go back in time X years and say this about things the way they were. It's not going to sound good.
    - 9y ago
- greenavoid 9y ago
  It isn't forwarded in good faith. No need to reply in kind. This isn't rational.

by rpearl 9y ago

sebleon 9y ago

Could you provide links to the debunking research? While not required, engaging with the manifesto's author openly might help convince others like him. He is certainly not alone in this mindset, and if it's easy to point out the faults in this line of reasoning, we should be able to correct this once and for all.

rpearl 9y ago
1. A claim about universality across human cultures. Demonstrably false: http://s3.amazonaws.com/fieldexperiments-papers2/papers/00049.pdf http://s3.amazonaws.com/fieldexperiments-papers2/papers/0004... 2. A sweeping variety of claims about the personality differences of coworkers at his own company and why these differences make it okay for him to discriminate. Debunked here: https://www.fastcompany.com/40449759/according-to-employee-personality-tests-there-is-no-difference-between-male-and-female-google-employees https://www.fastcompany.com/40449759/according-to-employee-p... 3. A claim that there is "a bar" which is "lowered" for diversity candidates Rather, diverse teams are demonstrably more effective than homogeneous teams: https://hbr.org/2016/11/why-diverse-teams-are-smarter https://hbr.org/2016/11/why-diverse-teams-are-smarter, so even if by the author's chosen metrics "the bar" is "lowered", those are not good metrics. There is no single bar, when developing a cooperative group. 4. Various claims about unconscious biases not being the reason for the gender gap It is demonstrable that competence is evaluated with bias: https://www.theladders.com/p/22203/brunette-blonde-women-leaders https://www.theladders.com/p/22203/brunette-blonde-women-lea... (links to studies) It is demonstrable that social factors hold women back more than men: http://www.aauw.org/research/why-so-few/ http://www.aauw.org/research/why-so-few/ There's lots of other false claims, but I don't really want to do the digging. I've already engaged with this more than I think to be generally productive. And that's kind of the point: from a comfortable position where the author is not affected by the policies he argues, those who are must defend. For the author, it is a hypothetical. For the attacked, it is not. There is a fundamental asymmetry in any discourse here.
- canoebuilder 9y ago
  If all these things were true, shouldn't they be demonstrably obvious to everybody, such that their brightly shining obviousness would handily over power whatever -phobia or -ism du jour you think you are battling. If they were so obviously true why aren't societies' and biologies' natural optimization mechanisms making them unmistakably and obviously true? If it's really the case that women will do equal work for %X less money than men, why hasn't any organization capitalized on this by hiring only women and drastically reduced their costs? But if word got out on this strategy thanks to you and your comrades tireless efforts then demand for this cheaper labor would go up and thus it's price would rise. hmm... this claim seems counter to what we know about market economics. If it's really the case that "diverse" teams(what's the definition of "diverse"?) are so superior to other configurations, then why aren't the Snaps, Bings, and HTCs of the world making it their number one priority to "diversify" and then demonstrating the shining obviousness of the "diverse" claim by successfully taking on the big bad "undiverse" market leaders. Why do you think it is the purview of SJW brigades to bring these truths on the world when nature otherwise does a pretty good job of revealing her truths. Maybe they aren't true.
  - greenavoid 9y ago
    https://twitter.com/DrNerdLove/status/894199995800449024 https://twitter.com/DrNerdLove/status/894199995800449024 Usage of “SJW” flags you as the personality archetype outlined in that thread.
  - adjkant 9y ago
    Just to summarize your post, you ask why it all isn't obvious yet and cite no evidence. There are plenty of reasons for your questions with answers ranging from historical oppression, lack of early education in STEM for minorities, class differences, and more. Not to mention that not all that is true is obvious. You also seem to be ignoring a lot of people in various communities who are trying to communicate all this, writing them off as having an agenda against yours. "Well maybe its wrong because it's not how the world is currently" is a terrible argument. Go back in time X years and say this about things the way they were. It's not going to sound good.
  - 9y ago
greenavoid 9y ago
It isn't forwarded in good faith. No need to reply in kind. This isn't rational.