5 ms·

Except what he said was "some people are just biologically different". Its not a political statement, its a statement a fact. It is indisputable that differen

Except what he said was "some people are just biologically different". Its not a political statement, its a statement a fact. It is indisputable that different people have different hard-wired genetic predispositions. Its incredibly Orwellian and another sign of our societal decay that people not only deny this simple truth, but consider it as so utterly offensive that it cannot be discussed or considered. As much as you would like the universe to be a truly egalitarian place where we are all born with the same skills, abilities, and aptitude - that's not the universe we live in.

hoppa_liza 9y ago
In the context of hiring why is this even brought up? You have a certain skillset needed for a certain job. Some people have it, some people do not. Why is there a need for attributing this to their genes, upbringing, psychology or anything else for that matter?
- CountSessine 9y ago
  Exactly - why the diversity initiatives? Or was that not the point you were making?
- Simon_says 9y ago
  Exactly. That was the thrust of James Damore’s argument.
ZenPsycho 9y ago
it is not a political statement or a statement of fact. the very strong implications you are making are clear statement of supremecist ideology, which is an idea so toxic that it should be shut down wherever it is seen. it is not orwellian to shut this down, and it is a sad indictment of our current culture that it only took around 70 years for us to collectively forget the lessons of WWII, and to begin again peddling these eugenics ideas as mere differences of opinion
- DarkKomunalec 9y ago
  > not a [...] statement of fact. He cites quite a few sources under the "Personality differences" section. Care to refute them? For your convenience, here is the memo in its entirety, links to sources included: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...
  - ZenPsycho 9y ago
    that's not how evidence works. I have no interest in assessing or refuting whatever studies he might have cited to support his argument. the argument was that his coworkers were biologically inferior for the job of programming, which I can tell you up front is an unsupportable position. the studies might point out differences sure, but that is a far cry from the conclusion of inferiority or superiority for any particular task, and suggesting such a thing is morally and ethically repulsive.
    - DarkKomunalec 9y ago
      > that's not how evidence works It kind of is. He provided evidence for his claims (not your misrepresentation of them), and you get to provide counter-evidence. > the argument was that his coworkers were biologically inferior for the job of programming Could you point out where exactly he said that? I had trouble finding it. Because from what I gathered, his argument was that, due to biological differences between groups of people, not all groups are on average equally suited and/or interested in all tasks, so expecting equal representation is foolish. With the full, and, rather short, text of his available, I expect we'll clear up this difference in belief about what he said quickly.
      - ZenPsycho 9y ago
        I had a whole thing written out here, but I don't really think you'll understand it. summed up, this isn't an academic debate about logic and evidence. this conversation has real world consequences for real people. if you want to discuss biology there's forums for that. what this was, was not an evidence based debate. it was an employee sabotaging his employer, sobataging his colleagues, and utterly failing to understand the consequences of his actions. there are places to discuss the sometimes uncomfortable facts an earnest pursuit of the truth may sometimes unearth. a circulated memo about how unfair you think your company's employment policies are is not the proper forum.

hoppa_liza 9y ago

In the context of hiring why is this even brought up? You have a certain skillset needed for a certain job. Some people have it, some people do not. Why is there a need for attributing this to their genes, upbringing, psychology or anything else for that matter?

CountSessine 9y ago
Exactly - why the diversity initiatives? Or was that not the point you were making?
Simon_says 9y ago
Exactly. That was the thrust of James Damore’s argument.

ZenPsycho 9y ago

it is not a political statement or a statement of fact. the very strong implications you are making are clear statement of supremecist ideology, which is an idea so toxic that it should be shut down wherever it is seen. it is not orwellian to shut this down, and it is a sad indictment of our current culture that it only took around 70 years for us to collectively forget the lessons of WWII, and to begin again peddling these eugenics ideas as mere differences of opinion

DarkKomunalec 9y ago
> not a [...] statement of fact. He cites quite a few sources under the "Personality differences" section. Care to refute them? For your convenience, here is the memo in its entirety, links to sources included: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...
- ZenPsycho 9y ago
  that's not how evidence works. I have no interest in assessing or refuting whatever studies he might have cited to support his argument. the argument was that his coworkers were biologically inferior for the job of programming, which I can tell you up front is an unsupportable position. the studies might point out differences sure, but that is a far cry from the conclusion of inferiority or superiority for any particular task, and suggesting such a thing is morally and ethically repulsive.
  - DarkKomunalec 9y ago
    > that's not how evidence works It kind of is. He provided evidence for his claims (not your misrepresentation of them), and you get to provide counter-evidence. > the argument was that his coworkers were biologically inferior for the job of programming Could you point out where exactly he said that? I had trouble finding it. Because from what I gathered, his argument was that, due to biological differences between groups of people, not all groups are on average equally suited and/or interested in all tasks, so expecting equal representation is foolish. With the full, and, rather short, text of his available, I expect we'll clear up this difference in belief about what he said quickly.
    - ZenPsycho 9y ago
      I had a whole thing written out here, but I don't really think you'll understand it. summed up, this isn't an academic debate about logic and evidence. this conversation has real world consequences for real people. if you want to discuss biology there's forums for that. what this was, was not an evidence based debate. it was an employee sabotaging his employer, sobataging his colleagues, and utterly failing to understand the consequences of his actions. there are places to discuss the sometimes uncomfortable facts an earnest pursuit of the truth may sometimes unearth. a circulated memo about how unfair you think your company's employment policies are is not the proper forum.