3 ms·

OK, let's assume I'm wrong: what did he say? If he didn't try to highlight the biological difference why bring it up at all? Why claim Google is "a leftist ecoc

OK, let's assume I'm wrong: what did he say? If he didn't try to highlight the biological difference why bring it up at all? Why claim Google is "a leftist ecochamber" for trying to increase diversity when the population is clearly not 80% men? So far I've gotten a lot of people saying "he didn't day that!" but without explaining what he said. Please clarify.

mistermann 9y ago
> So far I've gotten a lot of people saying "he didn't day that!" but without explaining what he said. There have been at least two large threads on HN on this topic. You would have me believe everyone is saying "he didn't say that!" but with no explanation of what he he said? What he said was that in the aggregate, women and men statistically have different interests, behaviors, and performance in different fields. I can't imagine how sheltered of a life you'd have to live to not be exposed to this in real life, or more appropriately, how intellectually dishonest you'd have to be to pretend you've never noticed. To me, this rise of anti-intellectualism in the west is rather scary.
- dguaraglia 9y ago
  > women and men statistically have different interests, behaviors, and performance in different fields Fair enough. That's a valid theory to entertain, and I'm sure there's a growing body of science supporting both sides of the debate. Now, the question is this: if that was the case, how do we determine the extent to which the biological factors affect career selection, when we live in a society that encourages gender stereotypes? If we don't know the extent, how can we jump to conclusions about outreach generating "a discriminatory framework"? That, at the end of the day, is my main complaint about Damore's memo. It's just a weak attempt at generating outrage. > To me, this rise of anti-intellectualism in the west is rather scary. Anti-intellectualism has many faces. The fact that we are discussing this in an open forum, and that we could probably sit on a coffee shop and have a civilized discussion about it is proof that the whole narrative about "liberal values = cultural Marxism" is at least partially bogus. Meanwhile, the same people who complained about stifling free speech at Google are threatening to leak the names of liberal Googlers to alt-right websites. Where's the outrage about that?
  - mistermann 9y ago
    > That's a valid theory to entertain There is extensive study on this topic going back several decades, if you're interested in the topic, there's not shortage of material. There's also plentiful anecdotal material where college educated forward thinking mothers very quickly learned the reality of nature vs nature after bearing children of different genders. > Meanwhile, the same people who complained about stifling free speech at Google are threatening to leak the names of liberal Googlers to alt-right websites. Where's the outrage about that? I'd have absolutely no problem condemning that whatsoever. Imagining your philosophical "opponents" as some sort of one dimensional monsters isn't doing yourself or your movement any favors.
    - dguaraglia 9y ago
      > Imagining your philosophical "opponents" as some sort of one dimensional monsters isn't doing yourself or your movement any favors. That would have been a valid claim until the unfortunate incidents in Charlottesville (and Bloomington before that, and Seattle before that...) People threatening to expose liberal Googlers to the same kind of ecochamber that celebrates someone driving a car into a crowd is beyond the pale. Anyone who takes so lightly potentially having blood in their hands is a monster. This is my last comment regarding this topic.
      - mistermann 9y ago
        > Anyone who takes so lightly potentially having blood in their hands is a monster. That person being me presumably. Guilty until proven innocent, a recurring theme lately. > This is my last comment regarding this topic. What a loss. EDIT: Seems I'm not being allowed to reply anymore (gee, where do conspiracy theories about censorship of conservative speech come from eh?), so I guess I'll have to reply here... > No, I was talking about the Googlers who were threatening to leak names to alt-right websites. You wanted the people that are threatening to leak names to be outraged at themselves? I think I'm losing track of all the parties involved in this vast criminal conspiracy. Anyways, besides this entire topic being utterly pointless, if the right to speak freely is granted to only one side, I guess I should take the hint and adapt to our new world by keeping my mouth shut.
- nodamage 9y ago
  > What he said was that in the aggregate, women and men statistically have different interests, behaviors, and performance in different fields. ...which therefore explains the lack of women in tech and leadership. People are taking exception to the latter claim: that the biological differences between men and women justifies the lack of women in the tech industry. The former claim, that men and women are biologically different, is uncontroversial. > I can't imagine how sheltered of a life you'd have to live to not be exposed to this in real life, or more appropriately, how intellectually dishonest you'd have to be to pretend you've never noticed. You are conducting a straw man argument against a claim that the other side is has not actually made.
  - mistermann 9y ago
    > that the biological differences between men and women justifies the lack of women in the tech industry. Did you use justifies instead of explains accidentally, or is that actually your understanding? > The former claim, that men and women are biologically different, is uncontroversial. Have you been reading the same discussions as I have? > You are conducting a straw man argument against a claim that the other side is has not actually made. The irony.
    - nodamage 9y ago
      Yes. It is one thing to acknowledge that biological differences between men and women exist. It's an entirely different thing to claim that these biological differences are the reason why there are so few women in the tech and leadership, and then to call for the elimination of programs designed to encourage more women in tech.
      - mistermann 9y ago
        > It's an entirely different thing to claim that these biological differences are the reason why there are so few women in the tech and leadership As it is to claim that the reason for so few women in the tech and leadership is due to sexism, no? Oops, I guess not, there I go with my old fashioned misogynistic presumption of innocence. Silly me thinking the onus should be on the person demanding special treatment to prove the need, when of course the onus should be on the person providing that special treatment to prove why it isn't needed. Guilty until proven innocent, it's a brave and confident new world.

mistermann 9y ago

> So far I've gotten a lot of people saying "he didn't day that!" but without explaining what he said. There have been at least two large threads on HN on this topic. You would have me believe everyone is saying "he didn't say that!" but with no explanation of what he he said? What he said was that in the aggregate, women and men statistically have different interests, behaviors, and performance in different fields. I can't imagine how sheltered of a life you'd have to live to not be exposed to this in real life, or more appropriately, how intellectually dishonest you'd have to be to pretend you've never noticed. To me, this rise of anti-intellectualism in the west is rather scary.

dguaraglia 9y ago
> women and men statistically have different interests, behaviors, and performance in different fields Fair enough. That's a valid theory to entertain, and I'm sure there's a growing body of science supporting both sides of the debate. Now, the question is this: if that was the case, how do we determine the extent to which the biological factors affect career selection, when we live in a society that encourages gender stereotypes? If we don't know the extent, how can we jump to conclusions about outreach generating "a discriminatory framework"? That, at the end of the day, is my main complaint about Damore's memo. It's just a weak attempt at generating outrage. > To me, this rise of anti-intellectualism in the west is rather scary. Anti-intellectualism has many faces. The fact that we are discussing this in an open forum, and that we could probably sit on a coffee shop and have a civilized discussion about it is proof that the whole narrative about "liberal values = cultural Marxism" is at least partially bogus. Meanwhile, the same people who complained about stifling free speech at Google are threatening to leak the names of liberal Googlers to alt-right websites. Where's the outrage about that?
- mistermann 9y ago
  > That's a valid theory to entertain There is extensive study on this topic going back several decades, if you're interested in the topic, there's not shortage of material. There's also plentiful anecdotal material where college educated forward thinking mothers very quickly learned the reality of nature vs nature after bearing children of different genders. > Meanwhile, the same people who complained about stifling free speech at Google are threatening to leak the names of liberal Googlers to alt-right websites. Where's the outrage about that? I'd have absolutely no problem condemning that whatsoever. Imagining your philosophical "opponents" as some sort of one dimensional monsters isn't doing yourself or your movement any favors.
  - dguaraglia 9y ago
    > Imagining your philosophical "opponents" as some sort of one dimensional monsters isn't doing yourself or your movement any favors. That would have been a valid claim until the unfortunate incidents in Charlottesville (and Bloomington before that, and Seattle before that...) People threatening to expose liberal Googlers to the same kind of ecochamber that celebrates someone driving a car into a crowd is beyond the pale. Anyone who takes so lightly potentially having blood in their hands is a monster. This is my last comment regarding this topic.
    - mistermann 9y ago
      > Anyone who takes so lightly potentially having blood in their hands is a monster. That person being me presumably. Guilty until proven innocent, a recurring theme lately. > This is my last comment regarding this topic. What a loss. EDIT: Seems I'm not being allowed to reply anymore (gee, where do conspiracy theories about censorship of conservative speech come from eh?), so I guess I'll have to reply here... > No, I was talking about the Googlers who were threatening to leak names to alt-right websites. You wanted the people that are threatening to leak names to be outraged at themselves? I think I'm losing track of all the parties involved in this vast criminal conspiracy. Anyways, besides this entire topic being utterly pointless, if the right to speak freely is granted to only one side, I guess I should take the hint and adapt to our new world by keeping my mouth shut.
nodamage 9y ago
> What he said was that in the aggregate, women and men statistically have different interests, behaviors, and performance in different fields. ...which therefore explains the lack of women in tech and leadership. People are taking exception to the latter claim: that the biological differences between men and women justifies the lack of women in the tech industry. The former claim, that men and women are biologically different, is uncontroversial. > I can't imagine how sheltered of a life you'd have to live to not be exposed to this in real life, or more appropriately, how intellectually dishonest you'd have to be to pretend you've never noticed. You are conducting a straw man argument against a claim that the other side is has not actually made.
- mistermann 9y ago
  > that the biological differences between men and women justifies the lack of women in the tech industry. Did you use justifies instead of explains accidentally, or is that actually your understanding? > The former claim, that men and women are biologically different, is uncontroversial. Have you been reading the same discussions as I have? > You are conducting a straw man argument against a claim that the other side is has not actually made. The irony.
  - nodamage 9y ago
    Yes. It is one thing to acknowledge that biological differences between men and women exist. It's an entirely different thing to claim that these biological differences are the reason why there are so few women in the tech and leadership, and then to call for the elimination of programs designed to encourage more women in tech.
    - mistermann 9y ago
      > It's an entirely different thing to claim that these biological differences are the reason why there are so few women in the tech and leadership As it is to claim that the reason for so few women in the tech and leadership is due to sexism, no? Oops, I guess not, there I go with my old fashioned misogynistic presumption of innocence. Silly me thinking the onus should be on the person demanding special treatment to prove the need, when of course the onus should be on the person providing that special treatment to prove why it isn't needed. Guilty until proven innocent, it's a brave and confident new world.