4 ms·

> I disagree completely and utterly that the (yes, real) average differences between men and women map to being better or worse at certain jobs. Interest in cer

> I disagree completely and utterly that the (yes, real) average differences between men and women map to being better or worse at certain jobs. Interest in certain jobs, certainly. And we know – and many of us have experienced – that interest levels are also heavily influenced by social and cultural factors. This is the key point. Even if you accept that there are average genetic differences, they are far outweighed by socio-cultural factors. Reducing people to their genes is lazy psuedo-science. It's absolutely necessary that we start to break down ideological echo chambers, but I'd argue that Damore's memo and his subsequent actions ('Goolag' etc) haven't done much other than entrench people in the positions they already have.

dandare 9y ago
It was said elsewhere in this discussion - the memo never claimed what Edith completely and uterly disagrees with. It is a straw man argument. Cite the passage from the memo to prove me wrong.
throwawaygmemo 9y ago
this highlights the insanity of the response to this memo. What Edith "completely and utterly disagrees with" is actually not in the memo. And she actually agrees with what is in the memo "Interest in certain jobs."
sebow 9y ago
Except the fact that those physiological differences have nothing to do with any ideology,none that he mentioned anyways.And why should one matter if it wasn't even named in his memo? You're just projecting and putting words in his mouth. If you call his attack on Google an echo chamber("entrench people in the positions they already have" means exactly that) on itself then you clearly didn't get the core point of it. "Even if you accept that there are average genetic differences, they are far outweighed by socio-cultural factors." Socio-cultural factors are not the ones that make "genetically inferior" people be competitive/exceed the more "gifted" ones, willpower is.
9j9j9j9ju 9y ago
>> Even if you accept that there are average genetic differences, they are far outweighed by socio-cultural factors. Reducing people to their genes is lazy psuedo-science If you are a man I dare you to use that argument to get yourself appointment at gynaecologist's :)
- kristianc 9y ago
  Well done for proving I can't get pregnant. What else you got? Edit: But while we're at it, there are male gynaecologists too, largely because while they're studying, they develop an affinity for gynaecology.
  - 9j9j9j9ju 9y ago
    That wasn't the point. I think that Americans in particular are too obsessed with their "American dream", their belief that "you can be whoever you want if you work hard enough" that they cannot even accept basic facts from their own biology. There's a reason why all sports, including non-physical ones, like chess, have separate competition for women - and when there is mixed competition women get places below 100th. Try to explain that with "socio-cultural factors" or other gender pseudo-science.
    - kristianc 9y ago
      > A team of researchers from the UK has shown that the under-representation of women at the top end in chess is almost exactly what would be expected, given the much greater number of men that participate in the game at all. Researchers Merim Bilalic, et al., have published their research on this statistical sampling explanation in a recent issue of the Proceedings of the Royal Society B. > In the study, the scientists also discussed the question of why so few women participate in chess at all. While it's possible that there exists a self-selection process based on innate biological differences that leads women to drop out of chess early on, this argument rests on a controversial assumption, the researchers say. That is, it requires that there is an innate difference between genders in the intellectual abilities associated with chess - an assumption that has little empirical evidence to support it. Luckily, people have studied this, and in the case of chess, it's simple. More men play chess. And did you just dismiss the entire field of sociology? https://phys.org/news/2009-01-men-higher-women-chess-biological.html#jCp https://phys.org/news/2009-01-men-higher-women-chess-biologi...

dandare 9y ago

It was said elsewhere in this discussion - the memo never claimed what Edith completely and uterly disagrees with. It is a straw man argument. Cite the passage from the memo to prove me wrong.

throwawaygmemo 9y ago

this highlights the insanity of the response to this memo. What Edith "completely and utterly disagrees with" is actually not in the memo. And she actually agrees with what is in the memo "Interest in certain jobs."

sebow 9y ago

Except the fact that those physiological differences have nothing to do with any ideology,none that he mentioned anyways.And why should one matter if it wasn't even named in his memo? You're just projecting and putting words in his mouth. If you call his attack on Google an echo chamber("entrench people in the positions they already have" means exactly that) on itself then you clearly didn't get the core point of it. "Even if you accept that there are average genetic differences, they are far outweighed by socio-cultural factors." Socio-cultural factors are not the ones that make "genetically inferior" people be competitive/exceed the more "gifted" ones, willpower is.

9j9j9j9ju 9y ago

>> Even if you accept that there are average genetic differences, they are far outweighed by socio-cultural factors. Reducing people to their genes is lazy psuedo-science If you are a man I dare you to use that argument to get yourself appointment at gynaecologist's :)

kristianc 9y ago
Well done for proving I can't get pregnant. What else you got? Edit: But while we're at it, there are male gynaecologists too, largely because while they're studying, they develop an affinity for gynaecology.
- 9j9j9j9ju 9y ago
  That wasn't the point. I think that Americans in particular are too obsessed with their "American dream", their belief that "you can be whoever you want if you work hard enough" that they cannot even accept basic facts from their own biology. There's a reason why all sports, including non-physical ones, like chess, have separate competition for women - and when there is mixed competition women get places below 100th. Try to explain that with "socio-cultural factors" or other gender pseudo-science.
  - kristianc 9y ago
    > A team of researchers from the UK has shown that the under-representation of women at the top end in chess is almost exactly what would be expected, given the much greater number of men that participate in the game at all. Researchers Merim Bilalic, et al., have published their research on this statistical sampling explanation in a recent issue of the Proceedings of the Royal Society B. > In the study, the scientists also discussed the question of why so few women participate in chess at all. While it's possible that there exists a self-selection process based on innate biological differences that leads women to drop out of chess early on, this argument rests on a controversial assumption, the researchers say. That is, it requires that there is an innate difference between genders in the intellectual abilities associated with chess - an assumption that has little empirical evidence to support it. Luckily, people have studied this, and in the case of chess, it's simple. More men play chess. And did you just dismiss the entire field of sociology? https://phys.org/news/2009-01-men-higher-women-chess-biological.html#jCp https://phys.org/news/2009-01-men-higher-women-chess-biologi...