3 ms·

This is not the same thing as "objectively not bad". Anything that requires an imputational and emotional interpretation (which can't be supported by particula

This is not the same thing as "objectively not bad". Anything that requires an imputational and emotional interpretation (which can't be supported by particular facts) to be "bad" is "objectively not bad." if we assume he had some purpose in mind that he thought was important Here, you're basically admitting that the reading required to support your position is an imputational and emotional interpretation which can't be supported by particular facts. then try to figure out "what important thing is he arguing in support of here", well, there aren't a lot of possible conclusions to end up at. There are lots of possible alternative conclusions. Here's one: https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=16398682 https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=16398682 (Overwhelming persistent effects of human cultural capital.) It's entirely possible that a best-effort fair society with perfect equality of opportunity would still result in other than a 50-50 distribution in a given field for any number of complex, ever changing reasons, in much the same way that it would be impossible to have a vast liquid ocean with no waves. Or are you effectively making the questioning the validity of "equality of outcome" a thought-crime in and of itself? There are plenty of reasons to question "equality of outcome" without ever having to invoke the superiority of anyone.

ubernostrum 9y ago
So let's play with this a bit. We're at a point where we've got actual empirical data showing that in a bunch of other fields of human endeavor which have: 1. Seen a huge observed gender gap, and 2. Comforted themselves with "rational" and "objective" and "scientific" explanations to prove it wasn't their fault, and 3. Eventually been persuaded to try even simple measures to test whether bias on the part of people in that field played a part, it's been discovered that 4. Outcomes drastically changed once those simple measures were adopted, in a way which clearly and beyond reasonable doubt put the lie to the explanations claimed in (2). To buy Damore's arguments we must either ignore this evidence, or somehow buy into a completely unsupported assumption that computer programming -- for reasons nobody knows -- is completely and utterly unique, and as a result that the solutions used in other fields are inapplicable and off-limits to programming. Even worse: we have to believe that about a field which previously did not have such a huge gap, and acquired it only relatively recently. To anyone who does a bit of actual research on this stuff, Damore is practically a cliché. He's the person who ends up in the history book under "wow, people actually used to believe that stuff". Meanwhile, you want to have your knee-jerk reflexes checked, judging by the kinds of catchphrases you immediately jump to when confronted with even mild disagreement.
- stcredzero 9y ago
  1. Seen a huge observed gender gap Like the ones favoring women in medicine in some countries? Like nursing? 4. Outcomes drastically changed once those simple measures were adopted, in a way which clearly and beyond reasonable doubt put the lie to the explanations claimed in (2). But only up to a point. Google and YouTube execs are on the record saying that they basically got to parity with the available candidate pool. To buy Damore's arguments we must either ignore this evidence, or somehow buy into a completely unsupported assumption that computer programming -- for reasons nobody knows -- is completely and utterly unique Not at all. We could just suppose there's something skewing the preferences of people in school. Even worse: we have to believe that about a field which previously did not have such a huge gap, and acquired it only relatively recently. Actually, for a time "programmer" was skewed towards women. That could also lend credence to the idea that something is skewing preferences. To anyone who does a bit of actual research on this stuff, Damore is practically a cliché. He's the person who ends up in the history book under "wow, people actually used to believe that stuff". No, the Big 5 results he cites are actually quite important in psychology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Gender_differences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Ge... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKmyO3hbOz8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKmyO3hbOz8
  - ubernostrum 9y ago
    Like nursing? So do something about it, if it bothers you. Each person is free to choose how to prioritize their time and efforts, and is not required to solve every other problem (or even every other similar problem) in every other field in every other country on earth as a prerequisite. But we both know that, and we both know that you're running off a script of sound bites. Actually, for a time "programmer" was skewed towards women. Yes, that's exactly my point. The types of "scientific" "biological" "truths" people like Damore tend to cite don't change in the time frame of that observed change. It's almost like there was some social factor involved. Perhaps some social factor having something to do with the large number of men who suddenly showed interest. Though of course we have literally zero cases in all of recorded human history of men rigging a system to favor themselves over women, so we don't have to worry that such a thing could have happened. We'd only worry if, say, we had many, many examples of it from many fields of endeavor in many societies across a huge percentage of recorded history. Oh. Wait.

ubernostrum 9y ago

So let's play with this a bit. We're at a point where we've got actual empirical data showing that in a bunch of other fields of human endeavor which have: 1. Seen a huge observed gender gap, and 2. Comforted themselves with "rational" and "objective" and "scientific" explanations to prove it wasn't their fault, and 3. Eventually been persuaded to try even simple measures to test whether bias on the part of people in that field played a part, it's been discovered that 4. Outcomes drastically changed once those simple measures were adopted, in a way which clearly and beyond reasonable doubt put the lie to the explanations claimed in (2). To buy Damore's arguments we must either ignore this evidence, or somehow buy into a completely unsupported assumption that computer programming -- for reasons nobody knows -- is completely and utterly unique, and as a result that the solutions used in other fields are inapplicable and off-limits to programming. Even worse: we have to believe that about a field which previously did not have such a huge gap, and acquired it only relatively recently. To anyone who does a bit of actual research on this stuff, Damore is practically a cliché. He's the person who ends up in the history book under "wow, people actually used to believe that stuff". Meanwhile, you want to have your knee-jerk reflexes checked, judging by the kinds of catchphrases you immediately jump to when confronted with even mild disagreement.

stcredzero 9y ago
1. Seen a huge observed gender gap Like the ones favoring women in medicine in some countries? Like nursing? 4. Outcomes drastically changed once those simple measures were adopted, in a way which clearly and beyond reasonable doubt put the lie to the explanations claimed in (2). But only up to a point. Google and YouTube execs are on the record saying that they basically got to parity with the available candidate pool. To buy Damore's arguments we must either ignore this evidence, or somehow buy into a completely unsupported assumption that computer programming -- for reasons nobody knows -- is completely and utterly unique Not at all. We could just suppose there's something skewing the preferences of people in school. Even worse: we have to believe that about a field which previously did not have such a huge gap, and acquired it only relatively recently. Actually, for a time "programmer" was skewed towards women. That could also lend credence to the idea that something is skewing preferences. To anyone who does a bit of actual research on this stuff, Damore is practically a cliché. He's the person who ends up in the history book under "wow, people actually used to believe that stuff". No, the Big 5 results he cites are actually quite important in psychology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Gender_differences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Ge... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKmyO3hbOz8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKmyO3hbOz8
- ubernostrum 9y ago
  Like nursing? So do something about it, if it bothers you. Each person is free to choose how to prioritize their time and efforts, and is not required to solve every other problem (or even every other similar problem) in every other field in every other country on earth as a prerequisite. But we both know that, and we both know that you're running off a script of sound bites. Actually, for a time "programmer" was skewed towards women. Yes, that's exactly my point. The types of "scientific" "biological" "truths" people like Damore tend to cite don't change in the time frame of that observed change. It's almost like there was some social factor involved. Perhaps some social factor having something to do with the large number of men who suddenly showed interest. Though of course we have literally zero cases in all of recorded human history of men rigging a system to favor themselves over women, so we don't have to worry that such a thing could have happened. We'd only worry if, say, we had many, many examples of it from many fields of endeavor in many societies across a huge percentage of recorded history. Oh. Wait.