3 ms·

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.

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.
  - stcredzero 9y ago
    So do something about it, if it bothers you. I've personally engaged in education programs for high school women in tech. Though of course we have literally zero cases in all of recorded human history of men rigging a system to favor themselves over women...Oh. Wait. But the typical intellectual dishonesty here comes in the form of citing this history, then asserting that the current day must be the same, with zero proof. That is exactly what you just did. According to the Google and YouTube execs, there are factors in the job which may skew employment according to preference, and perhaps the job should be changed to take preferences into account. This is exactly what James Damore proposed in his memo, and furthermore what Google and Youtube execs said in public: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrOp8ewzJDc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrOp8ewzJDc Furthermore, they also state that employment at Google is at parity with the STEM/tech education pipeline -- about 2 in 5 women. Where is your evidence of "rigging" given the existing anti-discrimination laws and Google's extraordinary efforts to work against that? Or are you just pointing to it having happened in the past, then point to a non 50/50 distribution as "proof." Sorry, but that's circular logic. Can you justify the 50/50 distribution with other than circular logic? Aren't you just taking that as an unexamined axiom?
_Tev 9y ago
> 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". You know, that can be applied to you as well. > 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. Oh the irony. It's funny to see oneself in such mirror (I was using the "I will be proven right and I know it" shitargument too).

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.
- stcredzero 9y ago
  So do something about it, if it bothers you. I've personally engaged in education programs for high school women in tech. Though of course we have literally zero cases in all of recorded human history of men rigging a system to favor themselves over women...Oh. Wait. But the typical intellectual dishonesty here comes in the form of citing this history, then asserting that the current day must be the same, with zero proof. That is exactly what you just did. According to the Google and YouTube execs, there are factors in the job which may skew employment according to preference, and perhaps the job should be changed to take preferences into account. This is exactly what James Damore proposed in his memo, and furthermore what Google and Youtube execs said in public: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrOp8ewzJDc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrOp8ewzJDc Furthermore, they also state that employment at Google is at parity with the STEM/tech education pipeline -- about 2 in 5 women. Where is your evidence of "rigging" given the existing anti-discrimination laws and Google's extraordinary efforts to work against that? Or are you just pointing to it having happened in the past, then point to a non 50/50 distribution as "proof." Sorry, but that's circular logic. Can you justify the 50/50 distribution with other than circular logic? Aren't you just taking that as an unexamined axiom?

_Tev 9y ago

> 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". You know, that can be applied to you as well. > 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. Oh the irony. It's funny to see oneself in such mirror (I was using the "I will be proven right and I know it" shitargument too).