4 ms·
I don't think anyone here is arguing for punishment or blame, though — I certainly wasn't. All I said was that if you look at a group getting much worse outcome
by chc 8y ago
I don't think anyone here is arguing for punishment or blame, though — I certainly wasn't. All I said was that if you look at a group getting much worse outcomes and declare that their opportunities were at least as good as the group getting better outcomes, it logically follows that the members of the group are simply not capable. If you wouldn't feel confident saying that explicitly, then comments about "outcomes vs. opportunity" are misguided and there's probably some kind of opportunity disparity that you've missed but which is reflected in the outcome.
- stcredzero 8y agoI don't think anyone here is arguing for punishment or blame, though An old schoolmate of mine who was at Google before the James Damore thing happened, was saying stuff just afterwards like, maybe it's time that males got stuff taken away from them. All I said was that if you look at a group getting much worse outcomes and declare that their opportunities were at least as good as the group getting better outcomes, it logically follows that the members of the group are simply not capable. Sorry, but it doesn't follow logically. I've dated two women who can code, and who can outperform students I've taught in that, but who don't like doing it at all. Their employment outcomes as programmers would be nil, because that's not what they want to do. People keep explaining this to you, and yet you keep coming out with, "it logically follows that the members of the group are simply not capable." I got a group of two who are capable, but have an outcome of zero. Proof by example, your logical assertion is wrong. (No guff about anecdotes vs. data. You're the one who said, "it logically follows," and even a group of two is enough to refute "logic.")
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]