5 ms·

It might just be useless. Maybe 50% of woman are not as interested in the same topics as 50% of the man. Maybe it's ok and natural that man and woman have other

It might just be useless. Maybe 50% of woman are not as interested in the same topics as 50% of the man. Maybe it's ok and natural that man and woman have other talents / interests / perception / interpretation of things etc. Maybe we can appreciate our differences instead of forcefully trying to mold everything into the same shape?

scuff3d 1y ago
These policies aren't about perfectly equal representation. It's about equal opportunity. That women you want to do the job get equal opportunities to men.
- zahlman 1y ago
  They already had, from the perspective of the organization, equal opportunities before the policies in question were enacted.
shadowgovt 1y ago
Didn't James Damore get himself fired "just asking these questions" at Google?
- ryan_lane 1y ago
  "Just asking questions" sounds innocent until you see that the questions being asked have insinuations behind them. He was asking questions that implied that women and non-white people are less intelligent. Phrasing outright racism/sexism in the form of a question seems to make it OK with other folks who tend to share the same mindset, but it isn't (and shouldn't be) effective in the workplace. The devil doesn't need an advocate; especially not in a workplace.
  - zahlman 1y ago
    > He was asking questions that implied that women and non-white people are less intelligent. His questions did not carry any such implication and that is a blatant misrepresentation of the argument he was making. I've been over this so many times in the past and I keep being told that the words I read don't mean what they very obviously mean. (I'm accustomed to that being called "gaslighting" when it goes the other way, inaccurate as that is.)
    - shadowgovt 1y ago
      What are your thoughts regarding the NLRB's interpretation of what he wrote? https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4380791-NLRB-Advice-Memo-On-James-Damore/ https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4380791-NLRB-Advice-...
      - zahlman 11mo ago
        They quote the key points more or less accurately, although it must be noted that Damore's reference to "neuroticism" referenced an established concept in psychology and psychometrics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism); this does not correspond to a lay understanding, and it is simply factually incorrect to say that he described women as "more neurotic". Note that Wikipedia endorses Damore's claim there: "A research [sic] over large samples has shown that levels of neuroticism are higher in women than men.[25]" Similarly, greater variability in male IQ is backed by research. Findings like these adequately support the core of Damore's argument, i.e. that disparate outcomes in race- and gender-blind processes do not evidence any form of unconscious bias and do not demonstrate any moral failing in the hiring process. The NLRB's findings refer to a supposed "effort to cloak with 'scientific' references and analysis", scare quotes theirs, as if to imply that the findings are not backed by science or that appeals to science are being used fraudulently here. Both are false. Similarly, the NLRB claims that Damore invoked "stereotypes" (their word, not scare quotes) in presenting this analysis, which is also false. The NLRB further supposes that remarks such as the ones they quoted, were somehow "discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment". I find the claim of discrimination specious. Observing that one population demonstrates a wider range of capability than another in certain standardized testing, is not discriminating against either group, especially when no claim is made about mean ability. As for "sexual harassment", I genuinely cannot understand how any reasonable person could ever have alleged this in good faith. There is no flirtation here, no attempt at intimidation, no intent to offend or degrade, nothing. What Damore said, objectively, was no more "sexist" than observing that men are taller than women on average (Cohen's d of 1.86, by the way: https://copernicanrevolution.org/psychology-of-gender/sex-differences https://copernicanrevolution.org/psychology-of-gender/sex-di...). Putting this in the same category as unwanted sexual advances is beyond ludicrous. The NLRB finally notes that "Numerous employees complained to the Employer that the memorandum was discriminatory against..." All people who made such complains were objectively incorrect in their assessment. The words cited, nor anything else in the memo, plainly do not support such a conclusion. Essentially, they haven't actually done any "interpretation" here; they have simply made absurd assertions about the effect of the material, in support of absurd assertions made by Damore's coworkers — which assertions are based on a reading that is at best rendered inaccurate by ideological blinders.

scuff3d 1y ago

These policies aren't about perfectly equal representation. It's about equal opportunity. That women you want to do the job get equal opportunities to men.

zahlman 1y ago
They already had, from the perspective of the organization, equal opportunities before the policies in question were enacted.

shadowgovt 1y ago

Didn't James Damore get himself fired "just asking these questions" at Google?

ryan_lane 1y ago
"Just asking questions" sounds innocent until you see that the questions being asked have insinuations behind them. He was asking questions that implied that women and non-white people are less intelligent. Phrasing outright racism/sexism in the form of a question seems to make it OK with other folks who tend to share the same mindset, but it isn't (and shouldn't be) effective in the workplace. The devil doesn't need an advocate; especially not in a workplace.
- zahlman 1y ago
  > He was asking questions that implied that women and non-white people are less intelligent. His questions did not carry any such implication and that is a blatant misrepresentation of the argument he was making. I've been over this so many times in the past and I keep being told that the words I read don't mean what they very obviously mean. (I'm accustomed to that being called "gaslighting" when it goes the other way, inaccurate as that is.)
  - shadowgovt 1y ago
    What are your thoughts regarding the NLRB's interpretation of what he wrote? https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4380791-NLRB-Advice-Memo-On-James-Damore/ https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4380791-NLRB-Advice-...
    - zahlman 11mo ago
      They quote the key points more or less accurately, although it must be noted that Damore's reference to "neuroticism" referenced an established concept in psychology and psychometrics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism); this does not correspond to a lay understanding, and it is simply factually incorrect to say that he described women as "more neurotic". Note that Wikipedia endorses Damore's claim there: "A research [sic] over large samples has shown that levels of neuroticism are higher in women than men.[25]" Similarly, greater variability in male IQ is backed by research. Findings like these adequately support the core of Damore's argument, i.e. that disparate outcomes in race- and gender-blind processes do not evidence any form of unconscious bias and do not demonstrate any moral failing in the hiring process. The NLRB's findings refer to a supposed "effort to cloak with 'scientific' references and analysis", scare quotes theirs, as if to imply that the findings are not backed by science or that appeals to science are being used fraudulently here. Both are false. Similarly, the NLRB claims that Damore invoked "stereotypes" (their word, not scare quotes) in presenting this analysis, which is also false. The NLRB further supposes that remarks such as the ones they quoted, were somehow "discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment". I find the claim of discrimination specious. Observing that one population demonstrates a wider range of capability than another in certain standardized testing, is not discriminating against either group, especially when no claim is made about mean ability. As for "sexual harassment", I genuinely cannot understand how any reasonable person could ever have alleged this in good faith. There is no flirtation here, no attempt at intimidation, no intent to offend or degrade, nothing. What Damore said, objectively, was no more "sexist" than observing that men are taller than women on average (Cohen's d of 1.86, by the way: https://copernicanrevolution.org/psychology-of-gender/sex-differences https://copernicanrevolution.org/psychology-of-gender/sex-di...). Putting this in the same category as unwanted sexual advances is beyond ludicrous. The NLRB finally notes that "Numerous employees complained to the Employer that the memorandum was discriminatory against..." All people who made such complains were objectively incorrect in their assessment. The words cited, nor anything else in the memo, plainly do not support such a conclusion. Essentially, they haven't actually done any "interpretation" here; they have simply made absurd assertions about the effect of the material, in support of absurd assertions made by Damore's coworkers — which assertions are based on a reading that is at best rendered inaccurate by ideological blinders.