richmarr

29 ms·

211.
by richmarr 9y ago
Pension funds do this already to a degree. Everyone pays in, the funds invest in all sorts of things, so everyone kinda owns bits of everything in a capitalist way. Of course it's obfuscated enough that it's hard to know what you
212.
by richmarr 9y ago
> I'm sorry to hear you feel that way I'm not a fan of the trend for sorry-you-feel-that-way apologies. On the other hand it's possible I let this seemingly-unending argument get to me and got defensive, thanks for not t
213.
by richmarr 9y ago
> As I understand it, the data about discrimination in hiring are mixed, but I'm interested in learning more. Great, do that. > Your threat response point seems like dressing up a group's overreaction to make it justifiab
214.
by richmarr 9y ago
> Ok, no one owes anyone a debate, unless... I'd like... This is still just about what you'd like to happen. The rest of that argument is circular. > Please don't do this. What he claimed was that women have less i
215.
by richmarr 9y ago
Okay, let's try another approach. On what basis do you think that preferences and abilities are two mutually exclusive traits? We know interest is influenced heavily by environment. We also know that ability is influenced by both inter
216.
by richmarr 9y ago
> If James wrote what you said he did above, (I think you mischaracterize him greatly)... By all means ignore the part relating to honesty/competence, I'd probably apologise to him for that if I met him so probably shouldn&#x
217.
by richmarr 9y ago
> It was pointed out in this thread many times: one good way to approximate what the ratio should be at the point of hire is the ratio among CS graduates. While this sounds reasonable on the face of it the reality is different. Where a
218.
by richmarr 9y ago
You're putting words in my mouth, rudely I might add. I don't have time to correct you, read my other posts or my blog post about it.
219.
by richmarr 9y ago
> You're holding him to an unbelievably high standard that is never applied to those making the case that gender disparities are due to societal discrimination. No, this is wrong. Societal discrimination is directly measurable at
220.
by richmarr 9y ago
> ...you might have great cards, but you folded, and nobody owes you any of the money on the table. No. Damore had to win. His opponents just had to not lose. Google has invested massive resources and thought into their hiring proces
221.
by richmarr 9y ago
> I deeply disagree with this approach. You're essentially saying that unless you can come up with an alternative scientific theory, complete with predictions, it's not possible to criticise an existing theory about the world.
222.
by richmarr 9y ago
The important point here is that Damore triggered a massive threat response in the colleagues he characterises as being below "the bar". He explicitly talks about that bar being lowered, which by implication undermines a proport
223.
by richmarr 9y ago
> Having unconscious bias or otherwise being incorrect doesn't make you intellectually dishonest. If you purport to be a (competent) scientist in the 21st century then personally I expected you to be highly aware of biases such as
224.
by richmarr 9y ago
0. Unconscious bias.
225.
by richmarr 9y ago
> You (along with many others) seem to be conflating the major point of the memo between interests and abilities Sorry, this is wrong. Direct quote (emphasis added): "I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and ab
226.
by richmarr 9y ago
> You can't dismiss his points just because you're tired of talking about them You can, and some people have, and that's okay. It's not clear whether you're making the implication here, but commonly it's i
227.
by richmarr 9y ago
Honestly not sure what could be on the other end of that hyperlink that would make it suddenly okay to suggest that a portion of your colleagues aren't worthy enough to be there.
228.
by richmarr 9y ago
To reply to your linked comment: The "bar" is an approximated objective assessment of ability, not an assessment of someone's ability percentile... as demonstrated by the fact that Google policy hires 'people that pass&#
229.
by richmarr 9y ago
> No he didn't. He talked about reducing false negatives, not increasing false positives. It seems we have a different interpretation of "lowering the bar"
230.
by richmarr 9y ago
(Not a lawyer) I would have thought Google would be able to argue other causes. Damore said Google policies "lower[ed] the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate" That statement is (a) factually inacc
231.
by richmarr 9y ago
It's a valid question, but Singer gets the answer wrong. This is politics, not science. 1) Biology is a red herring. There's a huge chasm between any supposed biological difference, and an actual model that can predict what propor
232.
by richmarr 9y ago
Yep, I think they fairly strongly agree that biological differences are not huge and that interest (which can be strongly swayed by culture) is that main contributing factor in the studies the memo cited. I think Scott Alexander makes one r
233.
by richmarr 9y ago
Not sure what data you're looking at but Yougov says the exact opposite. https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/04/25/demographics-dividing-b...
234.
by richmarr 9y ago
You seem to have missed my point, and keep focusing on overly narrow health intervention. Going back to my previous comment, education (through direct communication and through schools) is a channel through which lifestyle and hence health
235.
by richmarr 9y ago
I quoted him directly. He said the program lowered the bar by decreasing false negatives. Having a hard time squaring that with what you're saying his intention was.
236.
by richmarr 9y ago
> Isn't working with people you disagree with part of corporate life? But working with people who say you don't deserve to be there is not. James explicitly complained about "hiring practices which can effectively lower
237.
by richmarr 9y ago
> ...incessant anti-conservative tech culture Not sure I'd silo this as a tech culture thing. Education has been shown to negatively correlate with conservatism so it'd be reasonable to expect to see low numbers of conservati
238.
by richmarr 9y ago
> Life expectancy is a terrible measure for quality of health care... Depends how you define health care. If you include preventative medicine, education, etc. then things look a bit different. Note sure what happens in the US, but cou
239.
by richmarr 9y ago
US healthcare is far lower value for money than other developed nations, at least using average life expectancy as the metric: http://2oqz471sa19h3vbwa53m33yj.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-c...
240.
by richmarr 9y ago
> Seems to me that our technology... Life expectancy has continued to rise in other countries. The US is lagging behind. I'd guess the most likely cause is some combination of diet and having the comparatively expensive healthcare

More ›