I find it interesting that generally speaking, the same people that will espouse the vast differences between a male, female, trans, gay, bi, etc mind which would cause grave pain, anguish, and otherwise discomfort to that person if their gender identity/preference isn't accounted for, will also refuse to accept that there might be genuine differences in the minds of individuals, extrapolated to groups of individuals, that might give them different interest, preferences, and courses of life.
Out of curiosity, do you think that expecting a 50/50 split between men and women in STEM is reasonable, and if so, do you believe that the current split (I don't know what that is, but less than 50/50 I'm sure) is a result of 'problems', either related to women being pushed out/not let in, or lack of attempts to diversify, or do you believe that it's a result of a lack of interest from enough females to support a 50/50 split?Nobody is saying there are literally no differences, but rather whether various differences are consequential as claimed. Eg gays too effeminate to fight an enemy.
"Diversity" much like PC is just a mental crutch for folks too slow to understand the nuance there.
facts and truthiness
I find it interesting that generally speaking, the same people that will espouse the vast differences between a male, female, trans, gay, bi, etc mind which would cause grave pain, anguish, and otherwise discomfort to that person if their gender identity/preference isn't accounted for, will also refuse to accept that there might be genuine differences in the minds of individuals, extrapolated to groups of individuals, that might give them different interest, preferences, and courses of life.
Studies on depression, suicide, alcoholism, sexual and violent crime rates as stratified by sex disagree with me?Every major study disagrees with you.
Women are more likely to get treated for depression..if you screen everyone men have the higher rates. Men just aren't as likely to wisen up and realize they need help. This is true of healthcare in general (women have very early interaction with the health care system due to all the early gynecological screening, pregnancy care, birth control management, etc. You'd be surprised how many men haven't seen a doctor in 2-3 decades only to discover they've been bleeding away on the inside or have lung cancer or something). In terms of suicide, attempts don't mean anything... Women do it as a cry for help as opposed to actually going through with it (often taking out others in the process as well in work shootings or murder suicides or suicide by cop) and somehow seen as making them the more neurotic sex?Whatever the reason, depression is twofold higher among women:
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/depression/in-depth/depression/art-20047725
So far as suicide goes, men are much more likely to actually die by suicide, but women are far more likely to attempt suicide:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_differences_in_suicide
Because women tend to use pills, which is only sporadically effective, while men tend to use firearms, which are quite effective.
Out of curiosity, do you think that expecting a 50/50 split between men and women in STEM is reasonable, and if so, do you believe that the current split (I don't know what that is, but less than 50/50 I'm sure) is a result of 'problems', either related to women being pushed out/not let in, or lack of attempts to diversify, or do you believe that it's a result of a lack of interest from enough females to support a 50/50 split?
Studies on depression, suicide, alcoholism, sexual and violent crime rates as stratified by sex disagree with me?
Women are more likely to get treated for depression..if you screen everyone men have the higher rates. In terms of suicide, attempts don't mean anything... Women do it as a cry for help as opposed to actually going through with it (often taking out others in the process as well) ands somehow seen as making them the more neurotic sex?
In terms of psychiatric disease there are stereotypes that people still believe that were derived in the 1800s which the facts today simply do not support. Again, just look at statistics on violent crime and homelessness which are probably the best well defined hard outcomes to judge neurotic behavior on.
Studies on depression, suicide, alcoholism, sexual and violent crime rates as stratified by sex disagree with me?
Women are more likely to get treated for depression..if you screen everyone men have the higher rates. Men just aren't as likely to wisen up and realize they need help. This is true of healthcare in general (women have very early interaction with the health care system due to all the early gynecological screening, pregnancy care, birth control management, etc. You'd be surprised how many men haven't seen a doctor in 2-3 decades only to discover they've been bleeding away on the inside or have lung cancer or something). In terms of suicide, attempts don't mean anything... Women do it as a cry for help as opposed to actually going through with it (often taking out others in the process as well in work shootings or murder suicides or suicide by cop) and somehow seen as making them the more neurotic sex?
In terms of psychiatric disease there are stereotypes that people still believe that were derived in the 1800s which the facts today simply do not support. Again, just look at statistics on violent crime and homelessness which are probably the best well defined hard outcomes to judge neurotic behavior on.
When being paid by employer, please leave opinions unapproved by HR at the door.
But my point is, should we be forcing this issue? Should we be mandating by one way or another to balance M/F in various roles, regardless of what comes natural? And I don't mean natural as in 'keep womens down because it's natural to me'. I just mean bending over backwards to attempt to massage numbers upward artificially rather than just don't hold back anyone, introduce every child we can to every facet of our culture we're able to, and let them take their own course.50% is just rhetoric to look good for the labor investigators. In practice humans are rather flexible enough such questions are largely pointless. China is an illustrative example where one-child policy resulted in only child girls shouldering the "burdens" traditionally thrust on their counterparts, and low/behold STEM grads abound from there.
Studies on depression, suicide, alcoholism, sexual and violent crime rates as stratified by sex disagree with me?
Women are more likely to get treated for depression..if you screen everyone men have the higher rates. Men just aren't as likely to wisen up and realize they need help. This is true of healthcare in general (women have very early interaction with the health care system due to all the early gynecological screening, pregnancy care, birth control management, etc. You'd be surprised how many men haven't seen a doctor in 2-3 decades only to discover they've been bleeding away on the inside or have lung cancer or something). In terms of suicide, attempts don't mean anything... Women do it as a cry for help as opposed to actually going through with it (often taking out others in the process as well in work shootings or murder suicides or suicide by cop) and somehow seen as making them the more neurotic sex?
In terms of psychiatric disease there are stereotypes that people still believe that were derived in the 1800s which the facts today simply do not support. Again, just look at statistics on violent crime and homelessness which are probably the best well defined hard outcomes to judge neurotic behavior on.
But my point is, should we be forcing this issue? Should we be mandating by one way or another to balance M/F in various roles, regardless of what comes natural? And I don't mean natural as in 'keep womens down because it's natural to me'. I just mean bending over backwards to attempt to massage numbers upward artificially rather than just don't hold back anyone, introduce every child we can to every facet of our culture we're able to, and let them take their own course.
But my point is, should we be forcing this issue? Should we be mandating by one way or another to balance M/F in various roles, regardless of what comes natural? And I don't mean natural as in 'keep womens down because it's natural to me'. I just mean bending over backwards to attempt to massage numbers upward artificially rather than just don't hold back anyone, introduce every child we can to every facet of our culture we're able to, and let them take their own course.
Most that I know in my career field (IT) got there because they liked to tinker with computers, and ended up following a path that led them into IT, they weren't doing it looking at the end-goal of job hunting. Not saying that's the case for everyone, but is this really a chicken-and-egg scenario or is it possible that women are just less inclined to *want* to be in specific fields, unrelated to the misogynistic nature of men or the inherent bias of society?At what point does it become a self fulfilling prophecy though?
Women won't get equal opportunity in some fields and thus they see very little reason to educate themselves to become engineers when they know that even if they are superior to a male applicant he has a greater chance of being hired.
Arguing that women don't educate themselves in certain fields and thus there will be fewer of them in that field that are hired is ass backwards reasoning. You wouldn't educate yourself in a field where you KNOW you'll have a harder time finding a job either.
I'm not necessarily saying the core data is wrong. What I am saying is that it presents a wildly incomplete picture, and that Damore is making numerous leaps of logic to shoehorn it into his view of the world. For example, the argument that women are more neurotic. The study everyone points to on that doesn't actually say whether or not that's some inherent trait or inflicted by years of conditioning. Women are far more likely to be targets of abuse, harassment, sexual assault and body shaming. How much does that play into the findings?
This is what's frustrating about how people use data in arguments, and it's not exclusively a conservative problem: that tendency to infer far more from a set of figures than what they actually say, and that refusal to question something the moment it looks even vaguely plausible. Look at the OP: effectively, he's saying "see, Damore has a doctorate from Harvard! Therefore we can assume everything he says is always true!" Only it turns out that Damore doesn't have a doctorate, and merely having a vaguely related degree doesn't make you either qualified to speak on a subject or immune to political bias.
But my point is, should we be forcing this issue? Should we be mandating by one way or another to balance M/F in various roles, regardless of what comes natural? And I don't mean natural as in 'keep womens down because it's natural to me'. I just mean bending over backwards to attempt to massage numbers upward artificially rather than just don't hold back anyone, introduce every child we can to every facet of our culture we're able to, and let them take their own course.
Just because you're too dumb to get a read on this guy doesn't mean much.
Apparently he already got a job offer from WikiLeaks...
http://nationalpost.com/news/world/...ange/wcm/c95dcfc6-1ea6-4a59-bd1a-3e695560b2e1
A repeated tendency towards violence is considered a psychiatric disorder. There is no such thing as a perfectly rational or biological reasons to cut someone's legs off, to rape an old lady who's out on a jog, to kidnap or stab someone in eye on more than one occasion. There are no repeatedly rational killers; biology plays into psychology but nonetheless male psychiatric disease is alive and well today. Most of the repeat violent offenders sociopaths could probably fall under at least antisocial personality disorder assuming they don't have higher level diagnoses as well.You'd have to source your contention that men have higher depression rates in spite of women being diagnosed with it twice as often. I understand your point - that women are more likely to seek help - but data is needed for the conclusion you've drawn.
Suicide attempts do mean something. Someone in an ordinary, non-neurotic frame of mind doesn't attempt suicide as a cry for help.
Men commit more violent crime likely not because they are more neurotic, but because violent behavior is biologically wired more for males than for females. There are evolutionary reasons for this. None of which helps support the idea that observed behavioral differences between males and females is entirely down to social conditioning.
The whole sexist, racist argument that X is under represented because of supposed inate group trait is idiotic.
Sure if you could come up with some performance test and quantify everyone in the world some race or gender may have a slightly different distribution on the bell curve than another. But here's the thing. Businesses don't hire groups, they hire individuals.
What happens when you judge performance blindly to remove subtle biases? Women hires increase 50%
Women not able to handle high pressure STEM jobs? That's BS in my experience. My wife graduated with 10% better grades than I did from the very same top 10 engineering university. She's done the same high pressure job I have and others.
My mother almost completed her PHD in Comp Sci in the seventies, (I caused her to not complete ). She's worked in comp sci for almost 40 years.
My mother in-law is an MD.
Half of my bosses have been women and several have been minority women - all excellent.
Coworkers are approaching 50% women all with technical degrees.
Approaching 50% of upper management including the big boss are woman, all with technical degrees and coming from jobs very few applicants can get.
Diversity makes business perform better.
Here's the thing for Google TechBro. When it came to job performance, regardless of what he thinks the inherent benefits of his race and gender, he personally fell on the left side of the bell curve.
I was expecting him to get one from Uber.
Um, did you see who Uber hired recently? Super not a white male.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/style/uber-bozoma-saint-john.html
P.S. I know Bozoma as she is family.
You're arguing against a straw man.
I did not say that everyone is always potentially capable of everything. The question is what's actually innate versus taught, and Damore's problem is that he claims most women are innately ill-suited to programming through some very broad, dodgy claims. And even if he were right, what if the ratio of women in programming could still be higher, like 30 percent instead of 17?
You see the problem here? He's using some vague hand-waving to justify the current ratio, but he doesn't have even the crudest idea of what the 'natural' ratio should be. He just wants women to give up trying for better representation... but oh, if he wants to tell women they're inferior, he should have that freedom.
A repeated tendency towards violence is considered a psychiatric disorder. There is no such thing as a perfectly rational or biological reasons to cut someone's legs off, to rape an old lady who's out on a jog, to kidnap or stab someone in eye on more than one occasion. There are no repeatedly rational killers; biology plays into psychology but nonetheless male psychiatric disease is alive and well today. Most of the repeat violent offenders sociopaths could probably fall under at least antisocial personality disorder assuming they don't have higher level diagnoses as well.
There are soft psychiatric outcomes and there are hard psychiatric outcomes like suicide and violent crime and men are definitely taking the charge on the hard outcomes. By the way, I worked briefly in a prison doing intake on violent offenders. Trust me, 95% of them were seriously mentally ill.