It's easy to see why dumbshit tier democrats love to try educating your sort.
Again, so self evident that you felt the need to point it out eh?
Do you also walk around point out objects everyone else can also see? Wait, are you doing this to make sure that your perspective on reality is the same as others? So like, if you were to point out something you see and others say no, then you can realize what is a delusion and what is not. Oh, that makes a lot of sense now. You could be doing this to help keep you in reality.
Also easy to see why people whom basic facts reflect poorly on try so hard to talk about anything else.
Aw, do you feel like I'm not taking your desires into consideration?
Okay, what do you want to talk about?
It's not that the orchestra was suddenly 50% women, it was after going to a preliminary round blind audition 50% more women were selected than when the auditioner could see the performer and was hence judging on a mixture of performance and unconscious or conscious bias.
So why would less than 25% of undergrads in IT be women?
You posit some genetic gender distinction observable from birth. If you are suggesting somehow that it somehow means women are less capable than men at IT and is the major reason as such you'll need a lot more support for this assumption you've jumped too.
Studies have already found biases by teachers push girls away from math:
http://www.nber.org/papers/w20909
I've personally seen bias against math with my girls. My eldest daughter accelerated a year in math in elementary school. We had to force the school to test her which she passed easily. When she did they sat us down and asked us, "Do you really want to do this? It could damage her socially and make it harder for her to get into college because she'll get a lower GPA in HS because she'll have to take harder math classes."
She's gotten A's every year.
Now it's possible the school just has a thing against gifted kids and not necessarily against girls but when my coworkers son (in a different school but same district) was doing well in the school asked her if they could test him for acceleration.
Further more our school put out a kids t-shirt which was supposed to say the kids were like 4 different superheroes. All 4 were male superheroes. When my wife asked the principal why they couldn't have put a single female superhero on the shirt she said, "The Boys wouldn't like it." No problem in the principals mind with girls have boy superheroes only a problem with boys wearing a shirt with a girl superhero. That's a gender bias.
Women are on the receiving end of gender biases that push them away from STEM jobs.
The good news is world class organizations know they get better performance if they have diverse groups so are pushing back against those biases.
Man! just wanted to say good job arguing against the sexist "biological differences" nonsense here! Maybe I need to get some tips on raising my daughter and how to fight the sexist BS in the school system
It's not that the orchestra was suddenly 50% women, it was after going to a preliminary round blind audition 50% more women were selected than when the auditioner could see the performer and was hence judging on a mixture of performance and unconscious or conscious bias.
So why would less than 25% of undergrads in IT be women?
You posit some genetic gender distinction observable from birth. If you are suggesting somehow that it somehow means women are less capable than men at IT and is the major reason as such you'll need a lot more support for this assumption you've jumped too.
Studies have already found biases by teachers push girls away from math:
http://www.nber.org/papers/w20909
I've personally seen bias against math with my girls. My eldest daughter accelerated a year in math in elementary school. We had to force the school to test her which she passed easily. When she did they sat us down and asked us, "Do you really want to do this? It could damage her socially and make it harder for her to get into college because she'll get a lower GPA in HS because she'll have to take harder math classes."
She's gotten A's every year.
Now it's possible the school just has a thing against gifted kids and not necessarily against girls but when my coworkers son (in a different school but same district) was doing well in the school asked her if they could test him for acceleration.
Further more our school put out a kids t-shirt which was supposed to say the kids were like 4 different superheroes. All 4 were male superheroes. When my wife asked the principal why they couldn't have put a single female superhero on the shirt she said, "The Boys wouldn't like it." No problem in the principals mind with girls have boy superheroes only a problem with boys wearing a shirt with a girl superhero. That's a gender bias.
Women are on the receiving end of gender biases that push them away from STEM jobs.
The good news is world class organizations know they get better performance if they have diverse groups so are pushing back against those biases.
Man! just wanted to say good job arguing against the sexist "biological differences" nonsense here! Maybe I need to get some tips on raising my daughter and how to fight the sexist BS in the school system
Studies found that girls get better grades in maths and do more homework than boys, so while they don't say it so, if anyone is getting shortchanged by the schools, it's decidedly the male sex.
Even in maths, it's boys who don't perform upto their potential, it's just that the difference is so big that girls don't get ahead on standardized tests.
That requires dialing this back, past the pages of Agent's mess, and addressing Paratus's substantial dissecting of it. How he effectively shows that, by selectively picking out parts of the Memo, either side can read into it however they'd like. That's going to take some time to properly review and address.
Just because something makes you angry doesn't mean it is unfair or prejudiced, not is it outright bad. I didn't address your criticisms because I respectfully disagree with them, and nothing I say will convince you otherwise.
The better converation is to understand what motivated the author to write the memo in the first place. That conversation is now playing out in the court of public opinion, and Google has lost control of the narrative.
All it would take to disprove what I said is show a point where he considers things from an even perspective, where differences between men and women might favor women in software engineering. Otherwise the premise is fundamentally flawed.
This is a bad enough reply I feel ashamed for you. You're transparent about telling yourself that I'm angry so that you can avoid engaging with my point. I have made a case that it is prejudiced. You seem to be unable to even dispute those claims. Inability to respond is tantamount to concession.
So I'll trim it down very short for you so you can respond.
Is there an explanation other than prejudice for a paper that professes to be an even-handed discussion of the differences between genders but starts from the presumption of female inferiority, and considers the differences it brings up only in the light of how they might make women unsuited to software engineering, while not considering ways in which those or other differences may have advantages as well?
Can you answer that question or do you concede that the premise of the memo was fundamentally rooted in prejudice?
Yes. But the difference is less than the distribution of ability within each of the genders. So how does gender serve as a reliable predictor of ability as a software engineer? (which is presumably what you're concerned with, otherwise why are we even discussing this..)Tell me, do you believe the data that shows men and women have on average different traits?
Tell me, do you believe the data that shows men and women have on average different traits?
Yes. But the difference is less than the distribution of ability within each of the genders. So how does gender serve as a reliable predictor of ability as a software engineer? (which is presumably what you're concerned with, otherwise why are we even discussing this..)
Yes. But the difference is less than the distribution of ability within each of the genders. So how does gender serve as a reliable predictor of ability as a software engineer? (which is presumably what you're concerned with, otherwise why are we even discussing this..)
Yep! In most places it's close enough that variance between individuals is going to overwhelm most of those traits though. Not to mention that any comparative study of men and women is going to be a comparative study of men, women, and their development from birth until they take those tests, which can't be ignored. The upshot is that you'd need some pretty huge differences for gender to be a reliable enough indicator for software engineering aptitude to get the sort of percentages the author is claiming would be justified by the differences he mentions.
Tell me, do you admit the possibility that some of these differences would be advantageous for women in comparison to men?
I get the feeling from him and from a lot of other more conservative sources that they're representing the issue to themselves as being with the statement of any differences at all, when the issue is with the framing of the discussion being inherently dishonest and set up to justify prejudice. It's easier to dismiss that way.
Might not want to assume my intentions from asking a single question.
Okay, so you believe in differences in traits. Those traits may help, hurt, or be neutral correct?
If men are on average have a trait that is an advantage, and women on average do not have the trait that is an advantage, would it be reasonable to expect 50/50?
I don't think you've fully read the memo, and are relying too heavily on the knee jerk narrative layered over it.All it would take to disprove what I said is show a point where he considers things from an even perspective, where differences between men and women might favor women in software engineering. Otherwise the premise is fundamentally flawed.
This is a bad enough reply I feel ashamed for you. You're transparent about telling yourself that I'm angry so that you can avoid engaging with my point. I have made a case that it is prejudiced. You seem to be unable to even dispute those claims. Inability to respond is tantamount to concession.
So I'll trim it down very short for you so you can respond.
Is there an explanation other than prejudice for a paper that professes to be an even-handed discussion of the differences between genders but starts from the presumption of female inferiority, and considers the differences it brings up only in the light of how they might make women unsuited to software engineering, while not considering ways in which those or other differences may have advantages as well?
Can you answer that question or do you concede that the premise of the memo was fundamentally rooted in prejudice?
I assumed, because otherwise I don't understand the point of the discussion, but ok.
To your question; I reject the premise. It's not a binary have/don't have the "ability" that lets one do software engineering. It's more like (making up numbers) e.g. men on average score 85 on ability X, while women on average score 82. But some men score 50, some women score 95. Point being seeing the the candidate is a women or man is worthless to predict how they will perform as a software engineer, compared to the individual differences in ability within the gender. For practical purposes it's worhtles as a way to predict how good a person will be as a developer.
As also pointed out; perhaps being told for the first two decades of a women's life that men are better at math might be a self-fulfilling prophecy, making her believe she can't be good at math?
Third; the "memo" state that women are more interested in people, men in things. That would make women better at managing teams of software engineers. So shouldn't we therefore expect 50+% women in tech management positions?
If you accept the data that women and women have different distributions of traits and strengths, its logical to assume you should not expect parity. If you read the document from that context its not sexist at all. It only becomes sexist when you assume a narrative that is not implicit to the document.
Women and men are not equal in their distributions. This is good for society as specialization makes us all better off.
Well I think the point is, at least IMO, is that any biological differences should maybe lead to something like 48/52% distribution of women/men in low level tech position (and maybe 52/48% in management where people skills are more important.). Instead it's 17% women at google.. Biological differences are minuscule compared to all other factors. They just make for a good distraction and scapegoat..
Might not want to assume my intentions from asking a single question.
Okay, so you believe in differences in traits. Those traits may help, hurt, or be neutral correct?
If men are on average have a trait that is an advantage, and women on average do not have the trait that is an advantage, would it be reasonable to expect 50/50?
Agreed its not binary. That said, if you are looking at a single trait and then looking at the entire distribution then that is wrong. Math scores is only one indication, and is not arbitrary. It may be that a person is only a few points weaker in math, but make up for that because of another trait that they are far stronger in.
We are not talking about positions where only a few traits are important. The document was to address that there may be some biological factors in play that promote men over women in the field.
Which was never in contention. At no point did the author say women were not facing sexism. He clearly believes they are and that policies to address sexism is good.
Again flawed premise. We are talking about agents with multiple traits. Looking at a single trait and nothing else is flawed. If all other traits were equal and women had that one benefit, then absolutely yes. That is not the reality.
If you accept the data that women and women have different distributions of traits and strengths, its logical to assume you should not expect parity. If you read the document from that context its not sexist at all. It only becomes sexist when you assume a narrative that is not implicit to the document.
Women and men are not equal in their distributions. This is good for society as specialization makes us all better off.
If women on average have a trait that is an advantage and men on average do not have that trait that is an advantage, would it be reasonable to expect 50/50?
More specifically do you believe it is even possible for a women to have on average skills that make them better at a technical job then men?
If you believe that sexism is an issue, as you say the author does, do you believe it's possible that sexism and bias skews the distribution? That absent that bias the distribution could possibly even be more women than men would make a more productive workplace?
Absolutely not. In that case I would expect more women than men, but that is if all things are held equal but women have a trait that is an advantage. I'm in no way saying that men on average are the superior in terms of all traits. I am saying that we have lots of data that men and women have different distributions and those traits may help or hurt depending.
Yes there are some fields dominated by women because of their traits. One is PR. Women have the ability to understand how people work and think and as such are far better at PR then men on average. PR aint easy either, but it is easier for women as many in the field work off of intuition in my experience.
Accounting is another. Women tend to score higher in Visual working memory and then we see that women beat men in accounting which should be benefited by that strength.
I believe its possible and in my experience happens. From the studies I have seen sexism represents a few % of the overall differences in distributions. The vast majority comes from experience, hours ect, and sexism being at or right near the bottom. Absent that bias, yes the distribution would be closer to 50/50, but only insofar as its greater than what it was before.
Please link the studies.
- Based on more than 505,000 salaries shared by full-time U.S. employees on Glassdoor, men earn 24.1 percent higher base pay than women on average. In other words, women earn about 76 cents per dollar men earn. However, comparing workers with similar age, education and years of experience shrinks that gap to 19.2 percent. Further, comparing workers with the same job title, employer and location, the gender pay gap in the U.S. falls to 5.4 percent (94.6 cents per dollar).
In nearly every case, faculty preferred candidates with a 9.5 rating over those with a 9.3. Fewer than 5 percent opted for the less accomplished candidate, showing a preference for the highest-rated person regardless of candidate gender.
Now he is claiming Google hiring/promotion is based on race and gender - https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fired-google-engineer-damore-says-203821101.html