Still raging about a memo you've yet to read. You don't even know why you're so triggered. You'll just keep flailing that flaccid noodle of intellectual impotence.This is like mooch level of playing dumb where he had to brag about knowing it all along after pleading ignorance.
You're truly terrible at it for such a regular.
Still raging about a memo you've yet to read. You don't even know why you're so triggered. You'll just keep flailing that flaccid noodle of intellectual impotence.
You can surely do better professor.
I can't validate the accuracy of something never stated, cited or proven. I can speculate you meant the Chinese, which is ironic, because diversity is about to inpale itself on a sharp Asian spear. Keep on flailing professor.You know what I've said is true because you've already checked and have no counterargument, which is why you're going for the buckshot/realibrad approach of making yourself a burden then dragging out some pedantic minutia for 50 more pages. Certainly works wonders for your colleagues so why not you?
I can't validate the accuracy of something never stated, cited or proven. I can speculate you meant the Chinese, which is ironic, because diversity is about to inpale itself on a sharp Asian spear. Keep on flailing professor.
That is really the only response you could make, because you have nothing to say. You have been weighed. You have been measured. You have been found wanting.Classic buckshot.
That is really the only response you could make, because you have nothing to say. You have been weighed. You have been measured. You have been found wanting.
Try presenting some evidence and I will let you know if it alters my worldview, promise.Let's not pretend evidence has ever altered your conservative stance.
Try presenting some evidence and I will let you know if it alters my worldview, promise.
I can't recall one instance where you've been anything other than condescending and dismissive. If you have evidence or even something that resembles a coherent argument, I will at the very least acknowledge it. I may however not agree with it.We've been here many times before and we both know how much of a lie that is. You've never once given two shits about anything but defending the party line no matter what.
This simple table makes the topic more than clear enough: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Gender_gaps_in_mathematics_and_reading
The US is near the top, and there are plenty of countries near the bottom. Also interesting:
1. The difference is more pronounced in language skills, precisely the jobs women are often pushed to in the west
2. The reading/math gaps are reverse correlated, pointing to the cultural fluidity of these effects.
Contrary to several previous studies, we found no evidence that the sex differences were related to nations’ gender equality indicators. Further, paradoxically, sex differences in mathematics were consistently and strongly inversely correlated with sex differences in reading: Countries with a smaller sex difference in mathematics had a larger sex difference in reading and vice versa. We demonstrate that this was not merely a between-nation, but also a within-nation effect.
I can't recall one instance where you've been anything other than condescending and dismissive. If you have evidence or even something that resembles a coherent argument, I will at the very least acknowledge it. I may however not agree with it.
1.Of course, boys don't like to read what the school has to give them and it's the real gender problem in schooling. PISA, the organization that conducts these tests even had their report talking of the gender difference in reading.
2. The gaps themselves differ by culture, the negative correlation does not. It's obvious to see which way the causation lies, since you need to know how to read in order to do maths, especially PISA's, and not the other way round.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0057988
So the reality is that boys get shortchanged in schools with their reading skills being way below girls, yet they still outperofrm girls on standardized maths tests. The gap is despite of culture, not due to it.
Trolling is not charity. Show me one example professor archive. I'll be waiting.Keep mind comment histories here are archived. I've been more than charitable with you in the past with rather lengthy arguments to which you've only replicated buckshot in return, just as you've shown zero interest in addressing anything of substance already posted. Same as you merely parrot the latest fox news take on every issue. Unlike a lot of the gullible sort here I tend to learn from mistakes.
Parroting your little racist/misogynist blogs like all the other conservatives doesn't mean you're capable of understanding much less addressing what's been said.
Parroting your little racist/misogynist blogs like all the other conservatives doesn't mean you're capable of understanding much less addressing what's been said.
I was just reminded of why Damore is and will always be wrong about women in tech: you need diversity in gender and ethnicity to make tech that accommodates everyone.
Damore will be right even when he's wrong because his opposition professes fealty to the goddesses of diversity and equality which is inherently contradictory. The problem is that he thinks that his opposition is amenable to logic and science, he's hopelessly wrong. Larry Summers got wrecked for saying something similar and he was the Harvard president.
He's also wrong to merely go on the defense against feminist nonsense, it hasn't worked till now and wouldn't work in the future.
What you just said makes not sense.
How can there be traits that on average benefit one group over another, yet the standard deviation overwhelm the differences? If the standard deviation was wide enough to capture both then the averages would overlap and be the same. We see that they are not.
What do you think you just said?
I don't think you've fully read the memo, and are relying too heavily on the knee jerk narrative layered over it.
Also, disagreement is not an inability to respond. The need for concession is a sign of immaturity.
I believe that frustration with the process and not fundamental prejudice motivated the memo. There are biological differences between the genders. Do those biological differences mean the exclusion of one gender from software development? Of course not. But the author clearly stated that a better implementation of diversity programs could be to leverage biological traits and strengths. That is not an irrational or prejudiced position to take, although it's certainly debatable.
Damore will be right even when he's wrong because his opposition professes fealty to the goddesses of diversity and equality which is inherently contradictory. The problem is that he thinks that his opposition is amenable to logic and science, he's hopelessly wrong. Larry Summers got wrecked for saying something similar and he was the Harvard president.
He's also wrong to merely go on the defense against feminist nonsense, it hasn't worked till now and wouldn't work in the future.
The Google employee could just as well have brought up eugenics and the scientific evidence that shows that black people have a lower IQ (he actually does this in a convoluted way) and he'd be just as correct as he was with his sociobiological references. Both being completely dead fields of science and both attempting to show white males as superior beyond all else.
That is my problem with the fucker but somehow "science" and it's all good.
Trying to educate people about the actual real world and using real world examples doesn't work at all since showing that women are quite capable of handling stress without going "neurotic" will be deflected into "why aren't more men nurses, harablargh".
Why aren't women more prominent in fields when they get hired at a much lesser rate and thus don't see any point in educating themselves to holding that position? Fucking mystery is what it is...
You just can't fix stupid.
It’s Murray’s flippant treatment of this history that makes some scholars so angry at his work. He doesn’t even take the widespread existence of racism seriously as a hypothesis. After all, a black-white IQ score difference, combined with evidence that IQ is in some degree heritable, is actually consistent with the idea that black people are genetically superior to white people in intelligence, and that their scores are depressed by early exposure to a society that devalues them from the earliest years of their lives (recall Malcolm X’s teacher responding to his aspiration toward being a lawyer by telling him carpentry was more realistic). To put it differently: Black people could inherit average IQs of 110, while white people inherit average IQs of 100, but the disadvantages of living in a racist society from birth could mean that by a young age, black people end up with average IQs of 95 and white people stay at 100. As Ned Block explains, there is a hidden premise that a role for genetics must necessarily disadvantage blacks, but that’s not necessarily the case.
Murray evidently considers the hypothesis of black genetic superiority too laughable to be worth disproving, even though the only reason for ignoring it is if one has already assumed the conclusion one is seeking to demonstrate; namely that racism doesn’t matter very much. The only reason why you wouldn’t even entertain the hypothesis of black genetic superiority is if you felt it couldn’t exist, something you would only think before examining the evidence if you were… a racist. (And no, Murray’s scanty and unsystematic data on Africa doesn’t help. People in the Congo, for example, probably had a difficult time holding their pencils to take IQ tests after the Belgians cut off all their hands. If you haven’t considered the history of colonialism, war, and starvation in Africa, you haven’t even begun to control for the variables necessary for any conclusion about genetics.)
Turgid overwrought prose with a basic grammatical error (is is singular, you're looking for are) is a compelling way to show that you've been failed by your education in writing, but it does little to make your arguments appear stronger.
Seriously though, fealty to the goddesses of diversity and equality is the sort of crap I expect from dudes with bad delivery and a skull in the frame on YouTube.
In case you were wondering, equality is treating people as if they aren't intrinsically lesser for reasons beyond the content of their character, and diversity is welcoming different perspectives. There ya go. No contradiction. Hope that helps. If you'd like some other remedial definitions, I'd be happy to help!
This is a really good post. A lot of the lens through which I'm criticizing is drawn functionally unaltered from the best criticism I've seen of The Bell Curve. The memo is methodologically similar to racial pseudoscience.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/07/why-is-charles-murray-odious
It's a long article so I'll quote out a really relevant bit:
Other slides, however, may explain why Damore thought Google "has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence."
For instance, in a slide titled "Off-topic for this session," the first point underneath that heading reads: "Debating whether bias exists at your organization."
That suggests any argument that Google is not biased is unwelcome at the diversity sessions, which are voluntary.
Another slide titled, "Create a safe learning space," includes this instruction: "Don't repeat what people said in this room."
Great read!
Trolling is not charity. Show me one example professor archive. I'll be waiting.
hahaha, that's my line, pearls before swine as always.
If anyone else who would like to read what exactly PISA's gender gaps entail, you could get a quick TL;DR of the above paper, by one of the authors, here,
https://sexcognitioneducation.wordp...athematics-is-unrelated-to-equality-policies/
Damore will be right even when he's wrong because his opposition professes fealty to the goddesses of diversity and equality which is inherently contradictory. The problem is that he thinks that his opposition is amenable to logic and science, he's hopelessly wrong. Larry Summers got wrecked for saying something similar and he was the Harvard president.
He's also wrong to merely go on the defense against feminist nonsense, it hasn't worked till now and wouldn't work in the future.
Your retarded ass still doesn't get that calling out blacks for what they are, dumb and criminal, is not white nationalism? You think anyone else in this world except you self-made retards thinks highly of blacks after looking at what they do in US?
Of course you don't, you're a great retard.
Where I explain affirmative action to you in great clarity:
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=threads/sc-upholds-ut-affirmative-action.2478216/page-5#post-38314590
And of course you'll continue to parrot conservative media's version in perpetuity, not unlike this guy:
Also worth pointing out how else these sorts think about the world:
^ Pretty much what everyone expects from folks aligned with Damore, Svnla, starbuck, realibrad, etc.
Of course that's worth pointing out because rest of what you write here is utter garbage. You guys have nothing but this stupid sanctimonious act, utter fucking retards.
I thought it was pretty funny that a friend had to mention all sorts of nonsense before he could mention his paper in his application to a US college, I didn't realize why it was so until much later. The Larry Summers's women faculty fiasco was amazing, these were people from best colleges in US and yet the intellectual discourse was a fucking joke. Not much different from the likes of you on internet forums.