In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I think my last comment may have been constructed wrongly.

[Kirbmarc]

Scott Alexander on differences between men and women:

Suppose I wanted to convince you that men and women had physically identical bodies. I run studies on things like number of arms, number of kidneys, size of the pancreas, caliber of the aorta, whether the brain is in the head or the chest, et cetera. 90% of these come back identical – in fact, the only ones that don’t are a few outliers like “breast size” or “number of penises”. I conclude that men and women are mostly physically similar. I can even make a statistic like “men and women are physically the same in 78% of traits”.

Then I go back to the person who says women have larger breasts and men are more likely to have penises, and I say “Ha, actually studies prove men and women are mostly physically identical! I sure showed you, you sexist!”

I worry that Hyde’s analysis plays the same trick. She does a wonderful job finding that men and women have minimal differences in eg “likelihood of smiling when not being observed”, “interpersonal leadership style”, et cetera. But if you ask the man on the street “Are men and women different?”, he’s likely to say something like “Yeah, men are more aggressive and women are more sensitive”. And in fact, Hyde found that men were indeed definitely more aggressive, and women indeed definitely more sensitive. But throw in a hundred other effects nobody cares about like “likelihood of smiling when not observed”, and you can report that “78% of gender differences are small or zero”.

Again, my research suggests no average gender difference in ability, so I can’t speak to whether these differences are caused by stereotypes or not. But I want to go back to the original question: why is there a gender difference in tech-industry-representation? Is this also due to stereotypes and the effect of an insufficiently gender-equitable society? Do we find that “countries that lack gender equity in school enrollment” and “stereotypes associating science with males” have fewer women in tech?

No. Galpin investigated the percent of women in computer classes all around the world. Her number of 26% for the US is slightly higher than I usually hear, probably because it’s older (the percent women in computing has actually gone down over time!). The least sexist countries I can think of – Sweden, New Zealand, Canada, etc – all have somewhere around the same number (30%, 20%, and 24%, respectively). The most sexist countries do extremely well on this metric! The highest numbers on the chart are all from non-Western, non-First-World countries that do middling-to-poor on the Gender Development Index: Thailand with 55%, Guyana with 54%, Malaysia with 51%, Iran with 41%, Zimbabwe with 41%, and Mexico with 39%. Needless to say, Zimbabwe is not exactly famous for its deep commitment to gender equality.

Why is this? It’s a very common and well-replicated finding that the more progressive and gender-equal a country, the larger gender differences in personality of the sort Hyde found become. I agree this is a very strange finding, but it’s definitely true.

This is interesting because it seems to show that social effects like prejudices about gender differences have a more limited impact than many think.

What is this “object vs. people” distinction?

It’s pretty relevant. Meta-analyses have shown a very large (d = 1.18) difference in healthy men and women (ie without CAH) in this domain. It’s traditionally summarized as “men are more interested in things and women are more interested in people”. I would flesh out “things” to include both physical objects like machines as well as complex abstract systems; I’d also add in another finding from those same studies that men are more risk-taking and like danger. And I would flesh out “people” to include communities, talking, helping, children, and animals.

So this theory predicts that men will be more likely to choose jobs with objects, machines, systems, and danger; women will be more likely to choose jobs with people, talking, helping, children, and animals.

Somebody armed with this theory could pretty well pretty well predict that women would be interested in going into medicine and law, since both of them involve people, talking, and helping. They would predict that women would dominate veterinary medicine (animals, helping), psychology (people, talking, helping, sometimes children), and education (people, children, helping). Of all the hard sciences, they might expect women to prefer biology (animals). And they might expect men to do best in engineering (objects, machines, abstract systems, sometimes danger) and computer science (machines, abstract systems).

A privilege-based theory fails – there’s not much of a tendency for women to be restricted to less prestigious and lower-paying fields – Ob/Gyn (mostly female) is extremely lucrative, and internal medicine (mostly male) is pretty low-paying for a medical job.

But the people/thing theory above does extremely well! Pediatrics is babies/children, Psychiatry is people/talking (and of course women are disproportionately child psychiatrists), OB/GYN is babies (though admittedly this probably owes a lot to patients being more comfortable with female gynecologists) and family medicine is people/talking/babies/children.

So there seems to be an average difference between men and women in STEM, but it seems rooted more in difference of interests rather than difference of abilities.

[InfraRedBucket]

Dunno if it's been posted here already, but here the Damore memo in full: https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... hamber.pdf

I think he's right on many specific points - De-emphasise empathy, for example, looks like a pretty sound idea to me - but the author does appear to treat biological determinism (as per men vs women) as settled science, whereas I'm pretty sure it's far from settled. However, it seems a fairly sober and genuine article - no more, IMO, than a presentation of a set of ideas a opposed to some horrible anti-women screed that the REEEE'ers are making it out to be.

Assuming Google are genuine in their claim to be pro-free speech, their sacking of Damore makes that claim...well, highly dubious. It's pretty much as sober a document as can be.

What I understand from the articles I've read is that a certain degree of biological differences between men and women in matters of average psychology/cognition is far from controversial. What's less certain is the role played by biological differences vs. the amplification of those differences through social forces, but (correct me if I'm wrong) the author of the memo didn't completely rule out social influences, only argue that practices at Google seemed to assume "social constructionist" explanations as the default.

From Page 1:

Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of
shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo
chamber.
Despite what the public response seems to have been, I've gotten many†personal messages
from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues
which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our
shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change.

[Kirbmarc]

Scott Alexander on differences between men and women:

Suppose I wanted to convince you that men and women had physically identical bodies. I run studies on things like number of arms, number of kidneys, size of the pancreas, caliber of the aorta, whether the brain is in the head or the chest, et cetera. 90% of these come back identical – in fact, the only ones that don’t are a few outliers like “breast size” or “number of penises”. I conclude that men and women are mostly physically similar. I can even make a statistic like “men and women are physically the same in 78% of traits”.

Then I go back to the person who says women have larger breasts and men are more likely to have penises, and I say “Ha, actually studies prove men and women are mostly physically identical! I sure showed you, you sexist!”

I worry that Hyde’s analysis plays the same trick. She does a wonderful job finding that men and women have minimal differences in eg “likelihood of smiling when not being observed”, “interpersonal leadership style”, et cetera. But if you ask the man on the street “Are men and women different?”, he’s likely to say something like “Yeah, men are more aggressive and women are more sensitive”. And in fact, Hyde found that men were indeed definitely more aggressive, and women indeed definitely more sensitive. But throw in a hundred other effects nobody cares about like “likelihood of smiling when not observed”, and you can report that “78% of gender differences are small or zero”.

Again, my research suggests no average gender difference in ability, so I can’t speak to whether these differences are caused by stereotypes or not. But I want to go back to the original question: why is there a gender difference in tech-industry-representation? Is this also due to stereotypes and the effect of an insufficiently gender-equitable society? Do we find that “countries that lack gender equity in school enrollment” and “stereotypes associating science with males” have fewer women in tech?

No. Galpin investigated the percent of women in computer classes all around the world. Her number of 26% for the US is slightly higher than I usually hear, probably because it’s older (the percent women in computing has actually gone down over time!). The least sexist countries I can think of – Sweden, New Zealand, Canada, etc – all have somewhere around the same number (30%, 20%, and 24%, respectively). The most sexist countries do extremely well on this metric! The highest numbers on the chart are all from non-Western, non-First-World countries that do middling-to-poor on the Gender Development Index: Thailand with 55%, Guyana with 54%, Malaysia with 51%, Iran with 41%, Zimbabwe with 41%, and Mexico with 39%. Needless to say, Zimbabwe is not exactly famous for its deep commitment to gender equality.

Why is this? It’s a very common and well-replicated finding that the more progressive and gender-equal a country, the larger gender differences in personality of the sort Hyde found become. I agree this is a very strange finding, but it’s definitely true.

This is interesting because it seems to show that social effects like prejudices about gender differences have a more limited impact than many think.

What is this “object vs. people” distinction?

It’s pretty relevant. Meta-analyses have shown a very large (d = 1.18) difference in healthy men and women (ie without CAH) in this domain. It’s traditionally summarized as “men are more interested in things and women are more interested in people”. I would flesh out “things” to include both physical objects like machines as well as complex abstract systems; I’d also add in another finding from those same studies that men are more risk-taking and like danger. And I would flesh out “people” to include communities, talking, helping, children, and animals.

So this theory predicts that men will be more likely to choose jobs with objects, machines, systems, and danger; women will be more likely to choose jobs with people, talking, helping, children, and animals.

Somebody armed with this theory could pretty well pretty well predict that women would be interested in going into medicine and law, since both of them involve people, talking, and helping. They would predict that women would dominate veterinary medicine (animals, helping), psychology (people, talking, helping, sometimes children), and education (people, children, helping). Of all the hard sciences, they might expect women to prefer biology (animals). And they might expect men to do best in engineering (objects, machines, abstract systems, sometimes danger) and computer science (machines, abstract systems).

A privilege-based theory fails – there’s not much of a tendency for women to be restricted to less prestigious and lower-paying fields – Ob/Gyn (mostly female) is extremely lucrative, and internal medicine (mostly male) is pretty low-paying for a medical job.

But the people/thing theory above does extremely well! Pediatrics is babies/children, Psychiatry is people/talking (and of course women are disproportionately child psychiatrists), OB/GYN is babies (though admittedly this probably owes a lot to patients being more comfortable with female gynecologists) and family medicine is people/talking/babies/children.

So there seems to be an average difference between men and women in STEM, but it seems rooted more in difference of interests rather than difference of abilities.

[Kirbmarc]

Scott Alexander on differences between men and women:

Suppose I wanted to convince you that men and women had physically identical bodies. I run studies on things like number of arms, number of kidneys, size of the pancreas, caliber of the aorta, whether the brain is in the head or the chest, et cetera. 90% of these come back identical – in fact, the only ones that don’t are a few outliers like “breast size” or “number of penises”. I conclude that men and women are mostly physically similar. I can even make a statistic like “men and women are physically the same in 78% of traits”.

Then I go back to the person who says women have larger breasts and men are more likely to have penises, and I say “Ha, actually studies prove men and women are mostly physically identical! I sure showed you, you sexist!”

I worry that Hyde’s analysis plays the same trick. She does a wonderful job finding that men and women have minimal differences in eg “likelihood of smiling when not being observed”, “interpersonal leadership style”, et cetera. But if you ask the man on the street “Are men and women different?”, he’s likely to say something like “Yeah, men are more aggressive and women are more sensitive”. And in fact, Hyde found that men were indeed definitely more aggressive, and women indeed definitely more sensitive. But throw in a hundred other effects nobody cares about like “likelihood of smiling when not observed”, and you can report that “78% of gender differences are small or zero”.

Again, my research suggests no average gender difference in ability, so I can’t speak to whether these differences are caused by stereotypes or not. But I want to go back to the original question: why is there a gender difference in tech-industry-representation? Is this also due to stereotypes and the effect of an insufficiently gender-equitable society? Do we find that “countries that lack gender equity in school enrollment” and “stereotypes associating science with males” have fewer women in tech?

No. Galpin investigated the percent of women in computer classes all around the world. Her number of 26% for the US is slightly higher than I usually hear, probably because it’s older (the percent women in computing has actually gone down over time!). The least sexist countries I can think of – Sweden, New Zealand, Canada, etc – all have somewhere around the same number (30%, 20%, and 24%, respectively). The most sexist countries do extremely well on this metric! The highest numbers on the chart are all from non-Western, non-First-World countries that do middling-to-poor on the Gender Development Index: Thailand with 55%, Guyana with 54%, Malaysia with 51%, Iran with 41%, Zimbabwe with 41%, and Mexico with 39%. Needless to say, Zimbabwe is not exactly famous for its deep commitment to gender equality.

Why is this? It’s a very common and well-replicated finding that the more progressive and gender-equal a country, the larger gender differences in personality of the sort Hyde found become. I agree this is a very strange finding, but it’s definitely true.

This is interesting because it seems to show that social effects like prejudices about gender differences have a more limited impact than many think.

What is this “object vs. people” distinction?

It’s pretty relevant. Meta-analyses have shown a very large (d = 1.18) difference in healthy men and women (ie without CAH) in this domain. It’s traditionally summarized as “men are more interested in things and women are more interested in people”. I would flesh out “things” to include both physical objects like machines as well as complex abstract systems; I’d also add in another finding from those same studies that men are more risk-taking and like danger. And I would flesh out “people” to include communities, talking, helping, children, and animals.

So this theory predicts that men will be more likely to choose jobs with objects, machines, systems, and danger; women will be more likely to choose jobs with people, talking, helping, children, and animals.

Somebody armed with this theory could pretty well pretty well predict that women would be interested in going into medicine and law, since both of them involve people, talking, and helping. They would predict that women would dominate veterinary medicine (animals, helping), psychology (people, talking, helping, sometimes children), and education (people, children, helping). Of all the hard sciences, they might expect women to prefer biology (animals). And they might expect men to do best in engineering (objects, machines, abstract systems, sometimes danger) and computer science (machines, abstract systems).

A privilege-based theory fails – there’s not much of a tendency for women to be restricted to less prestigious and lower-paying fields – Ob/Gyn (mostly female) is extremely lucrative, and internal medicine (mostly male) is pretty low-paying for a medical job.

But the people/thing theory above does extremely well! Pediatrics is babies/children, Psychiatry is people/talking (and of course women are disproportionately child psychiatrists), OB/GYN is babies (though admittedly this probably owes a lot to patients being more comfortable with female gynecologists) and family medicine is people/talking/babies/children.

So there seems to be an average difference between men and women in STEM, but it seems rooted more in difference of interests rather than difference of abilities.

[jet_lagg]

A female neuroscientist thinks that the Google memo isn't "sexist" or "offensive" but actually accurate:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGt4hlJUAAEvHvp.jpg

Internalized misogyny :bjarte:

http://i.imgur.com/Y7vDE7I.png

[feathers]

I'm using firefox.

The post above shows the word 'Image' - but has no picture.

It means you should use your image-ination.

[Kirbmarc]

Scott Alexander on differences between men and women:

Suppose I wanted to convince you that men and women had physically identical bodies. I run studies on things like number of arms, number of kidneys, size of the pancreas, caliber of the aorta, whether the brain is in the head or the chest, et cetera. 90% of these come back identical – in fact, the only ones that don’t are a few outliers like “breast size” or “number of penises”. I conclude that men and women are mostly physically similar. I can even make a statistic like “men and women are physically the same in 78% of traits”.

Then I go back to the person who says women have larger breasts and men are more likely to have penises, and I say “Ha, actually studies prove men and women are mostly physically identical! I sure showed you, you sexist!”

I worry that Hyde’s analysis plays the same trick. She does a wonderful job finding that men and women have minimal differences in eg “likelihood of smiling when not being observed”, “interpersonal leadership style”, et cetera. But if you ask the man on the street “Are men and women different?”, he’s likely to say something like “Yeah, men are more aggressive and women are more sensitive”. And in fact, Hyde found that men were indeed definitely more aggressive, and women indeed definitely more sensitive. But throw in a hundred other effects nobody cares about like “likelihood of smiling when not observed”, and you can report that “78% of gender differences are small or zero”.

Again, my research suggests no average gender difference in ability, so I can’t speak to whether these differences are caused by stereotypes or not. But I want to go back to the original question: why is there a gender difference in tech-industry-representation? Is this also due to stereotypes and the effect of an insufficiently gender-equitable society? Do we find that “countries that lack gender equity in school enrollment” and “stereotypes associating science with males” have fewer women in tech?

No. Galpin investigated the percent of women in computer classes all around the world. Her number of 26% for the US is slightly higher than I usually hear, probably because it’s older (the percent women in computing has actually gone down over time!). The least sexist countries I can think of – Sweden, New Zealand, Canada, etc – all have somewhere around the same number (30%, 20%, and 24%, respectively). The most sexist countries do extremely well on this metric! The highest numbers on the chart are all from non-Western, non-First-World countries that do middling-to-poor on the Gender Development Index: Thailand with 55%, Guyana with 54%, Malaysia with 51%, Iran with 41%, Zimbabwe with 41%, and Mexico with 39%. Needless to say, Zimbabwe is not exactly famous for its deep commitment to gender equality.

Why is this? It’s a very common and well-replicated finding that the more progressive and gender-equal a country, the larger gender differences in personality of the sort Hyde found become. I agree this is a very strange finding, but it’s definitely true.

This is interesting because it seems to show that social effects like prejudices about gender differences have a more limited impact than many think.

What is this “object vs. people” distinction?

It’s pretty relevant. Meta-analyses have shown a very large (d = 1.18) difference in healthy men and women (ie without CAH) in this domain. It’s traditionally summarized as “men are more interested in things and women are more interested in people”. I would flesh out “things” to include both physical objects like machines as well as complex abstract systems; I’d also add in another finding from those same studies that men are more risk-taking and like danger. And I would flesh out “people” to include communities, talking, helping, children, and animals.

So this theory predicts that men will be more likely to choose jobs with objects, machines, systems, and danger; women will be more likely to choose jobs with people, talking, helping, children, and animals.

Somebody armed with this theory could pretty well pretty well predict that women would be interested in going into medicine and law, since both of them involve people, talking, and helping. They would predict that women would dominate veterinary medicine (animals, helping), psychology (people, talking, helping, sometimes children), and education (people, children, helping). Of all the hard sciences, they might expect women to prefer biology (animals). And they might expect men to do best in engineering (objects, machines, abstract systems, sometimes danger) and computer science (machines, abstract systems).

A privilege-based theory fails – there’s not much of a tendency for women to be restricted to less prestigious and lower-paying fields – Ob/Gyn (mostly female) is extremely lucrative, and internal medicine (mostly male) is pretty low-paying for a medical job.

But the people/thing theory above does extremely well! Pediatrics is babies/children, Psychiatry is people/talking (and of course women are disproportionately child psychiatrists), OB/GYN is babies (though admittedly this probably owes a lot to patients being more comfortable with female gynecologists) and family medicine is people/talking/babies/children.

So there seems to be an average difference between men and women in STEM, but it seems rooted more in difference of interests rather than difference of abilities.

[Kirbmarc]

Scott Alexander on differences between men and women:

Suppose I wanted to convince you that men and women had physically identical bodies. I run studies on things like number of arms, number of kidneys, size of the pancreas, caliber of the aorta, whether the brain is in the head or the chest, et cetera. 90% of these come back identical – in fact, the only ones that don’t are a few outliers like “breast size” or “number of penises”. I conclude that men and women are mostly physically similar. I can even make a statistic like “men and women are physically the same in 78% of traits”.

Then I go back to the person who says women have larger breasts and men are more likely to have penises, and I say “Ha, actually studies prove men and women are mostly physically identical! I sure showed you, you sexist!”

I worry that Hyde’s analysis plays the same trick. She does a wonderful job finding that men and women have minimal differences in eg “likelihood of smiling when not being observed”, “interpersonal leadership style”, et cetera. But if you ask the man on the street “Are men and women different?”, he’s likely to say something like “Yeah, men are more aggressive and women are more sensitive”. And in fact, Hyde found that men were indeed definitely more aggressive, and women indeed definitely more sensitive. But throw in a hundred other effects nobody cares about like “likelihood of smiling when not observed”, and you can report that “78% of gender differences are small or zero”.

Again, my research suggests no average gender difference in ability, so I can’t speak to whether these differences are caused by stereotypes or not. But I want to go back to the original question: why is there a gender difference in tech-industry-representation? Is this also due to stereotypes and the effect of an insufficiently gender-equitable society? Do we find that “countries that lack gender equity in school enrollment” and “stereotypes associating science with males” have fewer women in tech?

No. Galpin investigated the percent of women in computer classes all around the world. Her number of 26% for the US is slightly higher than I usually hear, probably because it’s older (the percent women in computing has actually gone down over time!). The least sexist countries I can think of – Sweden, New Zealand, Canada, etc – all have somewhere around the same number (30%, 20%, and 24%, respectively). The most sexist countries do extremely well on this metric! The highest numbers on the chart are all from non-Western, non-First-World countries that do middling-to-poor on the Gender Development Index: Thailand with 55%, Guyana with 54%, Malaysia with 51%, Iran with 41%, Zimbabwe with 41%, and Mexico with 39%. Needless to say, Zimbabwe is not exactly famous for its deep commitment to gender equality.

Why is this? It’s a very common and well-replicated finding that the more progressive and gender-equal a country, the larger gender differences in personality of the sort Hyde found become. I agree this is a very strange finding, but it’s definitely true.

This is interesting because it seems to show that social effects like prejudices about gender differences have a more limited impact than many think.

What is this “object vs. people” distinction?

It’s pretty relevant. Meta-analyses have shown a very large (d = 1.18) difference in healthy men and women (ie without CAH) in this domain. It’s traditionally summarized as “men are more interested in things and women are more interested in people”. I would flesh out “things” to include both physical objects like machines as well as complex abstract systems; I’d also add in another finding from those same studies that men are more risk-taking and like danger. And I would flesh out “people” to include communities, talking, helping, children, and animals.

So this theory predicts that men will be more likely to choose jobs with objects, machines, systems, and danger; women will be more likely to choose jobs with people, talking, helping, children, and animals.

Somebody armed with this theory could pretty well pretty well predict that women would be interested in going into medicine and law, since both of them involve people, talking, and helping. They would predict that women would dominate veterinary medicine (animals, helping), psychology (people, talking, helping, sometimes children), and education (people, children, helping). Of all the hard sciences, they might expect women to prefer biology (animals). And they might expect men to do best in engineering (objects, machines, abstract systems, sometimes danger) and computer science (machines, abstract systems).

A privilege-based theory fails – there’s not much of a tendency for women to be restricted to less prestigious and lower-paying fields – Ob/Gyn (mostly female) is extremely lucrative, and internal medicine (mostly male) is pretty low-paying for a medical job.

But the people/thing theory above does extremely well! Pediatrics is babies/children, Psychiatry is people/talking (and of course women are disproportionately child psychiatrists), OB/GYN is babies (though admittedly this probably owes a lot to patients being more comfortable with female gynecologists) and family medicine is people/talking/babies/children.

So there seems to be an average difference between men and women in STEM, but it seems rooted more in difference of interests rather than difference of abilities.

[feathers]

Kraut Isis bride (16 years old) captured and facing possible execution.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news ... 943590.amp

She was caught in a tunnel system in Mosul with other women, some of whom wore suicide vests and had automatic weapons

<Sye Ten's Famous Terrorist voice>
Do we need to explain these bitches everything?
</>

[jet_lagg]

A female neuroscientist thinks that the Google memo isn't "sexist" or "offensive" but actually accurate:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGt4hlJUAAEvHvp.jpg

Internalized misogyny :bjarte:

http://i.imgur.com/Y7vDE7I.png

[jet_lagg]

A female neuroscientist thinks that the Google memo isn't "sexist" or "offensive" but actually accurate:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGt4hlJUAAEvHvp.jpg

Internalized misogyny :bjarte:

http://i.imgur.com/Y7vDE7I.png

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I think my last comment may have been constructed wrongly.

[Kirbmarc]

Old tweet about Google:

[MarcusAu]

Wow - I never knew that Anita Sarkeesian was a dwarf.

[Stankeye]

A female neuroscientist thinks that the Google memo isn't "sexist" or "offensive" but actually accurate:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGt4hlJUAAEvHvp.jpg

LOL
Dr. Debra W Soh
Freelance Sex Writer & Playboy Columnist

[Tigzy]

Wow - I never knew that Anita Sarkeesian was a dwarf.

I never knew that Randi Harper was approximately the size of a dwarf star.

[Sunder]

Essentially we have three competing theories for explaining gender disparity:

1) Difference in ability. Mostly caricatured as "men are smarter and better than women at everything," which some people do actually believe.

2) Difference in preference. The only real way to caricature this idea is to say "men and women are exactly equal in all respects other than preference." Which I guess still some people believe, but vanishingly few.

3) Difference in treatment. "Men have the world handed to them on a golden platter and women walk to work uphill both ways."

As Scott Alexander argues, difference in preference has the most empirical evidence behind it. That's not to say that the other two can't play any part. 1 is provisional, and doesn't apply to every field, but only die-hard advocates of 3 dismiss it completely. Meanwhile 3 is the one most powerfully overstated by the current consensus. There are genuine sexists in the world, but their impact is overstated. The fact that even mild critics of 3 are at risk of being fired for voicing a contrary opinion should show that it's not the sexists pulling the strings.

[Steersman]

I think my last comment may have been constructed wrongly.

Unlikely to get off the launching pad? ... ;-)

[Eskarina]

A female neuroscientist thinks that the Google memo isn't "sexist" or "offensive" but actually accurate:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGt4hlJUAAEvHvp.jpg

Internalized misogyny :bjarte:

http://i.imgur.com/Y7vDE7I.png

That Deena Shanker is quite the works.

[Steersman]

CaptainFluffyBunny: Guy who penned the Google doc on diversity travesty fired.
https://www.recode.net/2017/8/7/1611069 ... of-conduct "

Anyone surprised?

Somewhat apropos of which, seems WikiLeaks is commendably stepping up to the plate:

[.tweet]https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/statu ... 4189688832[/tweet]
https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/statu ... 4189688832

There was a time, a looooooonnnnngggg time ago, when the SocJus crowd liked Julian Assange. :lol:

:D En passant, there's a great article by Assange on Google (haven't read it all yet - natch), linked in his tweet, that looks interesting. But "What a difference an election makes!" Kind of thrown the fox in amongst the chickens, let the bull loose in the china shop, giving full scope for some serious questioning of "conventional wisdom". ;-) Although it seems that Trump and Company are none too happy about leaks in the White House - one might suggest all leaks help promote the credible idea of a truly open democracy.

In any case, some cases in point, at least peripherally:

https://twitter.com/briandavidearp/stat ... 0162778113

Trump Administration Signals End To Campus Star Chambers
This week, a U.S. Education Department official said the Trump administration would dial down its treatment of accusations that schools do not properly address sexual assault complaints. ....

And:
Fox News: Sessions: Sanctuary city Chicago's hostility to law-enforcement protection 'astounding'

Statement by Attorney General Sessions on the City of Chicago’s Lawsuit Against the U.S. Department of Justice

Attorney General Jeff Sessions today issued the following statement on the city of Chicago’s lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice:

“No amount of federal taxpayer dollars will help a city that refuses to help its own residents.

“This administration is committed to the rule of law and to enforcing the laws established by Congress. To a degree perhaps unsurpassed by any other jurisdiction, the political leadership of Chicago has chosen deliberately and intentionally to adopt a policy that obstructs this country’s lawful immigration system. They have demonstrated an open hostility to enforcing laws designed to protect law enforcement — Federal, state, and local — and reduce crime, and instead have adopted an official policy of protecting criminal aliens who prey on their own residents. This is astounding given the unprecedented violent crime surge in Chicago, with the number of murders in 2016 surpassing both New York and Los Angeles combined. The city’s leaders cannot follow some laws and ignore others and reasonably expect this horrific situation to improve.

“The Mayor complains that the federal government’s focus on enforcing the law would require a ‘reordering of law enforcement practice in Chicago.’ But that’s just what Chicago needs: a recommitment to the rule of law and to policies that rollback the culture of lawlessness that has beset the city. ...."

Lots to fault Trump for - not taking the bull by the horns isn't one of them.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Women Google employees too emotionally distraught to show up for work following memo claiming women tend to be more emotional than men.

[Steersman]

Women Google employees too emotionally distraught to show up for work following memo claiming women tend to be more emotional than men.

:lol:

https://twitter.com/SteersMann/status/8 ... 3043094528

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Googles head of diversity has a protected twitter account.

http://i.imgur.com/tE5Or1B.jpg

Nice one Danielle BROWN.

She has the look of someone who will make your life miserable just cuz she can.

[Steersman]

Mano Singham talks about about a National Review article that talks about how leftist goons have been attacking atheists like Dawkins, Harris , and Hitchens because of "their lack of deference to islam".
http://archive.is/TC22x

Interesting post for a number of reasons, and Mano certainly seems a bit more open-minded than many FTBloggers and many of his commentariat. Though he seems to have a tendency to put mouth in motion before putting brain in gear; apropos of which, a cogent and clever comment there, even if I do say so myself, by another person with a "nautically themed handle" ...

Mano: Why aren’t all the ‘moderate Christians’ castigated for not getting rid of the many extremists in their midst.

Maybe because Christian extremists aren’t throwing gays off roof-tops, stoning women to death for adultery, and murdering people left-right-and-center for blasphemy and apostasy? You may wish to take a look at the “Terrorist attacks” section of this Wikipedia article [1], sort on “Political ideology”, and note the prepondance of deaths due to “Islamic extremism”; nice graphic summary here [2]

Mano: Quoting with approval Rupert Murdoch, an utterly venal individual ….

Kind of looks like you never bothered to read further than “Rupert Murdoch” before reacting in shock and horror to the name, and didn’t notice that a well-regarded woman-Muslim-reformer, Asra Nomani, basically endorsed the principle or concept that he had articulated. Kind of looks like judging a book by its cover. ....

[Guest_936d3dec]

[Brive1987]

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Technically, she is.

[Lsuoma]

Tommy Robinson has a new book out, Mohammed's Koran: Why Muslims Kill For Islam.

[Tigzy]

Tommy Robinson has a new book out, Mohammed's Koran: Why Muslims Kill For Islam.

I hope there's a hex code translation, as I'm sure Steersman would love it.

[Lsuoma]

Tommy Robinson has a new book out, Mohammed's Koran: Why Muslims Kill For Islam.

"I haven't read it yet: I'm waiting for the play to come out."

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Old tweet about Google:

A dude, yes, if I was drunk, can't tell, yes, sure why not, a dude, yes, can't tell, a dude, no way, no, yes, hell yes.


(Following requisite shots of windex, of course.)

[CommanderTuvok]

What da fuck has happened at Patheos?

They have had a redesign, and the "nonreligious" category seems to be full of links to religious blogs! You cant even see Hemant's blog there.

What a fucking shambles.

http://www.patheos.com/nonreligious

[HelpingHand]

Cautiously tried to talk to some nonSJW leaning coworkers about the Google kerfluffle today. The narrative has thoroughly been etched in stone. None have actually read the original document and none felt the need to do so for fear that the indelible taint of misogyny might tarnish their immortal souls.

I wonder how people with no firsthand knowledge of the actual document in question could be so convinced of its content?

A Google employee behind an internal memo asserting that women are biologically unfit for certain tech jobs was denounced by the company's top executives.

--http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/08/media/c ... index.html

Oh, look at the reporter covering this story for CNN.
https://cdn.eblnews.com/sites/default/f ... Bpmh2k.jpg?

Hate to judge a book by its cover...

[Bhurzum]

Oh, look at the reporter covering this story for CNN.
https://cdn.eblnews.com/sites/default/f ... Bpmh2k.jpg?

If I was to create a photofit image of a hypothetical paedophile...

[Shatterface]

Fuck Google anyway.

If I want tech support I'll hire Russian kids just like Trump did.

[Shatterface]

Oh, look at the reporter covering this story for CNN.
https://cdn.eblnews.com/sites/default/f ... Bpmh2k.jpg?

If I was to create a photofit image of a hypothetical paedophile...

We usually stick to Trivial Pursuits. Modern board games are a bit weird for my tastes.

[Keating]

'Women of PoC" is one of the worst assaults on the English language I've ever seen.

Also, what's with all the double and triple posts recently?

[AndrewV69]

Ok as suggested I finally got around to reading the internal Google doc that has caused so many to completely loose their minds.

LMFAO!! There is nothing remotely controversial in there. This is high school level biology.

Anyway,

Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber
https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... hamber.pdf

The Google Memo: Four Scientists Respond
https://web.archive.org/web/20170808013 ... s-respond/


OK I am off. Watching these religious nutcases at Google is pretty entertaining.

[Steersman]

Cautiously tried to talk to some nonSJW leaning coworkers about the Google kerfluffle today. The narrative has thoroughly been etched in stone. None have actually read the original document and none felt the need to do so for fear that the indelible taint of misogyny might tarnish their immortal souls.

I wonder how people with no firsthand knowledge of the actual document in question could be so convinced of its content?

A Google employee behind an internal memo asserting that women are biologically unfit for certain tech jobs was denounced by the company's top executives.

--http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/08/media/c ... index.html

Oh, look at the reporter covering this story for CNN.
[.img]https://cdn.eblnews.com/sites/default/f ... Bpmh2k.jpg?[/img]

Hate to judge a book by its cover...

Yeah.

https://twitter.com/SteersMann/status/8 ... 7853493248

But quite a good article there by Cathy Young.

Not sure though whether that phenomenon of #fakenews is due to people peddling propaganda, or to being clueless about science with no willingness to learn, or simply a "publish or perish"/"devil take the hindmost" imperative. Sure seems something is needed to limited the pervasiveness of it. Maybe like:

https://twitter.com/DerekBateman2/statu ... 0016766976

[Shatterface]

'Women of PoC" is one of the worst assaults on the English language I've ever seen.

Its what happens when people regurgitate buzzwords without thinking about their meaning. It's just 'Women of Color' or 'WoC'. Or, better still 'black women'.

How much of the posts was about race anyway?

[Guest_936d3dec]

gizmodo com/men-have-always-used-science-to-explain-why-theyre-bett-1797608461/amp

Men Have Always Used 'Science' to Explain Why They're Better Than Women
Rae Paoletta
Filed to: PSEUDOSCIENCE

...
The encouraging news is that Damore has now been fired from Google, according to multiple news reports. Sadly, the ideas espoused in his letter echo the same pseudoscience peddled by eugenicists and white supremacists for decades—and they’re unlikely to disappear anytime soon.

Feel free to read this article, but prior to doing so, I wondered, who is Rae Paloetta to dismiss science? What are her own bonafides?

At her twitter she says:

twitter com/PAYOLETTER

rae paoletta Verified
@PAYOLETTER
space writer, @gizmodo. i like astrobiology

Wow, she's a space writer who likes astrobiology? Well, gosh, maybe she knows her stuff.

And at linked in she writes:

linkedin.com/in/rae-paoletta-0377b7131/

Rae Paoletta
Staff Writer, Space at Gizmodo
Gizmodo Media Group New York University
Brooklyn, New York

Senior News and Identity Reporter
Company NameRevelist
Dates EmployedJan 2016 – Dec 2016 Employment Duration12 mos
LocationGreater New York City Area
- Specializes in writing about politics, feminism, health, science and technology
- Founded Revelist’s “I’m a Feminist and Proud” Facebook subpage, which garnered over 37,000 fans in less than six months
- Co-manages Revelist main Twitter account, which has accumulated over
1,600 fans since January

Writer, MTV News
Company NameMTV Networks / Logo
Dates EmployedJul 2015 – Jan 2016 Employment Duration7 mos
LocationGreater New York City Area
- Wrote daily for the MTV Issues vertical. Specialized in writing about social justice issues and current events
- Interviewed activist celebrities such as Laura Jane Grace, Lena Dunham, Lindy West, Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Geena Rocero, and more
- Copy edited the writing of all MTV Issues Team members daily
- Co-managed MTV Issues’s Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and Tumblr

News Associate
Company NameMTV Networks / Logo
Dates EmployedMay 2014 – Jul 2015 Employment Duration1 yr 3 mos
LocationGreater New York City Area
- Launched and managed the first-ever news desk at MTV News
- Used social analytic tools (e.g., Crowdtangle, Spike, Feedly, Hootsuite) to
monitor pre-viral and trending stories to pitch ideas to editorial team
- Managed a team of five interns
- Wrote over 150 published stories on MTV.com/news

Production and Development Intern
Company NameNational Geographic
Dates EmployedJun 2013 – Dec 2013 Employment Duration7 mos
LocationGreater New York City Area

Production Assistant
Company NameNBC News
Dates EmployedDec 2011 – Jun 2013 Employment Duration1 yr 7 mos
LocationGreater New York City Area
Served as production assistant on NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams. Assisted producers with daily reports for broadcast, managed interns, and assisted talent.

Education
New York University
Degree Name Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) Field Of Study History
Dates attended or expected graduation 2010 – 2014
Activities and Societies: Producing minor, Tisch School of the Arts

Anyway, that's why she is qualified to write about science, about men and science, about evo psych, about junk science, and about space and astrobiology at gizmodo.

[Steersman]

Tommy Robinson has a new book out, Mohammed's Koran: Why Muslims Kill For Islam.

I hope there's a hex code translation, as I'm sure Steersman would love it.

LoL. I installed a natural language processing module last month so I'm good to go with the standard fare from Amazon ....

But you sure do seem rather skeptical about the dangers entailed by Islam, and by less than circumspect immigration policies. I wonder how many "trucks of peace" and terror plots - successful or foiled - it will take for you to get the picture:

Foiled plot to blow up plane, unleash gas revealed in Australia

By Euan McKirdy and Karen Smith, CNN
Updated 1:39 AM ET, Sat August 5, 2017

(CNN)Police describe twin terror plots, one involving the bombing of a passenger plane and the other a potential poison gas attack, as the "most sophisticated" ever attempted on Australian soil.

A senior ISIS commander sent parts -- including weapons-grade explosives -- by air cargo from Turkey intending to build an improvised explosive device, Australian Federal Police Deputy Commissioner National Security Michael Phelan said during a press conference Friday. ....

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Women Google employees too emotionally distraught to show up for work following memo claiming women tend to be more emotional than men.

:lol:

https://twitter.com/SteersMann/status/8 ... 3043094528

:lol:

[Brive1987]

Technically, she is.

Technically you are right.

But doing what?

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/imag ... FvUZPTq-En

[Lsuoma]

Cautiously tried to talk to some nonSJW leaning coworkers about the Google kerfluffle today. The narrative has thoroughly been etched in stone. None have actually read the original document and none felt the need to do so for fear that the indelible taint of misogyny might tarnish their immortal souls.

I wonder how people with no firsthand knowledge of the actual document in question could be so convinced of its content?

A Google employee behind an internal memo asserting that women are biologically unfit for certain tech jobs was denounced by the company's top executives.

--http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/08/media/c ... index.html

Oh, look at the reporter covering this story for CNN.
[caricature]https://cdn.eblnews.com/sites/default/f ... Bpmh2k.jpg?[/caricature]

Hate to judge a book by its cover...

Exactly the same thing at Amazon. People are reacting to what they want the guy to have said.

Oh, and the word "denounced"? Telling, very telling...

[KenD]

Maybe his firing will convince libertarian types that there's more to free speech as a concept than what's covered by the First Amendment?

Or maybe not.

It's interesting that both liberals and libertarians like to use the same "speech has consequences" argument, treating it as completely unreasonable to be concerned about someone being publicly smeared and fired for expressing their opinion.

[Brive1987]

Just sorting this out.

N. Korea threatens to smoke Guam.
America tells Korea this play would, in return, leave them a smouldering crater.
PZ attacks Trump.

OK.

[Brive1987]

Among the evidence in the case is a photograph obtained by TMZ but sealed by the court that shows Mueller with his hand behind Swift, just below her waist, at the pre-concert event.

Swift and Mueller are both smiling in the picture.

Her lawyers have called the photo "damning" proof that Mueller groped her.

:think:

[Keating]

We'd probably all be better off today if Bush II decided to invade North Korea instead of Iraq.

[free thoughtpolice]

Also nuking Oz probably wouldn't make it any weirder than it is now.

[Bhurzum]

Just sorting this out.

N. Korea threatens to smoke Guam.
America tells Korea this play would, in return, leave them a smouldering crater.
PZ attacks Trump.

OK.

[Sunder]

Just sorting this out.

N. Korea threatens to smoke Guam.
America tells Korea this play would, in return, leave them a smouldering crater.
PZ attacks Trump.

OK.

In fairness the Guam threat came AFTER Trump made some blustery public statements against N. Korea. Now we have two world leaders who are both dumb enough to poke the hornet's nest.

[Keating]

Also nuking Oz probably wouldn't make it any weirder than it is now.

The British already did that. Where do you think platypus came from?

[deLurch]

Among the evidence in the case is a photograph obtained by TMZ but sealed by the court that shows Mueller with his hand behind Swift, just below her waist, at the pre-concert event.

Swift and Mueller are both smiling in the picture.

Her lawyers have called the photo "damning" proof that Mueller groped her.

:think:

Not that I care that much, but here is the photo in question. I'll let the courts figure this one out. They make enough money I don't feel compelled to worry about them.
https://imgoat.com/uploads/5bfc9e0796/36256.jpg

[Brive1987]

Just sorting this out.

N. Korea threatens to smoke Guam.
America tells Korea this play would, in return, leave them a smouldering crater.
PZ attacks Trump.

OK.

In fairness the Guam threat came AFTER Trump made some blustery public statements against N. Korea. Now we have two world leaders who are both dumb enough to poke the hornet's nest.

Ahh thanks. It was getting confusing. So ....

The whole fucking world comes down on N Korea at the UN.

N. Korea tells the US that the nuke missile testing will roll on regardless and further: "There is no bigger mistake than the United States believing that its land is safe across the ocean.”

America tell N Korea that carrying out this threat would result in shock and awe. Presumably because Kim is a 'tard who thinks he has achieved force equivalence.

N. Korea explicitly says it's now actively considering smoking Guam.

PZ attacks Trump. Because he's a Nazi. And because daddy's boy is in the cross hairs of an Asian terrorist. Which means that somewhere, somehow a white man is to blame.

[KiwiInOz]

Also nuking Oz probably wouldn't make it any weirder than it is now.

You want all those venemous, bitey, and venemous and bitey things to mutate.

My god. The horror.

https://perthzoo.wa.gov.au/sites/defaul ... edbook.jpg

[KiwiInOz]

Among the evidence in the case is a photograph obtained by TMZ but sealed by the court that shows Mueller with his hand behind Swift, just below her waist, at the pre-concert event.

Swift and Mueller are both smiling in the picture.

Her lawyers have called the photo "damning" proof that Mueller groped her.

:think:

Not that I care that much, but here is the photo in question. I'll let the courts figure this one out. They make enough money I don't feel compelled to worry about them.
https://imgoat.com/uploads/5bfc9e0796/36256.jpg

Looks like a consenting menage a trois bum grope to me.

[deLurch]

Could be hover hand for all I know.

[KiwiInOz]

Could be hover hand for all I know.

That smile suggests a tickled prostate.